  Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 582 Registered: 08-2006 |
In many areas especially past the outer ring suburb line there are communities that impose a lot minimum such as 1 acre. Looking around southern lapeer County I notice a lot of dead end streets with large parcels on them perhaps from 1-5 acres in size. I was surprised how many of these types of developments there were so far north(north of 38 mile(Bordman)). I know Ray Twp has such a rule as well as no water lines being allowed in the township. I know that the minimum lot size is meant to slow or stop development but I think it does the opposite. By building so many large lot subdivisions you eat up the available land much quicker. It is still taking away open land and farms and putting it into private hands. A township after so many of these developments though very spread out is hardly rural as road and infrastructure improvements will be needed over a large amount of land. I believe these developments will eventually eat up a lot of the open land in the now semi rural periphery of metro Detroit. In contrast having the 1000 new residents on 1-5 acres as opposed to a standard subdivision lot size or a bit larger will use up a lot more of the rural landscape they are trying to preserve. Also as I side rant in Cottrellville Twp (Btwn Algonac and MArine City on the ST Clair River) there is a big recall effort being tried against the board I believe for trying to get water lines into the township. This is because many residents want to retain the rural flavor of the township which is completely rural now. The problem I have with this is the ST Clair Coal plants. The residents are concerned about the country like area but not by the heavy pollution being rained down on them from the power plants. It is hardly a country retreat when you have huge stacks raining coal dust on you. My point is that the residents really should redirect their frustrations. It would seem that the coal pollution is a bigger threat to their country utopia than a few developments. Driving through the marsh or heading north on a boat in northern lake Saint Clair the cloud of pollution is CLEARLY visible right down to seeing the stacks with the concentrated smoke leading from them. I also speculate that Chemical Valley is part of the problem. I have seen air quality reports which list the two coal plants in East China Twp as the worst air polluters in MIchigan by a long shot. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1648 Registered: 10-2006 |
" very spread out is hardly rural as road and infrastructure improvements will be needed over a large amount of land." Don't worry, the TWP will figure this out when they need to do these improvements. They will realize that they don't have the density to fund them. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 148 Registered: 06-2007 |
I agree with you all the way. Probably is, when do they stop building subdivisions at all? I get sick when I drive through Oakland TWP. with the excessive development going on there. That was a beautiful rural area, and attracted people solely for that reason.Now, some parts are clogged with development. Another case of "The heck with what the longtimers want, bring in the young people with money." Thats what it boils down to:money. Tax money to be exact. Either way, I have thought about the issue of land availability myself.I think its a solid argument. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1155 Registered: 12-2005 |
The purpose of single-family residential zoning with minimum lot sizes is to control population density, not to "slow or stop development". Also, anyone can create a maximum of four smaller parcels out of their acreage through the lot splitting process, provided they can get pass a septic field perk test. The lot split process avoids having to go through the more complicated subdivision platting process. As long as a landowner meets the lot split or subdivision requirements, the local government must approve the development. The only "tools" a local govt. has to "slow" development is the extension of utilities. That "smoke" you see coming from the power plant stacks is mostly water vapor, not "coal dust". Utilities have invested millions of dollars to provide scrubbers that remove harmful combustion products and fly ash from their stack exhausts. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1657 Registered: 10-2006 |
"The purpose of single-family residential zoning with minimum lot sizes is to..." keep the undesirables out! Sure wouldn't want any mixed income folks in the area. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1412 Registered: 04-2006 |
One acre sized lots gobble up land and force low density development. This leads to increased infrastructure costs (running utilities, sewers, overburdened roads as it increases the Vehicle Miles of Travel...). From a planning perspective, its not good policy, but it does happen. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 724 Registered: 12-2006 |
In more rural places, though, large lot sizes (usually much more than an acre) are required for two reasons: (1) there are no water or sewer lines nor any plans to run them, so you need room for a well and septic system, and (2) the rural roads weren't built to be major thoroughfares, and limiting the homes per square mile limits the traffic. I agree, though, in an area with a fully urbanized infrastructure, lots of that size are silly and lead to long-term problems. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 121 Registered: 07-2007 |
