20. November, 2003 - housing issues
- Advocate says Low-income housing problem will worsen in the future, blaming the federal government. I disagree.
- Over-occupancy is not about safety. I agree. One of the battles I was continually trying to fight in the neighborhood was over density. I think there are large parts of Marcy-Holmes which would be well-served by higher density, but the major problem is that there isn’t the infrastructure to handle the higher density. Because the public transit isn’t great, there are too many cars. Because there are too many cars (including those driven by commuters coming to the U every day), there isn’t enough parking. Because there isn’t enough parking, zoning codes are set up to lower density. As it is, rents are going to go up if occupancy laws are enforced, which will lead to more outcries about the lack of affordable housing. The affordable housing in this neighborhood is being zoned out of existence. The problem isn’t the federal government, it’s local zoning ordinances. Further, there’s the whole “no more than three unrelated people” bit in the zoning code. How is it that it’s “safe” for a family of eight people to live in a dwelling, but “unsafe” for four unrelated people to live in the same space?
- 2 months after fire, housing is still city’s focus, and the inspections are proceeding. Landlords are busy updating houses to meet code, and rents will probably rise. In addition, what seems to be much stricter enforcement of over-occupancy issues than ever before is going to make some people move. Talking with my landlord on Tuesday, we agreed that it looks like the changes are going to push the cheap end of the housing market near the U up from about $350/person to very close to $500/person. In addition, some landlords will probably be declaring bankruptcy, and you may see some houses sitting empty because they can’t be sold without being brought up to code, and the landlord (who over-extended himself in a booming housing market) now can’t afford to bring it up to code. I hope I’m not right about that.
- Benanav pitches tighter housing rules in St. Paul, with student-specific housing rules. I always thought the idea of discriminating against any class of renter was illegal. Guess that goes to show what I know. But hey, having a handful of non-student 22 year-old party-animals in a house is completely different from having the same number of students living there, right?
- Smelly surprise awaits tree thieves around the U of M. The spruce trees, of which seven were stolen last year around Christmas, have been sprayed with skunk scent. You don’t smell it when it’s cold, but when the trees are brought inside… No word on how that’s going to work out today, when the high temperature is supposed to be unseasonably warm at about 60F (15C). I expect the trees will be stinky.
- Finally, The Saddam-Osama Memo (cont.) from the Weekly Standard has more on the Hussein-Al Qaeda connection. James Woolsey, who was CIA Director under Bill Clinton says:
Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early ’90s — they can only say that if they’re illiterate. This is a slam dunk.
The reason I’ve been hammering this for the past couple days is that I know too many folks who’ve been insisting it’s impossible that there was any connection, and it was entirely fabricated by George W. Bush (who besides being some sort of evil mastermind, is too dumb to tie his own shoes) as an excuse to get at Iraq’s oil supply, yet I always felt that if I’d been in Saddam or Osama’s shoes, I’d be looking for a little help from the other guy. Insisting that there was no connection at all just didn’t (and still doesn’t) make any sense to me. [instapundit]
Copyright 2008, Dave Polaschek.
Last updated on Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:35:38.