FranLab is getting evicted

[Kasper]

Right now I'm fighting with the council that is trying to rezone residential neighborhoods for duplexes and triplexes, there's already a massive problem with traffic and homes with insufficient parking

Be glad you don't live in BC.  Our new dictator is removing the ability to limit density from every city in the province.  He plans to allow developers to put triplex on any single family lot regardless of what the neighbors or city council wants.  He is also banning stratas from having rental restrictions.

This same dictator also forces free homes with supervised injection sites for junkies into cities who already have too many 'wet houses' and don't want any more.

[nctnico]

It is not going to work. Public transport density has been slashed massively. Netherlands as an example: Between the early 1900's to 1950's there where lots of tram lines and every village had a railway station. Nowadays a lot of places don't even have a bus stop. You can choose to live next to a transport 'hub' but there is nowhere to go from there nowadays.

Covid took a massive toll on the public transportation here. Suddenly getting onto a bus with packed with 80 random strangers didn't seem like such a good idea and ridership plummeted. That resulted in a lot of route cancellations which has made the bus much less practical and it has not recovered. I think it will take a decade or more for people to be as comfortable packing onto a bus or train as they used to be.

Same here! I used to travel with the train a couple of times per week but I'm still taking the bike. I think I have been on a train once the last 2.5 years and I don't see that changing. Public transport use was going up year after year but Covid has set it back like 2 decades. With working from home as the new standard for many people, I doubt public transport use will ever reach pre-Covid levels. This also circles back to living in densely populated areas; if you don't have to go to the office so many times per week, you can choose to live further away.

[tom66]

I don't know what my views on population have to do with politics. It is mathematically provable that a system supplied by finite resources in a finite space cannot sustain infinite growth. I don't care whether someone is trying to come here from Mexico or Sweden or Texas, I hold nothing personal against anyone from any particular region, there's simply no more room here! At some point somebody will have to leave  if somebody else wants a place. Even right now we rely heavily on fossil fuels to produce enough food to feed the existing population, scientific consensus according to what I can find is that the practical sustainable human population on earth is somewhere between 2 billion and 6 billion people. We are well beyond that already and it is a train wreck waiting to happen. Nature is going to make a correction if we don't, Covid was just a warning shot.

I didn't say that the population would infinitely grow; in fact I was clear based on current predictions it will peak around 2070 or so, which is still *checks calendar* 50 years away, so you're going to need to deal with that problem whether you like it or not.

I fully 100% support this type of zoning, it isn't bonkers at all, it makes perfect sense. People that want to live in detached houses in the suburbs don't want to be packed in with big apartment complexes and tall buildings.

That's not what I'm suggesting.  Take a look at an area I used to live in, in England:
GMaps link

Those are detached houses (5 bedroom ~ 1200 sqft I think, large for the UK), but just down the road there's an apartment block (3-4 stories tall) with 8 units in it, each 2 bedroom.  This is a good use of space.  There's a mixed use of the land, providing density near a major train station, whilst allowing people with the means to buy a big house to do so.  A little further away, there's a shop and two fast-food restaurants.  There could be more - this is a pretty low-end example as far as mixed-use goes - but it's a lot better than most of the US's suburbia.

Already here they keep tearing down strip malls and everything else and putting in this great huge condo/apartment towers with retail shops below. It is exactly Sodo Sopah from the show Southpark. Affordable shops are gone, replaced by trendy restaurants where you can get a $25 hamburger with a $18 glass of wine and you can live in the building if you can afford $4,000 a month rent.

I would guess such units only exist because someone is willing to pay that much, that's just gentrification.  That doesn't make the concept of mixed use zoning bad.  You may as well complain that any town is expensive to live in because it's got a major university or employer nearby.  You either get higher rents/property costs or you get some kind of rent control and allocation system, I'd much rather prefer the former.

Zoning exists for a reason, it separates things so people who don't want to live in a city can live in relative peace. I want to live in a neighborhood that only allows single family detached houses, I bought a house in that kind of neighborhood because that's specifically the environment I wanted to live in, and I don't want it being changed into something else.

Your opinion; you're entitled to it.  I'd love more mixed use areas.  Thankfully cities are rapidly waking up to the disaster that single-family home zoning is, and are taking steps to prevent more of it being created. 

[nctnico]

Where I live the city is a mix of light industrial / office areas and areas with homes. It provides jobs relatively close to home and prevents massive congestions.

[james_s]

Same here! I used to travel with the train a couple of times per week but I'm still taking the bike. I think I have been on a train once the last 2.5 years and I don't see that changing. Public transport use was going up year after year but Covid has set it back like 2 decades. With working from home as the new standard for many people, I doubt public transport use will ever reach pre-Covid levels. This also circles back to living in densely populated areas; if you don't have to go to the office so many times per week, you can choose to live further away.

IMHO remote work is far more beneficial to the environment than public transportation anyway. Whether in private cars or on buses or trains it just seems like such a waste to move millions of people from home to an office and then back again in the evening when their work involves sitting at a computer that can be located anywhere. Obviously not all jobs can be done remotely, but for those that can there should be significant incentives to encourage companies to offer that option.

[james_s]

Be glad you don't live in BC.  Our new dictator is removing the ability to limit density from every city in the province.  He plans to allow developers to put triplex on any single family lot regardless of what the neighbors or city council wants.  He is also banning stratas from having rental restrictions.

This same dictator also forces free homes with supervised injection sites for junkies into cities who already have too many 'wet houses' and don't want any more.

That sounds absolutely horrible. I have friends in Kamloops and I used to visit Vancouver occasionally when some of them lived there. Hopefully people come to their senses at some point and oust whoever that is but I'm not optimistic.

[Kasper]

Same here! I used to travel with the train a couple of times per week but I'm still taking the bike. I think I have been on a train once the last 2.5 years and I don't see that changing. Public transport use was going up year after year but Covid has set it back like 2 decades. With working from home as the new standard for many people, I doubt public transport use will ever reach pre-Covid levels. This also circles back to living in densely populated areas; if you don't have to go to the office so many times per week, you can choose to live further away.

IMHO remote work is far more beneficial to the environment than public transportation anyway. Whether in private cars or on buses or trains it just seems like such a waste to move millions of people from home to an office and then back again in the evening when their work involves sitting at a computer that can be located anywhere. Obviously not all jobs can be done remotely, but for those that can there should be significant incentives to encourage companies to offer that option.

Add the environmental impacts of building, maintaining and heating/cooling the offices.  Makes remote work look even more beneficial.

[EEVblog]

Right now I'm fighting with the council that is trying to rezone residential neighborhoods for duplexes and triplexes, there's already a massive problem with traffic and homes with insufficient parking

Be glad you don't live in BC.  Our new dictator is removing the ability to limit density from every city in the province.  He plans to allow developers to put triplex on any single family lot regardless of what the neighbors or city council wants.  He is also banning stratas from having rental restrictions.
This same dictator also forces free homes with supervised injection sites for junkies into cities who already have too many 'wet houses' and don't want any more.

WTF?
At what level is this decision made?
Here it's at the local council level. They have full control over land and building planing and zoning. Subject to the occasional big state and federal infrastructure.
If someone is making construction renovations to their house, then all the neighbors automatically get letter outlining the plans, and time to object. And I get constantly notified of all new nearby construction in Norwest business park and invite residends in to inspec the plans and lodge complaints etc. It's all taken very seriously here.

[tom66]

IMHO remote work is far more beneficial to the environment than public transportation anyway. Whether in private cars or on buses or trains it just seems like such a waste to move millions of people from home to an office and then back again in the evening when their work involves sitting at a computer that can be located anywhere. Obviously not all jobs can be done remotely, but for those that can there should be significant incentives to encourage companies to offer that option.

Remote work did seriously dent the future growth of cities and reduced the demand on public transport;  but it's still going to be necessary to have both in the future.  Many jobs can't be done remotely, and some can't be fully remote, so cities and their transport will continue to exist.  But, that's only one small part of why people choose to live in a denser area and statistics show that remote work has only increased by about 5-10% from the pre-COVID norm;  basically, if you could work remotely before, you definitely work remotely now, but many have returned back to their place of work.

I'd be strongly in favour of giving companies a tax discount for every remote worker they employ, to incentivise it further (though the savings on office rent and costs there should also factor in.)

In terms of HVAC, I think it's a wash.  A big building might cost more to heat or cool per m^2, but it's probably better insulated than an average house, and has a higher density and a better maintained heating system.  Also, if employers continue to use the same office post-remote, then it will still cost a lot to heat/cool despite the smaller quantity of people working there. (Our office is at about 1/3rd capacity right now, but I'll bet the heating bill is similar.) The reduction in drivers on the roads though is going to be quite significant to emissions though, I suspect.

[james_s]

WTF?
At what level is this decision made?
Here it's at the local council level. They have full control over land and building planing and zoning. Subject to the occasional big state and federal infrastructure.
If someone is making construction renovations to their house, then all the neighbors automatically get letter outlining the plans, and time to object. And I get constantly notified of all new nearby construction in Norwest business park and invite residends in to inspec the plans and lodge complaints etc. It's all taken very seriously here.

That sounds like a very sensible arrangement, I would love to have something like that here.

[Kasper]

Be glad you don't live in BC.  Our new dictator is removing the ability to limit density from every city in the province.  He plans to allow developers to put triplex on any single family lot regardless of what the neighbors or city council wants.  He is also banning stratas from having rental restrictions.

