Our housing crises is serious. Boulder, Colorado's, is worse. Boulder's aggressive new approach to the problem has a few things to teach us. And we could teach Boulder, as well.
But (you know, just because, cause that's what contrarians do...)
Is a $50 a month annual increase on $1500 rent in a time of the worst inflation in a generation (lest we forget, mainly caused by the deficit busting spending of a certain idiot during his last "Presidency" when he was trying to buy every vote he could and after giving welfare to billionaires earlier in his term), and also coming off of a once in a century public health emergency during which evictions were frozen - is that so bad?
Not a good thing, but not exactly "soaring" - more like the natural results of supply and demand in a capitalist society.
And does Boulder operate under the beloved Virginia "Dillon rule" which prohibits and extremely limits what powers localities have to address these problems? If not, economics aside, we're hardly comparing apples to apples here. Other than just listing places where Martin Davis has been recently....
Agreed regarding data center's potential. One of the few advantages this area seems to have is it's proximity to DC, with its information needs only secondary to NY or LA. Might as well take advantage. Though I admit to being troubled as I read of data center's power needs being foisted off on the community. I'm all for capitalism, but only honest capitalism. In our rush to bring in these cash cows who risk being overtaken by technology before they can deliver their promised benefits - I'm hesitant to just write an open ended check. I like my capitalism honest.
Give them a loan, not a gift - and certainly not on the backs of the poor. I'm betting Jeff Bezos can afford it more than that guy with the cardboard sign at the shopping mall.
Finally, a solution I've often wondered why it isn't talked about more in this region, particularly for Fburg - is why reversion is never raised as an option. It's one of the few options that seems viable for a town that is calling itself a city while limited by Richmond from being able to grow.
Clifton Forge did it. Martinsville tried it, but stopped the process to allow a referendum of it's citizens to decide. Looks like a fellow named James Sherlock did a pretty good analysis and argument for it a few years back on a site called Bacon's Rebellion.
Why is that not being seriously bandied as a solution of some of those limitations?
Anyway. Till next time....and if you're in the area, visit Mesa Verde to see some folks who really had housing limitations yet were innovative.
In your comparison of Fredericksburg and Boulder you did not mention community character. In the case of Fredericksburg its unique historic small town character. How should that be considered in the discussion of affordability? How does losing that character affect the future viability of the city? Last night a member of the council stated that he had real concern that historic designations increase property values. A strange comment when one looks at the number of older smaller homes being replaced with significantly new larger homes in the city. Do you agree with this view? Do you also believe that density is the solution for affordability? Are there not other significant factors affecting affordability in this region?
Mmmm. Food for thought indeed.
But (you know, just because, cause that's what contrarians do...)
Is a $50 a month annual increase on $1500 rent in a time of the worst inflation in a generation (lest we forget, mainly caused by the deficit busting spending of a certain idiot during his last "Presidency" when he was trying to buy every vote he could and after giving welfare to billionaires earlier in his term), and also coming off of a once in a century public health emergency during which evictions were frozen - is that so bad?
Not a good thing, but not exactly "soaring" - more like the natural results of supply and demand in a capitalist society.
And does Boulder operate under the beloved Virginia "Dillon rule" which prohibits and extremely limits what powers localities have to address these problems? If not, economics aside, we're hardly comparing apples to apples here. Other than just listing places where Martin Davis has been recently....
Agreed regarding data center's potential. One of the few advantages this area seems to have is it's proximity to DC, with its information needs only secondary to NY or LA. Might as well take advantage. Though I admit to being troubled as I read of data center's power needs being foisted off on the community. I'm all for capitalism, but only honest capitalism. In our rush to bring in these cash cows who risk being overtaken by technology before they can deliver their promised benefits - I'm hesitant to just write an open ended check. I like my capitalism honest.
Give them a loan, not a gift - and certainly not on the backs of the poor. I'm betting Jeff Bezos can afford it more than that guy with the cardboard sign at the shopping mall.
Finally, a solution I've often wondered why it isn't talked about more in this region, particularly for Fburg - is why reversion is never raised as an option. It's one of the few options that seems viable for a town that is calling itself a city while limited by Richmond from being able to grow.
Clifton Forge did it. Martinsville tried it, but stopped the process to allow a referendum of it's citizens to decide. Looks like a fellow named James Sherlock did a pretty good analysis and argument for it a few years back on a site called Bacon's Rebellion.
Why is that not being seriously bandied as a solution of some of those limitations?
Anyway. Till next time....and if you're in the area, visit Mesa Verde to see some folks who really had housing limitations yet were innovative.
In your comparison of Fredericksburg and Boulder you did not mention community character. In the case of Fredericksburg its unique historic small town character. How should that be considered in the discussion of affordability? How does losing that character affect the future viability of the city? Last night a member of the council stated that he had real concern that historic designations increase property values. A strange comment when one looks at the number of older smaller homes being replaced with significantly new larger homes in the city. Do you agree with this view? Do you also believe that density is the solution for affordability? Are there not other significant factors affecting affordability in this region?