Proposed Des Moines Zoning Changes

Discussion in 'Real Estate' started by ArgentCy, Jun 6, 2019.

  1. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    I debated whether or not to put this into the Cave but I think it should be in the Real Estate Section.

    Apparently the City of Des Moines is going full we know best mode. This is absolutely crazy town and would halt new construction in the City. And that they try and couch this as cutting Red Tape is so disingenuous as to be laughable.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/development/2019/05/27/des-moines-iowa-ia-development-affordable-housing-habitat-for-humanity-zoning-code-home-construction/3740891002/

    Consultants from Chicago spent 19 months examining every city street to determine appropriate scale and design guidelines based on the character of each neighborhood. (well now there's your problem)

    The proposed code would require one-story homes have 1,400 square feet of finished space above grade, while a two-story home would need 1,800 square feet. Homes also would be required to have a full basement and a single-car garage.
     
  2. somecyguy

    somecyguy Well-Known Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    1,695
    288
    83
    Ratings:
    +1,656 / 79 / -2
    They also identified the specific architecture that would be required in each of the city's neighborhoods. New homes built in Beaverdale would be brick cottages, while those in Union Park would be pre-war bungalows, Craftsman-style homes or Victorians.

    That is crazy over reach. Cedar Rapids recently did some studies similar to this, but it was more a discussion regarding whether the city should require a variety of floor plans within a development. Nothing like that.

    I see no upside to that, because despite their argument about simplifying the process, everyone knows eventually, exceptions will be added.
     
  3. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    Yes, but they are reducing the Red Tape.... My question is how do they put that statement out with a straight face?
     
  4. spierceisu

    spierceisu Active Member

    Jan 28, 2007
    433
    58
    28
    Male
    Process Engineer
    Waukee
    Ratings:
    +353 / 19 / -2
    It says in the article it is going to "preserve or increase home values". Call me a conspiracy theorist, but It sounds to me like it is a money grab for property taxes. With all the minimum requirements for square footage and basements, it is a guaranteed increase to property tax income. I am so sick of government controls. It is like a city wide HOA.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Cyclonepride

    Cyclonepride Thought Police
    Staff Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    84,433
    8,924
    113
    Male
    Sales and marketing
    A pineapple under the sea
    Ratings:
    +37,748 / 1,842 / -156
    Stupid. When they fail, they can just raise taxes on the rest of the people stuck there to keep up with their spending.
     
  6. Sigmapolis

    Sigmapolis Well-Known Member
    SuperFanatic SuperFanatic T2

    Aug 10, 2011
    15,526
    4,978
    113
    Male
    Washington, DC
    Ratings:
    +18,776 / 1,124 / -4
    This country has millions fewer housing units than it needs right now.

    https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/04/16/1472315/0/en/New-report-U-S-fell-7-3-million-units-behind-housing-demand-from-2000-2015.html

    The use of zoning laws to artificially suppress the supply of homes (and therefore line the pockets of current homeowners and real estate agents at the expense of people trying to buy into the market and renters) is anti-competitive behavior.

    For the longest time, the lack of that kind of stuff was one of the major advantages that Midwestern and southern cities had -- ample housing supply, translating to low land and housing prices for residents/high real incomes (after housing prices) and lower costs of labor and land for businesses. Letting that go bye-bye for entrenched interests is no bueno.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Gunnerclone

    Gunnerclone Well-Known Member

    Jul 16, 2010
    35,067
    5,496
    113
    Cheddar Production
    DSM
    Ratings:
    +28,140 / 1,497 / -37
    You call design standards crazy until you come to Columbus and see a neighborhood full of early 20th century homes where people have bought a home just to tear it down and put up this:

    [​IMG]
     
  8. somecyguy

    somecyguy Well-Known Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    1,695
    288
    83
    Ratings:
    +1,656 / 79 / -2
    Big difference between designating certain areas as historical and literally dictating what type of house someone can build.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    Exactly, these types of laws INCREASE the disparity between rich and poor. It will increase the property values of those who own homes in the area in the short run (0-20 years perhaps) but those who don't already own a home will be left behind.
     
  10. deadeyededric

    deadeyededric Well-Known Member

    Dec 12, 2009
    5,890
    624
    113
    Parts Unknown
    Ratings:
    +4,080 / 370 / -24
    I thought work ethic was what separated the rich and poor.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. jbindm

    jbindm Well-Known Member

    Dec 2, 2010
    12,498
    1,414
    113
    Des Moines
    Ratings:
    +7,193 / 214 / -0
    I guess it's not quite gentrification since they're not renovating existing structures but the goal appears to be the same.
     
  12. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    This will give anyone a good thing to throw back at them when they complain (and they will) about a lack of affordable housing. Well duh, you demanded everyone must live in a relatively large and expensive home.

    The full basement requirement is also most unheard of and adds extensive costs for less benefit. It also makes a lot of sites just not buildable. I mean there are large cities where no one has a basement because of the soil.
     
  13. Sigmapolis

    Sigmapolis Well-Known Member
    SuperFanatic SuperFanatic T2

    Aug 10, 2011
    15,526
    4,978
    113
    Male
    Washington, DC
    Ratings:
    +18,776 / 1,124 / -4
    There are plenty of regressive policies out there.

    They just tend to benefit the upper-middle class at the expense of the truly poor far more than the upper-middle class really wants to be thinking about it.
     
  14. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    That and government regulations. Hard work and a Free Market is all you need. Unfortunately a Free Market is really hard to find anymore.
     
  15. EnhancedFujita

    EnhancedFujita Well-Known Member

    Jan 28, 2013
    1,810
    404
    83
    Male
    Johnston
    Ratings:
    +1,206 / 12 / -0
    My gut thought on this is that they probably have concerns about the quality of redevelopment in the older parts of town. There isn't really brand new subdivisions being built in Des Moines proper, so they have different needs than some of the suburbs would for regulations.

    I know there are business models for development out there where cheap land is acquired, razed, and substandard housing is built on it and then rented out. This seems to me to be an attempt to limit that style of redevelopment and preserve the existing character of neighborhoods.

    Of course there are the potential for unintended consequences, and some of the new requirements do raise some concerns about how it would effect affordably building new homes. However, in my opinion, I think the ship has sailed on the expectation that single family homes are "affordable" to the median incomes. I don't think you can realistically build something new and get it into the "affordable" price point until you're at a denser product like a townhome.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  16. Cyder91

    Cyder91 Active Member

    Jul 19, 2018
    200
    86
    28
    Male
    Ratings:
    +320 / 11 / -0
    Must be built in a bio-dome in columbus with those palm trees.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. mtowncyclone13

    mtowncyclone13 Well-Known Member

    Oct 10, 2012
    19,505
    2,005
    113
    grundy center
    Ratings:
    +8,697 / 525 / -14
    Let me play devil's advocate.

    Right now the suburbs use DSM proper for their entertainment needs, cultural attractions, etc and those users pay no property tax to DSM as they live in other communities. Those other communities, because they have greenfields, can put in zoning regulations that basically make it so all cheap housing has to go into DSM and their smaller lots sizes, less restrictive storm water code, etc. In essence, the same cities that use DSM for (almost) free can pretty much force DSM to take on the brunt of the affordable housing issue. It's not fair or equitable.

    If DSM enacts tougher standards you're probably going to get some of the people who want to live in closer-in neighborhoods but are scared of making the investment because of the low-income housing myths, so they move to Waukee, for example. You may see more high-income people move in and at the same time go on the offensive towards the same cities that are forcing low income residents into DSM. Until West Des Moines/Ankeny/Waukee lower their standards for development it's unfair to criticize Des Moines.

    All of the people in this thread should be equally (if not more) upset at the suburbs own zoning which all-but-eliminates low-income housing in those jurisdictions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    I doubt you can even build one of these houses on a lot of infill lots as they just aren't big enough. They've got so many set back requirements, frontage requirements, and now size requirements that it's likely impossible to actually check all of those requirements.
     
  19. EnhancedFujita

    EnhancedFujita Well-Known Member

    Jan 28, 2013
    1,810
    404
    83
    Male
    Johnston
    Ratings:
    +1,206 / 12 / -0
    I know there are several suburbs that already have garage requirements and minimum building size for homes in place. So its not like DSM is doing something that hasn't already been done. So you are right in some of those aspects.

    I do think that this is missing the bigger picture that affordable single family housing just isn't a feasible product anymore. A recent study said that the metro needs something like 50,000 new housing units priced at the $175,000 mark. I'm just not sure that low density housing can be built at that price point anymore.
     
  20. ArgentCy

    ArgentCy Well-Known Member

    Jan 13, 2010
    19,233
    1,274
    113
    Male
    Ratings:
    +12,576 / 2,928 / -1,779
    This will be far more restrictive than any of the suburbs. This is the most restrictive zoning that I've seen anywhere near here.
     

Share This Page