As was noted, some of that comes from the requirements for septic systems. I think most counties require at least a 1 acre lot for new septic systems. One acre lot minimums in rural areas is a bad planning concept since you can always control density by setting density minimums while allowing smaller lots. For example, instead of 5 homes on 1 acre lots, you might allow 5 homes on 1/4 acre lots with 3.75 acres of land preserved as open space. Of course, most people who buy in such settings want larger lots but some people are willing to trade a large lot for preserved open space. On the other hand, 1 acre minimums are a bit of self-preservation. If you're a rural township and you don't have the ability to generate taxes to pay for services, you can't afford to have higher density and all of the demand for services it generates. Some rural townships have had the misfortune of being sued by mobile home park developers who litigate their way into the township with massive 600 - 800 unit developments. Practically overnight, these townships have seen their total population double with no way to pay to provide services to all of these new residents (especially when it's MH parks due to how Michigan taxes - or does not tax them). While those situation represent the extreme example, in many places, there's simply not the infrastructure or tax base to support development at densities higher than 1 acre per home. As far as farmland and open space preservation goes, Michigan gives very few tools to local communities to protect either. The communities that have been successful in this regard have been those that have pushed the envelope legally and have had active government involvement in land preservation efforts. Otherwise, land use in Michigan is highly biased towards development and against preservation. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 583 Registered: 08-2006 |
IF it is water vapor why is it so dark? I know that it is water vapor from the nuclear plants but this is a dark haze spread for miles over the sky. You can see the dark smoke coming directly from the smoke stacks. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1299 Registered: 02-2006 |
I always find it humorous/disgusting when people leave the city with a desire to "get out of the city" and experience nature, and etc...and then they move into a bulldozed cornfield turned-subdivision, packed to the gills with identical houses, with not a tree in sight (see I-94 from M-59 to 26 Mile). There was more nature in the city. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3888 Registered: 10-2004 |
Why do the socialistic new urbanists feel that they have to complain and bitch about everything in those communities that do not want much or anything to do about Detroit? At some point, even the worst (bitchiest and the most demanding) among the NU must realize that they are not going to get everybody to connect with Detroit--their Utopia. Let it rest... | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 151 Registered: 06-2007 |
"keep the undesirables out! Sure wouldn't want any mixed income folks in the area." Um, I don't see this in densely populated areas either. In this last decade that Macomb Twp has been rapidly building up, what kind of housing have they built for the non-white-collar demographic? Or Washington Twp? Or Out west, Canton, Plymouth, or Northville Twps. Plenty of Townships that have rapidly grown, no minimum lot sizes,have no recent lower/mixed income developments that I can think of.They don't need to resort to lot size minimums. Many of these townships-along with minimum-lot size-affected Addison Twp and Metamora-have lower income housing grandfathered in. Theyre called manufactured home parks-aka trailer parks-but i see more of these being bulldozed for something the former residents can't afford than I do being built. If mixed income housing is your concern, Id say focus your energy on trying to preserve the remaining developments catering to that income bracket before they are demolished to build up and out.I thought Southeast Oakland county was dealt a huge blow when Southfield Downs was leveled to make way for more upscale housing.I believe a lot of people working hourly-wage jobs or at mom and pop stores get displaced when these places are demolished, they have to leave the area, and buisnesses may have to run on fewer employees. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1156 Registered: 12-2005 |
Fareastsider, Does it look as dark as this?  | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 584 Registered: 08-2006 |
No there is more color now! point taken though, I also did look up some stuff on what you said about the reduction of pollutants at coal plants. Hell change wont happen overnight but there has been plenty of progress....besides im still throwing on my AC when it gets hot out not to mention the power I use to surf Detroit Yes.com! | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 1000 Registered: 06-2004 |
When I am tempted to think that we live in a just and rational world, I remind myself of these 1 acre lot sizes. They have the absolutely perverse effect of utterly destroying our country side and open space with exurban and rural sprawl (the ugliest sprawl there is btw). what would preserve rural space is clusters -- the ancients called them "towns" -- of high density residential space spread sporadically through the country side. I think buying a one acre lot is the most selfish uncivic and perverse thing a person could do right after driving an SUV. (Message edited by ray on September 10, 2007) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 727 Registered: 12-2006 |
Actually, Ray, the state required townships about two years ago to pass legislation to allow "cluster zoning", not quite as precise as what you mention but going in the right direction. Unfortunately townships can only allow them; they cannot require them so far as I can make out. Still, a step. What would help even more would be for townships to permit, amid the clustered housing, the necessary service and retail establishments to serve the small settlements. But the sum of all that is what used to be called a "village", and for some reason almost nobody builds villages anymore. Now, up in New Haven, Anthony Lombardo has been building a couple subdivisions of closely-spaced homes in a more village-like setting, with garages behind the houses (accessed by alleys no less). I sat down and talked it over with him, very interesting stuff, and selling pretty well all things considered. So I think there's a market, just most builders and developers are thinking along old lines. Also, the Michigan Association of Planning has been publishing smart-growth articles for nigh on a year now in their newsletter (I read quite an eclectic collection of stuff here at the crib). I'm not sure how long it will take for the new thinking to catch on in this very mid-century-focused state though. | ||
Miss_cleo Member Username: Miss_cleo Post Number: 872 Registered: 05-2005 |
How selfish am I living on 35 acres? | ||
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77 Post Number: 78 Registered: 01-2006 |
I don't understand what makes some people feel they have the right to tell everyone else how they should live. If you want to live on 10 acres - fine. If you want to live in a high-rise apartment - fine. Trailer park, subdivision, farm - whatever. It's none of my business how or where other people choose to make their homes, just as it's none of their business how I choose to live. There is no "one" perfect way that we all should be. Do what works best for you, and stop criticizing everyone that's different than you. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1159 Registered: 12-2005 |
Some folks' idea of a "just and rational world" is to artificially force rural landowners in the USA into a development pattern similar to the one you find in flyover Europe - small villages located 2 or 3 km apart that are the artifacts of 13th Century feudal tenant farming. Those same folks think they are the 21st Century equivalents of those European Dukes and Bishops who owned the rights to those lands and who created their own version of a just and rational world where there were no property ownership rights for the rural inhabitants of their fiefdoms. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3265 Registered: 10-2003 |
Houses on one-acre lots are hardly "rural". | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 127 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I don't understand what makes some people feel they have the right to tell everyone else how they should live." When your decision has zero impact on how my tax dollars are spent, you won't have to worry about what I think about how you live. If you decide to live in the hinterlands, demand that someone (but not you) pay to upgrade roads and freeways so that you can make your one hour each-way commute to your job, dump your sewage and stormwater into our rivers and lakes and otherwise have an impact far beyond your individual self, then we have a problem. | ||
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77 Post Number: 79 Registered: 01-2006 |
I don't drive on the Lodge but I'm sure some of my tax dollars paid for it's reconstruction. Live your own life and stop trying to tell others how to live theirs. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 336 Registered: 10-2003 |
Regional Government | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3273 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: So you mean to imply that Michigan is so flush with cash, it can afford to keep extending infrastructure infinitely, and still adequately maintain what is already existing? It seems counterproductive to keep developing cornfields into subdivisions and strip malls, requiring massive new infrastructure, when entire areas of the core city with existing infrastructure are reverting to nature. No one is telling you how to live your life. | ||
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77 Post Number: 80 Registered: 01-2006 |
Where did I imply that Michigan is flush with cash? People will live where they choose to live, and use whatever infrastructure is there to access it, whether it's a 10 lane freeway, or a dirt road. Most of the people that I know that live in rural areas don't want freeways running up to their back door, and they don't want to live next to a 7-11. They aren't demanding any new infrastructure. A lot of people move to these areas to be away from this exact thing. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 731 Registered: 12-2006 |
Me, for one. The taxes I pay to my township are sufficient to support the very limited services. I live on a dirt road and have my own well and septic system. We choose to pay the township enough to contract a garbage-hauling service and recycling. We contract with a nearby city for fire protection, and with the County for police. We pay into a county-wide library tax so we get library service (again, in a nearby city). Since I have to drive a bit for (say) groceries, I shop infrequently and load up when I do. The main road leading from the highway (which is a good many miles away) to my township is a two-lane asphalt road, and it's been a two-lane asphalt road for many decades. I can't see how my living here costs anybody anything. When I need to get to the city, as often as not I drive only as far as the nearest SMART bus stop and take the bus in. So I don't use as much gas as a lot of people who live in the cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods. Now, of course, not everybody can live here; that may be part of the point of some of the posters here. But actually, a significant percent of young adults (I've read 30%) are looking for a walkable urban lifestyle, which metro Detroit barely makes any effort to provide. So out of the 1.3 million 25-to-40-year-olds (roughly) living in the region, we could take care of 400K or so just by providing a real urban experience anywhere, and then we oddballs who want to live in the middle of nowhere will have room to do so. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 732 Registered: 12-2006 |
By the way, Miss Cleo, some of the folks who don't like one acre lots are fine with 40' x 80' lots and are also fine with 35 acre mini-farms, they just don't like anything in between. I understand their point, but I only agree partway. We don't give people many options, then we complain when some of them choose particular items from our very poor menu. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 591 Registered: 08-2006 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20070914/BUS INESS06/70914032 | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2693 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: You seem to be implying that city residents are subsidizing the suburbs. Do you have any documented evidence to support this assertion Novine? Are you also allowing for the tax dollars we all pay that flow IN to the city too that would offset that? I have seen these kind of statements made countless times on this forum, the only thing that they lack is documented evidence. I am not saying it is NOT happening, would be nice to know the details though. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 3290 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Actually, yes, that's the claim. There is quite an abundance of evidence documented in the current literature. I'd recommend "Suburban Nation" by architects/planners Andres Duany and Elisabeth Plater-Zyberk as a good place to start. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2700 Registered: 03-2006 |
A book put out by authors who whose private business benefits from designing neighborhoods that happen to correspond to the concepts they are pushing in their book is not really what I had in mind. It appears to be a book about urban planning in general and based on even the positive reviews on Amazon it is long on opinion and short on facts and stats. The equation is easy to solve if you have the data. What do the residents pay in state and federal taxes as opposed to the public dollars that are consumed by the city? If the city comes out as being a net tax donor then the point is made. Unfortunately I have not found a reliable source for the numbers needed to analyze this. I have also found no reputable experts who have proven this claim, yet it is repeated as gospel on this forum often. Again, I am not saying it ain't true but some hard data would be nice to have. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on September 14, 2007) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1677 Registered: 10-2006 |
“Explicit zoning codes use lot sizes, fees, and development time tables to increase costs and otherwise deter the construction of affordable housing. Development agreements contain additional requirements, costs, and delays above and beyond those set in public codes. Informal local development practices often accomplish what formal codes and agreements cannot by imposing further requirements or construction delays.” (58-59) “One, Minnesota State Planning study…examined fifty-seven metropolitan cities representing a cross-section of fully developed, developing, core cities, and rural metropolitan communities. The other, prepared by the Center for Urban and Regional affairs (CURA) for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis…examined exclusionary zoning patterns in ten suburban areas with the highest job growth…Both studies reported that large lots sizes, minimum floor areas, development fees, and a variety of other exclusionary practices imposed significant barriers to affordable housing.” (59) “Through fiscal zoning, cities deliberately develop predominately expensive homes and commercial industrial (CI) properties with low service needs and limit costly housing and entry to the community by the people who normally buy it. In this way, these communities attempt to limit social need and the demand on tax base that it can engender…the residentially exclusive suburbs with low tax rates continue to attract more and more businesses, whose presence continually lowers the overall tax rate.” (62) MICHIGAN CANNOT AFFORD TO DO THE FOLLOWING: “Regions spend billions of dollars building infrastructure such as schools, freeways, and sewers, which add enormous value to outer-ring land. To the extent that these public expenditures serve to transfer value, they are wasted. Adding to this dysfunction, the infrastructure of new cities is often paid for by taxes and fees levied on residents and businesses in older parts of the region.” (63) Orfield, Myron. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1997 | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2734 Registered: 03-2006 |
The key word being REGIONS. We are all paying taxes to support and build infrastructure. Of course the residents in the city of Detroit pay taxes that get spent elsewhere here and even around the country. Michigan is a donor state to the federal government the last time I checked. The key is that the suburban people also pay taxes that are spent in Detroit. You can't just look at one side of the equation or limit the expenditures to infrastructure costs. The state has about a 2.9 billion dollar tab for Medicaid alone, how much of that is going into the City of Detroit? quote: This is also a pretty vague statement and is not backed up with any numbers, it also appears this is old data and is not based on Michigan. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 136 Registered: 07-2007 |
My comment was limited to infrastructure costs. I haven't seen data that speaks to overall transfer of funds on a per community basis. Here in Novi, it's clear that a lot of those costs are being subsidized by others outside our city. The state's spent at least $50 million in road funds for the Beck Road interchange and the construction of M-5. There's no way that the city drivers contributed that much in gas taxes to the state to equal that amount. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2752 Registered: 03-2006 |
Novine - I agree that the residents of Novi didn't foot most of the bill for the Beck Road interchange. From what I understand highway funds come from a combination of federal and state sources, including gasoline taxes. This would lead one to conclude that everyone is contributing to the interchange in some respects, including communities who do not directly benefit from it. But this would also be true of improvements made elsewhere including Detroit. One would imagine that suburbanites with their longer commutes would be buying more gasoline thus paying more taxes on it as well. Generally their average incomes are higher so logically they would be paying more taxes to the state and federal governments. Suburbanites also pay for water provided by the city, even though the rates are set by a government they have no representation in. It is well known that there is a serious issue with some city residents who are delinquent on their water bills, on could argue the suburban customers are subsidizing them. Suburban folks who work in Detroit also pay city income taxes. Then you have liquor and hotel taxes paid by suburban residents and visitors to pay for Cobo Hall debt. It is a complex issue to say the least. Lastly, there seems to some sort of bias built in to this argument in that any improvements made to the infrastructure in the city are deemed worthwhile but suburban development is somehow illegitimate. I would disagree with this as well, it is clear some folks don't prefer big city life, that doesn't make them less deserving of services and proper infrastructure. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on September 15, 2007) | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1688 Registered: 10-2006 |
"This is also a pretty vague statement and is not backed up with any numbers, it also appears this is old data and is not based on Michigan." Actually yeah, I retyped all of those quotes above from a printed text. It was hard enough to do that, let alone the tables and graphs and rendered images of the Minneapolis area. Myron Orfield says in his intro that this book would not have been able to have been published without the use of modern day graphics to help depict the regional trends and to win over changes at the state level to force more regional cooperation. I was introduced to this book by Professor Paul Massaron (Board of Wayne State) in a class called "Public Policy" while in grad school at Detroit Mercy. Obviously too, the quotes which I typed are from a large sequence of arguments for regional cooperation. The author used Minneapolis because that was his home. Basically the premise of the first half of the book is why we need regional cooperation and the second half is how do we get there. All in all, I found it a very interesting read, and it put into words for me what I could only observe everyday going on in the metro Detroit area. It was published in 1997, so nothing in this text is new news, but seems that little has changed for the better in terms of regional cooperation in metro detroit. "My comment was limited to infrastructure costs. I haven't seen data that speaks to overall transfer of funds on a per community basis." "Lastly, there seems to some sort of bias built in to this argument in that any improvements made to the infrastructure in the city are deemed worthwhile but suburban development is somehow illegitimate. I would disagree with this as well, it is clear some folks don't prefer big city life, that doesn't make them less deserving of services and proper infrastructure." How can you argue that metro Detroit should be ever expanding infrastructure outward, meanwhile there is vacant land in the inner-city? In the words again of Mr. Orfield, "The increase of real property wealth in certain outer ring suburbs, aided by truly massive regional infrastructure expenditures, and its decline in the central city and inner suburbs represent an interregional transfer of tax base from some of most poor and troubled communities in American society to some of the most thriving and affluent" (1). Fortunately Minneapolis caught on to these issues a decade ago to address them before they ever got as bad as in Detroit metro, "Once polarization occurs, the concentration of poverty, disinvestment, middle-clss flight, and urban sprawl grow more and more severe" (1). | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2761 Registered: 03-2006 |
quote: The vacant land you speak of has little or no value at this point in time. People who own land in the outlying areas have invested in developing it because they can profit from it. This has been based on demand created by people leaving the city in large part. If the city gets a handle on some of the challenges it is facing, this trend will reverse itself over time. Until then I don't blame people for wanting a better quality of life. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere. | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1694 Registered: 10-2006 |
'Until then I don't blame people for wanting a better quality of life. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere." I don't either. Point is, if the region were more united, then determining where to spend the money and on what would hopefully have helped to address the issue from the get go. The text of which I speak doesn't blame any one for anything--solely government for not coordinating and instead pitting oneself against the other. Detroit metro is having problems. Why would more unity not help? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 2762 Registered: 03-2006 |
Unity would help, no argument there. |
