Exploring Freedom Commerce Center

[kbhanson3]

Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry.  And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue.  But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience.  Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt.  A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.

[CityLife]

^That's my point.  Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke.  They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed.  Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan.  The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.

The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.

Just have to look at SJC to see this.

[cline]

Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry.  And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue.  But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience.  Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt.  A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.

Actually what I said was the developers are in the pockets of our politicians through a multitude of various contributions.  But hey, I'm sure you're right- its always a level playing field.  Any John Q. Public who calls a city council member with concerns about a project gets exactly the same standing as the local strip mall developer who contributes to the same politicians campaign and is in his office weekly lobbying for projects.  Got it.  Good to know that the GOB network in Jax has completely disbanded.

[cline]

The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.

Just have to look at SJC to see this.

The Mobility Plan would have been leaps and bounds better than what we have now.  It was progressive and actually was a good mechanism for responsible growth.  Unfortunately, the developer lobby convinced our leadership that this was somehow a job killer (with no research to back up the claim) and they got scared and put a moratorium on it. 

[kbhanson3]

^That's my point.  Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke.  They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed.  Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan.  The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.

The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.

Just have to look at SJC to see this.

Interesting points, but it really is not very easy to get land entitled for residential development in SJC and there is currently market demand there for more housing. So who should be the arbiter of when there is adequate demand for more product, whether it's residential or commercial?

And when you say that the development industry goes nuts, what that really means is that people or companies see an opportunity to invest.  Just as many people start plowing more money into the stock market when the Dow starts ticking up.  Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.  Putting NIMBYism aside as a reason for opposing development since we're looking at this rationally, is the question whether development should be permitted or what conditions should come along with it?

[kbhanson3]

The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.

Just have to look at SJC to see this.

The Mobility Plan would have been leaps and bounds better than what we have now.  It was progressive and actually was a good mechanism for responsible growth.  Unfortunately, the developer lobby convinced our leadership that this was somehow a job killer (with no research to back up the claim) and they got scared and put a moratorium on it.

I'm sure you are aware that mobility fees are being charged for new developments now.

[mbwright]

One of the major problems with the comp plan is the ease of getting exceptions.  I would guess that very few are denied.

I too, used to work at Blue Cross.  It was really nice with all of the trees, something you don't see at the southside campus.

[kbhanson3]

Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry.  And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue.  But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience.  Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt.  A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.

Actually what I said was the developers are in the pockets of our politicians through a multitude of various contributions.  But hey, I'm sure you're right- its always a level playing field.  Any John Q. Public who calls a city council member with concerns about a project gets exactly the same standing as the local strip mall developer who contributes to the same politicians campaign and is in his office weekly lobbying for projects.  Got it.  Good to know that the GOB network in Jax has completely disbanded.

You're probably right.  I bet it is a giant conspiracy to stick it to John Q. Public.

[cline]

The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.

Just have to look at SJC to see this.

The Mobility Plan would have been leaps and bounds better than what we have now.  It was progressive and actually was a good mechanism for responsible growth.  Unfortunately, the developer lobby convinced our leadership that this was somehow a job killer (with no research to back up the claim) and they got scared and put a moratorium on it.

I'm sure you are aware that mobility fees are being charged for new developments now.

I am aware- and pleased.  Should have never been put on hold in the first place.  Although I would eventually like to see the Mobility Plan revisited and the VMT increased for the Suburban and Rural development areas that were watered down during the Plan development due to "pressure".

[cline]

Yes, real estate developers lobby out of self-interest just like every other industry.  And for every self-interest group there is another group lobbying the other side of the issue.  But to suggest that politicians are "in the pocket" of developers is not accurate in my experience.  Reasonable people can debate the merits of every project, but politicians approving a project that you find distasteful or a development regulation scheme that you think unwise does not mean that they are corrupt.  A healthy debate about future development regulations for our region, however, will benefit all of us.

Actually what I said was the developers are in the pockets of our politicians through a multitude of various contributions.  But hey, I'm sure you're right- its always a level playing field.  Any John Q. Public who calls a city council member with concerns about a project gets exactly the same standing as the local strip mall developer who contributes to the same politicians campaign and is in his office weekly lobbying for projects.  Got it.  Good to know that the GOB network in Jax has completely disbanded.

You're probably right.  I bet it is a giant conspiracy to stick it to John Q. Public.

Not so much to stick it John Q. Public but to allow developers to get rich on the back of John Q. who will ultimately be the one paying for infrastructure improvements to support this new development.  But I guess that actually is "sticking it" to John Q. so, in essence, you're right.

[CityLife]

^That's my point.  Our comp plan and land development regs are a joke.  They need to be overhauled but that is difficult when you have developers in the pockets and ears of our politicians- you're never going to get those regulations changed.  Look at the backlash from Sleiman et. al against the Mobility Plan.  The Mobility Plan would have promoted adaptive use and developing closer to the core.

The single biggest problem with future land use plan maps imo, is they are not updated in real time and don't take into account supply and demand, or market conditions. It is VERY easy to get land entitled for residential development, even if there is no market demand. Which makes it easy for the market to get oversaturated, as homebuilders, contractors, and the whole development industry goes nuts the minute things start looking up.

Just have to look at SJC to see this.

Interesting points, but it really is not very easy to get land entitled for residential development in SJC and there is currently market demand there for more housing. So who should be the arbiter of when there is adequate demand for more product, whether it's residential or commercial?

And when you say that the development industry goes nuts, what that really means is that people or companies see an opportunity to invest.  Just as many people start plowing more money into the stock market when the Dow starts ticking up.  Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.  Putting NIMBYism aside as a reason for opposing development since we're looking at this rationally, is the question whether development should be permitted or what conditions should come along with it?

Its actually pretty darn easy to get land entitled in SJC. I would know first hand. If you are below the max density allowed by the Comp Plan, you're pretty much good to go. That's not to say there isn't a cost to go through the process and that there aren't concessions for open space, wetlands, etc...but they rarely, if ever deny anything there. The arbiter would be the planning boards and city/county commissions who make decisions on PUD's and Comp Plan Amendments. Not saying demand and inventory should be the sole factor in the decision making process, but it would be nice to have it on the table as something considered. For instance, just last year in SJC a small PUD was approved right next to an unfinished development that was full of foreclosed homes. That wasn't even taken into account. What are the long term consequences of that approval? Who knows, but imo, it would be worth discussion in the public hearing process.

Market demand for more housing in SJC? You mean more than is currently built? Or more than is currently entitled?

My earlier point was that the amount of cheap, easily entitled land in SJC enables an oversaturation of the real estate market locally, much like you said earlier about the commercial market.

[fieldafm]

Not saying demand and inventory should be the sole factor in the decision making process, but it would be nice to have it on the table as something considered.

I wouldn't be in favor of that at all.  Rarely do you see a citizen planning board with the type of expertise to extrapilate short and long term housing trends into some kind of rational equilibrium, nonetheless consider buyer preferances for a particular housing stock.  Government shouldn't be setting the market.

[kbhanson3]

I apologize for my previous sloppy post. I'm not adept at posting on the go just yet. Will clean it up in a bit.  Darn Newbies!

[CityLife]

Not saying demand and inventory should be the sole factor in the decision making process, but it would be nice to have it on the table as something considered.

I wouldn't be in favor of that at all.  Rarely do you see a citizen planning board with the type of expertise to extrapilate short and long term housing trends into some kind of rational equilibrium, nonetheless consider buyer preferances for a particular housing stock.  Government shouldn't be setting the market.

SJC's has a real estate appraiser as chair, a banker, a research whiz, and others that are quite capable of understanding a basic real estate market analysis. I'm speaking more of a rudimentary analysis, not a thorough, in-depth look at the market. For instance, amount of land entitlements county wide and in a 5 mile radius; amount of foreclosures county wide and in a 5 mile radius. Simply looking at those things in the same way they do a traffic study or impact on schools. Does it really make sense to approve a PUD rezoning for 200 units on Rural zoned land if there are tons of foreclosed homes and unbuilt developments nearby?

I'm not extremely passionate about this or anything, but am really just playing devil's advocate to see what others think.

[CityLife]

@kbhanson

Darn you newbie! Haha

I meant easy as in getting final approval. Rarely, if ever is anything turned down by the boards there...but you are right, the process itself is longer and staff review is more tedious than other places. That definitely puts a greater burden on the developers, but does ensure a much smoother hearing process. Other places definitely have quicker turnaround times, but not as smooth hearing processes.

Who said I distrust the political system? Perhaps you're confusing my posts with that of another posters. I trust the system. Just think that looking at inventory, foreclosures, outstanding entitlements, etc, would make the PUD process better serve the public interest by ensuring that developments in undesirable locations wouldn't be approved.

Perhaps then the buildable lots would be in locations that are more desirable than what is presently available, as you said.