This same dictator also forces free homes with supervised injection sites for junkies into cities who already have too many 'wet houses' and don't want any more.

That sounds absolutely horrible. I have friends in Kamloops and I used to visit Vancouver occasionally when some of them lived there. Hopefully people come to their senses at some point and oust whoever that is but I'm not optimistic.

Unfortunately most of the population pays extra to live in dense areas and apparently think people who want low density deserve to have their choice taken away.

The free homes with supervised injection sites are hopefully going to slow down soon.  There is finally some attention being paid to their residents with dozens of convictions for theft and assault.

[themadhippy]

I'd be strongly in favour of giving companies a tax discount for every remote worker

not a chance when our lovely goverbent is forcing cival servants to return to the office.

[Kasper]

Right now I'm fighting with the council that is trying to rezone residential neighborhoods for duplexes and triplexes, there's already a massive problem with traffic and homes with insufficient parking

Be glad you don't live in BC.  Our new dictator is removing the ability to limit density from every city in the province.  He plans to allow developers to put triplex on any single family lot regardless of what the neighbors or city council wants.  He is also banning stratas from having rental restrictions.
This same dictator also forces free homes with supervised injection sites for junkies into cities who already have too many 'wet houses' and don't want any more.

WTF?
At what level is this decision made?
Here it's at the local council level. They have full control over land and building planing and zoning. Subject to the occasional big state and federal infrastructure.
If someone is making construction renovations to their house, then all the neighbors automatically get letter outlining the plans, and time to object. And I get constantly notified of all new nearby construction in Norwest business park and invite residends in to inspec the plans and lodge complaints etc. It's all taken very seriously here.

That's generally how it works here but it is changing.  The government of the province of BC is taking power away from local councils.  Worst part is the guy pushing this was not elected to be premier.  He replaced our old premier who retired early due to cancer.

[Kasper]

I'd be strongly in favour of giving companies a tax discount for every remote worker

not a chance when our lovely goverbent is forcing cival servants to return to the office.

Out here the government was lobbied by restaurant owners who wanted people to be dragged into offices so they could make life more expensive for them (going out to eat lunch).

[EEVblog]

Unfortunately, in many areas, it's literally illegal to build this type of mixed-use area, because commercial properties (of any kind) can't be zoned in the same area as residential, even if those commercial properties are servicing the residents.  And it's illegal to mix single family homes with higher density flats, despite the two being absolutely compatible.    It's absolutely bonkers city planning.

I fully 100% support this type of zoning, it isn't bonkers at all, it makes perfect sense. People that want to live in detached houses in the suburbs don't want to be packed in with big apartment complexes and tall buildings. Already here they keep tearing down strip malls and everything else and putting in this great huge condo/apartment towers with retail shops below. It is exactly Sodo Sopah from the show Southpark. Affordable shops are gone, replaced by trendy restaurants where you can get a $25 hamburger with a $18 glass of wine and you can live in the building if you can afford $4,000 a month rent. Zoning exists for a reason, it separates things so people who don't want to live in a city can live in relative peace. I want to live in a neighborhood that only allows single family detached houses, I bought a house in that kind of neighborhood because that's specifically the environment I wanted to live in, and I don't want it being changed into something else.

Absolutely. That's how it works here. People are very protective of the environment they buy into. The zoning maps and future council plans are big part of buying a place here in Sydney.
e.g. here is map just south of my business park.
If you buy in an R2 zoning area then you expect
They have even actively changed R3 medium density zoning into R2 to "ensure controls reflect and protect the established low density character of these areas."

https://www.thehills.nsw.gov.au/files/sharedassets/public/ecm-website-documents/page-documents/building/lep-2020/fact_sheet_-_review_of_the_r3_medium_density_residential_zone.pdf

[EEVblog]

That's why I never got legally married in the first place. It's a huge financial risk, for very little reward. It serves very little purpose in modern society.

I thought Fran being single is part of the problem? That the banks aren't willing to lend to an older single woman?

No, it's that her Youtube and Patreon income does not count as income. To the banks she literally has zero income.
I know of other US Youtube creators with the same problem.
There may be creative ways around this, like becoming a company or organisation and taking a wage or some such, but I'm not sure.

[EEVblog]

Fran’s situation reminded me of the attached saying……

I've tried to find places in downtown Philly that would consolidate her 2 storage units and factory into one lower cost alternative, but even that was sharply rebuked. 
I understand the crime aspect of Philly and how certain places you wouldn't want to be, but she doesn't even seem willing to actively look at these options. Maybe she is always doing that, I don't know, but if I had to put out a video asking for finanical help, then I'd also let people know that I'm open to crowd sourced suggestions.
I know you'd get tons of useless email, but maybe, just maybe someone might just find a gem of an opportunity.

