three-ple t1_jddyiw6 wrote
Reply to comment by PLS-Surveyor-US in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs
:shrug: I mean I disagree with aspects of plenty of laws. Many still have a positive impact.
But your characterization is wrong. Holden doesn't have to "build hundreds of thousands of units". It has to *zone* 50 acres to allow up to 750 units to be built [1]. That is it.
The city doesn't have to build a damn thing. Private enterprise will do that.
Holden surface area is 23,000 acres. 0.2% of it will need to be designated as higher density. There is so much hand wringing going on over ultimately a minor change to zoning in the area.
Every other discussion point here is completely speculative. If Holden is such a terrible place to build, nobody will build the density. If Holden has problems with water/sewer, that will have to be figured out, but there won't be some magical fairy that comes in and forces them at gunpoint to build a new wastewater treatment plant overnight. If some other thing happens to Holden as part of this, I suspect they will have the intelligence and wherewithal to deal with it.
Let's. Move. Forward. Create the zoning. Work through the next steps.
​
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jdek8vh wrote
I said hundreds OR thousands. A small hyperbole as I wasn't aware of the 750...
How do you pay for the wastewater treatment for this project? You have two options: a large septic system (note that this uses a lot of land area) or a plant. Millions to build a plant. Divided over the 750 units will probably make the units cost prohibitive. Your ideas on "figure it out" ignore reality.
Most zoning should be local driven not state. It is better that way. We can certainly agree to disagree and I don't expect any change in peoples views on this but most people prefer local to state or national control for a reason.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments