Just a thought. Is it possible to have more citizen participation in planning (etc.) via the Internet? We know that getting people out on cold nights in questionable weather in the winter is very tough. Pleasant summer nights seem to tug us outside so going indoors for a meeting is hard.
Don't we have the technology to allow us to participate from off-site as well? Might this help to increase participation? Regi "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things." Dostoyevsky. > On Jun 22, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Gay Nicholson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hmm, yes, I think we all mostly understand about supply and demand curves. > But my question was about not being stuck in reactive mode at the tail end of > a repeating cycle. > > We have all heard bad stories of wonderful places that were "loved to death." > They become popular and then get swarmed and all the human activity damages > what was special. Even more often, a popular place attracts wealthy > outsiders who gradually replace the people who were there (e.g. almost all of > the shores of the Finger Lakes). > > The issue of limits to growth and urban growth boundaries has been explored > repeatedly, but it feels to me that our community hasn't been hosting a > serious discussion on the topic for many years. Back in the 90s, our > Citizens Planning Alliance put together many educational events on combatting > sprawl and franchised local economies. And the Connect Ithaca group did more > in the Oughts with lots of discussions about Urban Villages and our need to > add them to strategic locations to enable more transit-oriented development > and walkable neighborhoods. We need critical mass in certain places to make > the financing of bus runs work (or in our case, we were looking at podcar > transects). > > But I have never known us to have a discussion about optimal population level > for Tompkins County and decide at a fine grain level (neighborhood level) > exactly how many more can be added in each part of the community. We have a > downtown density policy, but we've never put a cap on it or decided on a > parcel basis how many to put in one spot. Can we even do that? The public > often won't come and participate in comp plan efforts, but will come out and > get involved when a specific project is proposed in their neighborhood (as we > are seeing with the Old Library and former P&C sites). > > Thought experiment: If Tompkins County decided that we wanted to accept up > to 20,000 more people into the county, and cap it at that until 2050 or > later, how would we go about deciding where to put them? What would be a > fair process? I think we need to get a widespread dialogue started on this, > but unfortunately most humans will only give their energy to fighting > something in their own backyards and are slow to participate otherwise. > > And I haven't even mentioned yet the problem of affordable housing, which is > what my earlier question was focused upon. What is a fair level of density > for every neighborhood to accept, and how do we assure that lower-income > people get to live in every neighborhood too? Will Cayuga Heights accept > densification at the same level as Fall Creek? > > I think that a lot of people would agree that we don't like rural sprawl and > the loss of farmlands, wetlands, etc. and that it is better in terms of > climate change to concentrate populations and reduce car travel. But from > what I have witnessed over the decades here, simply adding density to the > city has not made planning in rural areas smarter (witness Lansing). I think > part of that is because we haven't imagined any caps on growth or tipping > points where we destroy what we already have in place. If some neighborhoods > are exempted from high density, what do they owe the neighborhoods who are > chosen to carry the density? What is our carrying capacity? > > It's so very complex, but let's keep plugging away at it. > > Gay > > -------------------------------------- > Gay Nicholson, Ph.D. > President > Sustainable Tompkins > 309 N. Aurora St. > Ithaca, NY 14850 > www.sustainabletompkins.org > 607-533-7312 (home office) > 607-220-8991 (cell) > 607-272-1720 (ST office) > > [email protected] > >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Stuart Staniford <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 18, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Gay Nicholson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Wow, the issues that Sharon has posted are exactly the ones I have been >>> thinking about too. I've met so many people who have moved here because of >>> the quality of life in Ithaca, often from bigger markets where they can >>> cash out with enough to buy here and renovate. What is a process by which >>> housing is added and it goes to lower-income current residents or >>> in-commuters? >> >> Economics 101 - if you increase the supply of something, other things being >> equal, the price will go down. See case 3 of: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand >> >> Adding housing downtown, of pretty much any kind, increases the supply of >> units which reduces the number of people bidding for each unit and thus >> lowers how high prices will go. At present, there’s a significant shortage >> of downtown housing, and units in the decent neighborhoods all go to the >> highest offer in a bidding war. Prices have been going up and that forces >> lower income folks out. I happen to know a person with an admin job in a >> small medical office who spent two years looking for a house in Ithaca >> before giving up and buying in Dryden. That kind of thing will only go >> higher up the income scale unless a lot more supply is brought on downtown >> somewhere. We can either have a denser downtown with taller buildings, or >> keep the downtown we have and force a lot more suburban/semi-rural >> development on the edges of town. It appears that the county legislators >> with downtown constituencies would like to keep the downtown we have (and >> thus push development out into the more rural townships) and the county >> legislators with rural constituencies would like to densify downtown (and >> thus reduce development pressure on their own areas). >> >> Stuart. >> >>> >>> -------------------------------------- >>> Gay Nicholson, Ph.D. >>> President >>> Sustainable Tompkins >>> 309 N. Aurora St. >>> Ithaca, NY 14850 >>> www.sustainabletompkins.org >>> 607-533-7312 (home office) >>> 607-220-8991 (cell) >>> 607-272-1720 (ST office) >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Sharon Ahlers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> I appreciate the thoughtful posts by Gay, Eric, and Jane. Reading Gay's >>>> post and the responses led me to raise the following three questions. >>>> >>>> One: Does more housing = housing for current commuters? >>>> Consider the following possibilities: >>>> >>>> 1. People retire, and when they retire, they often move, and Ithaca is >>>> being touted in the national press as a great place to retire. >>>> 2. Some people have jobs that depend on an Internet connection, not a >>>> physical work space. Ithaca is also being touted in the national press as >>>> a great place for the "creative class." >>>> >>>> My point here is that for the some people (with significant class >>>> privilege), where one lives is being de-coupled from where one works or >>>> worked. Building more housing units in Ithaca may simply provide more >>>> space for gentrification. I am not saying this will inevitably happen. I >>>> am just saying that perhaps we might examine this possibility before >>>> assuming that more housing = more housing for people who are currently >>>> commuting into Ithaca. >>>> >>>> Two: Have city planners learned from past mistakes in building dense >>>> housing? >>>> What is the evidence that Ithaca planners can avoid the problems that >>>> affect residents of dense housing projects such as West Village? Do Ithaca >>>> planners now have the necessary skill to create dense housing that does >>>> not become a magnet for drug dealers and violent crime? >>>> >>>> Three: How do property taxes affect the ability of people to live in the >>>> city? >>>> Housing expense is driven by two factors: the cost to purchase housing and >>>> property taxes. (Both factors are reflected in rent.) Densifying Ithaca >>>> will not lower property taxes, because the demand for services will rise >>>> with population. Ithaca uses property taxes to pay for some really nice >>>> things, from park landscaping to an array of AP classes and computers for >>>> every student. Maybe we can't really afford all of those those things. >>>> Maybe we're pricing people out of the city to pay for those things. I say >>>> "maybe"--I could be totally wrong. However, has anyone looked at this >>>> question closely? I am particularly concerned about property taxes >>>> because, high as they are, we don't seem to be putting enough money into >>>> infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Before arguing whether dense housing is worth the sacrifice, we need to be >>>> reasonably sure that dense housing will solve the problem of commuters. To >>>> find out if dense housing will solve the problem, I think we need to know >>>> the answers to these three questions. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sharon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 6/17/15 10:31 PM, Eric Clay wrote: >>>>> Actually Gay's post is more balanced. The issue is looking at the >>>>> greater good vs. the special interests of one's constituents, and >>>>> balancing the outcome to be fair. >>>>> >>>>> The Franklin folks ignore the scale of the problem that already exists, >>>>> with nearly 30% of our permanent workforce commuting in from outside the >>>>> County, a rate of in-commuting that is only exceeded by NY City in the >>>>> state. These are over 20,000 people. Only 5000 commute out. >>>>> >>>>> That extreme inequity began in the mid-1980s, when restrictions on >>>>> development were passed under the rubric of protecting the environment. >>>>> This was identified at the time by key leaders as the first step at >>>>> so-called "green gentrification." >>>>> >>>>> The working poor and lower middle income groups, which are >>>>> disproportionately just out of the county, have no say in >>>>> this process, and no representatives. >>>>> >>>>> We need probably 1000 to 3000 condominiums, the same number of apartments >>>>> and the same number of other types of housing units, at all income >>>>> levels, for the county to more densely absorb the reality that already >>>>> exists. >>>>> >>>>> Almost every historic neighborhood in Ithaca is an eclectic mix of >>>>> architecture. No real coherence. Nor should we attempt to enforce such >>>>> on a dynamic place that is inherintly eccentric and that has been in >>>>> state of denial about its growth for decades. >>>>> >>>>> The war on the poor and the hollowing out of the lower middle class in >>>>> Tompkins County has been 10 to 20 years ahead of the rest of the United >>>>> States for the past 30 years. We may not be the 1% but we are too many of >>>>> the top, and we are squeezing out those below. >>>>> >>>>> We need to take action. The degree of development necessary will impact >>>>> and lower the value of my Fall Creek home. It is part of the cost of >>>>> equity and relinquishing privilege in the name of sustainability. I >>>>> accept it willingly and invite it. >>>>> >>>>> The preservation of a core community hub in the form of Lifelong, one >>>>> that crosses extreme economic class differences, and the many fewer miles >>>>> driven, and fewer cars owned, and the freeing up of housing elsewhere for >>>>> others more than justifies the Travis/Hyde proposal, in my mind. >>>>> >>>>> Why is Franklin's proposal 30 to 40% more expensive for Lifelong over the >>>>> next 20 years? >>>>> >>>>> Further, that block needs just one large building to add to the eclectic >>>>> mix. >>>>> >>>>> Franklin preserves the "green gentry" and privilege, under the rubric of >>>>> sustainablity and neighborhood fit. NIMBYism is alive and well, and >>>>> always has been in Ithaca. >>>>> >>>>> Our future does not look good, until or unless we have the thorough >>>>> vetting of all affected parties and everyone sees a common way forward >>>>> together. >>>>> >>>>> Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Eric Clay >>>>> Shared Journeys >>>>> 832 North Aurora Street >>>>> Ithaca, NY 14850 >>>>> 607-592-6874 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> sharedjourneys.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Jane-Marie Law <[email protected]> >>>>> To: c4sed <[email protected]>; W Dryden Core >>>>> <[email protected]>; SUSTAINABLE_TOMPKINS-L >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 9:26 pm >>>>> Subject: Re: [sustainable_tompkins-l] Home Rule and the Greater Good >>>>> >>>>> Really excellent, Gay. My husband and I have a significant investment in >>>>> a building 80' from this site (in fact, it is our only real investment at >>>>> all, aside form our home), and the tear down construction and scale of >>>>> the proposed Travis Hyde proposal would be really harmful to many, many >>>>> businesses, and many, many people. To my knowledge, every single >>>>> neighbor adjacent to this site has spoken vehemently against the Travis >>>>> Hyde proposal and in favor of Franklin. >>>>> >>>>> I was also especially shocked to hear the energy expert for the Travis >>>>> Hyde proposal speak to Ithacans in the way he did about natural gas. >>>>> This makes it all the more disappointing to me that people like Martha >>>>> Robertson would vote in favor of this project. >>>>> >>>>> I am also shocked that the people of Lifelong would want this to be their >>>>> legacy. Every single neighbor of theirs has spoken against the scale of >>>>> their proposal. I know some of the elderly people in this community of >>>>> people, and many are actually very cognizant of this fact. >>>>> >>>>> Last, I like density. I think it is very important. But this project is >>>>> too dense. It is also uni-generational, by and large. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jane-Marie Law >>>>> Associate Professor of Japanese Religions >>>>> Department of Asian Studies >>>>> Fellow, Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future >>>>> 350 Rockefeller Hall >>>>> Cornell University >>>>> Ithaca, NY 14853-2502 >>>>> 607-255-5095/ 607-255-8332 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>> <[email protected]> on behalf of Gay Nicholson >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:51 PM >>>>> To: [email protected]; W Dryden Core; SUSTAINABLE_TOMPKINS-L >>>>> Subject: [sustainable_tompkins-l] Home Rule and the Greater Good >>>>> >>>>> My blog post on last night's county legislature meeting on the fate of >>>>> the Old Library. >>>>> >>>>> https://sustainabletompkins.org/st-events/home-rule-and-the-greater-good/ >>>>> >>>>> Your thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Gay >>>>> -------------------------------------- >>>>> Gay Nicholson, Ph.D. >>>>> President >>>>> Sustainable Tompkins >>>>> 309 N. Aurora St. >>>>> Ithaca, NY 14850 >>>>> www.sustainabletompkins.org >>>>> 607-533-7312 (home office) >>>>> 607-220-8991 (cell) >>>>> 607-272-1720 (ST office) >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] > For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ If you have questions about this list please contact the list manager, Tom Shelley, at [email protected].