Louis Rossmann for example when he was looking for places, I found some places that he didn't find, and he even did a video touring one them. Didn't turn out, but at least he was thankful and willing to look.

[Fraser]

Dave, hence my ‘horse to water’ cartoon, above. Sometimes you just cannot help a person, as they are too inflexible or have a closed mind, and you have to let them do as they wish despite suspecting that it will end badly for them Being a good and kind person you have tried to help Fran and it cannot be easy to find a ‘brick wall’ placed in front of your good suggestions. Good on you for trying to assist though 

Fraser

[Quarlo Klobrigney]

Have you looked up the crime stats for that area?
Without actually saying exactly where of course, but is it safe area at least?


If it is bad, I cannot understand living in such an area (I did for 7 years) as opposed to living in a fear free and mentally healthy, profitable area.
The helicopter used to go overhead in that 7 year period every night.
Shootings, stabbings and drugs were the norm. Not for me. I got out.
I'm sure Philly and Camden right across the bridge is much worse.


I hate to bring up the obvious, but some people have some form of disorder or mental illness that can't be helped by a lay person, no matter what is offered for help.  


See the DSM-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5. I'm sure you can find many that fit oneself and the people you know.
It doesn't make the person bad, only needing help that you cannot provide.


Sorry if it is an inappropriate post, but knowing that your world is about to crash around you (again) and not accepting sound advice would, be (in my opinion) indicative of something wrong.
I'm sure that a final $$$ drive for a suitable solution (not a band-aid) would be supported.


Only an opinion.
Please feel free to delete this.
Edited for grammar & the like....

[Kasper]

Be glad you don't live in BC.  Our new dictator is removing the ability to limit density from every city in the province.  He plans to allow developers to put triplex on any single family lot regardless of what the neighbors or city council wants.  He is also banning stratas from having rental restrictions.

This is the result of too many people creating too much demand in certain areas and refusing to move. 

If they said "no, that's too much, I'm not paying that, I'm leaving", they could solve their own problem.  They would also help solve the larger problem by reducing demand in areas where prices are high because of excess demand.

Instead, they refuse to change, they blame landlords and call home owners NIMBYs (not in my backyard).  They demand the government changes zoning: force changes on the people who are much more commited to the area.

When people purchase properties, zoning impacts the decision and the cost.  Changing that zoning is similar to breaching a contract.  Breaching a contract that relates to someone's home and life savings is an awful thing to do.

[joeqsmith]

Fran’s situation reminded me of the attached saying……

Anytime I hear it, I am reminded of Dorothy Parker's quote.  First time I ever saw it was a on a biker girls T-shirt...
http://www.bytesdaily.com.au/2010/08/quote-dorothy-parker.html

[james_s]

Instead, they refuse to change, they blame landlords and call home owners NIMBYs (not in my backyard).  They demand the government changes zoning: force changes on the people who are much more commited to the area.

When people purchase properties, zoning impacts the decision and the cost.  Changing that zoning is similar to breaching a contract.  Breaching a contract that relates to someone's home and life savings is an awful thing to do.

I'm a NIMBY, I feel perfectly entitled to be one and have absolutely no shame for it. As you say, when I purchased my property I took the zoning into consideration, I bought a single family home on a dead end street in a quiet suburban neighborhood because that's exactly the environment I desired to live in, if the zoning had allowed multifamily units or apartment towers I would not have considered this neighborhood.

[tom66]

I'm a NIMBY, I feel perfectly entitled to be one and have absolutely no shame for it. As you say, when I purchased my property I took the zoning into consideration, I bought a single family home on a dead end street in a quiet suburban neighborhood because that's exactly the environment I desired to live in, if the zoning had allowed multifamily units or apartment towers I would not have considered this neighborhood.

Why do you find multifamily units objectionable?

I get apartment towers (they're ugly, sure), but a neighbourhood consisting of detached, semi-detached and small apartment units seems fine to me.  What's not attractive about that?

[sokoloff]

In a neighborhood with street parking, more units pretty directly puts more pressure on street parking. (More units per lot -> more cars per linear foot of uncut curb.)

I’ve rarely seen a neighborhood of multi family units have nice landscaping and well maintained exteriors. That is much more common in neighborhoods of SFRs.

This doesn’t make multis bad overall, but if someone bought in a neighborhood of SFRs, it’s reason to oppose zoning changes to break that.

I’ve supported every one of my neighbors’ applications for permits and variances from zoning regs. (Things like a slightly higher garage than allowed, an additional curb cut, and even one neighbor who wanted to build an ugly facade on the house.) I would oppose a variance for a conversion to higher unit count than zoning allows.

[tom66]

Street parking is a whole 'nother debate.  It's an interesting thing that you're just allowed to leave your car parked on the road for months on end, but you need to get a permit to put a skip there.