theWora t1_itdvnq7 wrote
I think this is a general step in the right direction. However, I'm sure that developers will do their best to come up with loopholes to overexploit this, and instead of building affordable homes, we,ll have something far from that.
houseofnoel t1_itg8qnz wrote
Imagine the US government told auto dealers they could only sell 100 cars a year. Which cars do you think they’d focus on selling? Toyota Corollas? Of course not, they’d sell exactly 100 luxury vehicles, where the highest profit margins are. However, auto dealerships are free to sell as many cars as they want, hence we end up with all sorts of cars on the road, at all sorts of price points. Don’t you see how it’s the same with housing construction? That the totality of local zoning laws limit the construction of new housing so much that developers only build luxury units? But if it was even half as easy, legally, to build and sell housing as it was cars, then they’d collectively build and sell a lot more housing units? Taking away parking minimums is one small step toward removing the barriers to mass housing construction. In my hypothetical, it’s like letting auto dealerships sell 105 cars instead of 100. Yes, they’ll still be luxury cars, but that’s only because you haven’t relaxed restrictions enough.
Goldenrule-er t1_iteqhsb wrote
This is clearly a plot by developers. They don't want the parking minimums (which are logical and necessary for so many reasons) because it eats into their return on investment. 1/2 parking space per unit means fewer overpriced "luxury" condo sales. It's that simple.
crazicus t1_itqdu5j wrote
Not a developer. I don’t want parking minimums because parking goes underutilized in Cambridge and it makes the cost of living higher for everyone, including those that don’t own cars.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments