Current Events > Damn. AZ governor vetoed a bill that would have limited zoning powers

(+) Yeah! (+)

emblem-man posted...

What about it is a rush job exactly?

Allowing the state to remove red tape for zoning laws is bad. You cannot just build wherever and throw your hands up in the air in an attempt to solve the housing issue.

Giving these developers a free pass to build whatever, whenever, isn't good for people who already live there full time. Hell I only live there part time and still think it's poorly thought out. This isn't just a NIMBY thing, it doesn't just affect retirees twiddling their thumbs in Sun City.

It removes minimum lot sizes. That is not allowing builders to just build whatever. The text of the bill is in the opening post. Please stop exaggerating about what this bill does based on misinformation.

electricbugs2 posted...

This isn't just a NIMBY thing

That's cap

This is literally just NIMBY shit

FYI, this bill is championed by a far-right Trumper and a Phoenix progressive. The moderates on both sides are against it.

radical_rhino posted...

FYI, this bill is championed by a far-right Trumper and a Phoenix progressive. The moderates on both sides are against it.

And?

Gwynevere posted...

That's cap

This is literally just NIMBY shit

Ok, look at this way.

What in this bill is exactly making it affordable? And what in this bill makes it so first time owners are going to be the ones making these purchases?

Making a bunch of housing is great, but nothing in this bill makes something magically more affordable.

What this does is make it so developments can bypass all the red tape and cash in.

All this does is make more houses for the supply part, and no guarentee that the people who need this housing, are going to get this housing.

Sorozone posted...

What in this bill is exactly making it affordable

By having the option to have smaller homes, you open up a range of housing that someone can buy at a lower price point.
Sorozone posted...

And what in this bill makes it so first time owners are going to be the ones making these purchases?

Most homes are purchased by people rather than corporations. Any new housing, cheap or expensive, is going to primarily be purchased by individuals.

Sorozone posted...

Making a bunch of housing is great, but nothing in this bill makes something magically more affordable.

Making more homes makes homes more affordable

Sorozone posted...

What this does is make it so developments can bypass all the red tape and cash in.

Which red tape are they bypassing?

Don't forget, it's a myth that corporations are buying all the homes

https://twitter.com/EconChrisClarke/status/1767695556132925631?t=rxKkP-EqFLtH4u3bsW12WA&s=19

Bump for the night

Really disappointing how progressive terms end up being used to excuse exclusionary policies and actions.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/e66bdfb3.png

This board is full of fake leftists who are just here to virtue signal. They want affordable housing, but disagree with the things needed to get there.

Even if this bill isn't perfect, it was definitely a step in the right direction. The people on this board are only arguing with you because the governor is a Democrat. They feel a strong urge to support her because of the letter D.

I'd prefer it if they had to give a reason for a veto. So I'd like to see why she did. As with the stuff Newsom vetoed, once you read why, you understand.

Ooooooranges posted...

This board is full of fake leftists who are just here to virtue signal. They want affordable housing, but disagree with the things needed to get there.

Even if this bill isn't perfect, it was definitely a step in the right direction. The people on this board are only arguing with you because the governor is a Democrat. They feel a strong urge to support her because of the letter D.

Right wingers have refused to address the homeless issue since their party formed. So people like you should sit down.

ClayGuida posted...

I'd prefer it if they had to give a reason for a veto. So I'd like to see why she did. As with the stuff Newsom vetoed, once you read why, you understand.

It's there, but it's all regular NIMBY word salad. The DoD reason is just that they said to watch out for dense housing underneath flight paths or something, which doesn't even make sense as this is for single family homes.

The rest is just that municipalities lobbied to want to keep their exclusionary power
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/ce908e23.jpg

This will be my last post regarding this.

First off, saying this is bipartisan is slightly misleading. Sure by definition it was, but the house in AZ is majority R's, and this bill had a few D's jump over, but the majority of the D's opposed it. The biggest red flag, is that AZ developments showed no sign at all of opposing this bill. Why? Because it would be an instant money maker with almost no set backs for them.

This bill would affect the following cities; Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Scottsdale, Peoria, Tempe, Surprise, San Tan Valley, Goodyear, Yuma, Buckeye, Avondale, and Flagstaff.

You can mostly lump in the PHX metro, though there are some varying differences it's mostly the same in geography and infrastructure, however Tucson, Yuma and Flagstaff are all wildly different from Phoenix in both geography and infrastructure. That's 16 cities all with different regulations, restrictions, and codes.

This bill basically says "Fuck your city, build some super denser houses and who cares about your geography and infrastructural needs" Want to live within 5 feet of your neighbor, the interstate? The airport? The military installation? The railroad? Go right ahead. Water? Who cares?

Your neighbors own an acre of land? half acre? quarter acre of property? The can sell it to a developer and have them build dense housing.

So let's get into the meat of the problem:

emblem-man posted...

By having the option to have smaller homes, you open up a range of housing that someone can buy at a lower price point.

There is no incentive for developers to make the smaller houses, with a lower price point. Nothing in this bill does this, it just like you said, provides the option to do so.

emblem-man posted...

Most homes are purchased by people rather than corporations. Any new housing, cheap or expensive, is going to primarily be purchased by individuals.

That's fine and dandy, but once again, nothing in this bill incentives this.

emblem-man posted...

Making more homes makes homes more affordable

Sure, but did you know AZ, already in a major housing crisis, is also one of the fastest growing states and economies in the USA? The point where the houses start becoming more affordable is when the demand is starting to be met. The rate of growth in addition to the already looming problem of the not enough houses would still take years to make the market rate go down. Once again, I'll reiterate, nothing in this bill incentives affordability other than allowing developments to bypass 16 city local codes and regulations to build more houses, but nothing in this bill states they need to actually make them affordable.

emblem-man posted...

Which red tape are they bypassing?

I dunno, the 16 cities they would be then allowed to build in, ignoring all codes, regulations, infrastructure with no say by the residents who have lived in said cities.

Let's say they meet the demand. What then? Developers are just going to continue to build cheap houses, and with cheaper materials resulting in poor quality builds and housing. What's going to happen? The Cities and state can't stop them, it's law.

This was a short sighted bill, aimed to put a band-aid on gaping wound. The band-aid will help, but eventually it will fester and turn into rot. It's pure government overreach with absolutely no foresight.

Arizona can regroup and reintroduce a more intricate bill. Maybe start with one city? See if this idea works out. Maybe revoke SB1350, which Ducey signed in 16' which stripped local municipalities of their abilities to manage short-term rentals, which is also a huge component of the housing shortage.

But in reality, as mentioned, this was mostly Republican lead, which is why it's bare-bones and vague with no actual incentive for developments to build actual affordable house, but just to let them build willy-nilly. A more comprehensive bill that actually would help wouldn't pass at this point in time because R's wouldn't hop in.

We need housing, I 100% get that. This bill isn't it though. It was the right move to veto.

Sorozone posted...

There is no incentive for developers to make the smaller houses, with a lower price point. Nothing in this bill does this, it just like you said, provides the option to do so.

The incentive is being able to make money by building more houses on less space, still making a profit, but selling at a cheaper price to those who can now afford it.
You can't force developers to build something. Even if the govt was to say they want to build housing themselves through public money, they'd still have to contract out the work to developers!! And it would be good for us to have the govt build the housing for a cheaper price.

Sorozone posted...

Sure, but did you know AZ, already in a major housing crisis, is also one of the fastest growing states and economies in the USA? The point where the houses start becoming more affordable is when the demand is starting to be met. The rate of growth in addition to the already looming problem of the not enough houses would still take years to make the market rate go down. Once again, I'll reiterate, nothing in this bill incentives affordability other than allowing developments to bypass 16 city local codes and regulations to build more houses, but nothing in this bill states they need to actually make them affordable.

What is this word salad. We should be making the homes now while it's growing!

Sorozone posted...

I dunno, the 16 cities they would be then allowed to build in, ignoring all codes, regulations, infrastructure with no say by the residents who have lived in said cities.

The bill specifically says no public and health guidelines can be bypassed. Stop fucking lying about what the bill says.

Sorozone posted...

Arizona can regroup and reintroduce a more intricate bill. Maybe start with one city? See if this idea works out.

We know more housing means cheaper prices. We know that reducing size requirements leads to developers building more of those houses for less. We don't need to waste time doing studies.

Sorozone posted...

The biggest red flag, is that AZ developments showed no sign at all of opposing this bill. Why? Because it would be an instant money maker with almost no set backs for them.

It is possible for both a private developer AND the public to benefit from something.

Sorozone posted...

This bill basically says "Fuck your city, build some super denser houses and who cares about your geography and infrastructural needs" Want to live within 5 feet of your neighbor, the interstate? The airport? The military installation? The railroad? Go right ahead. Water? Who cares?

Your neighbors own an acre of land? half acre? quarter acre of property? The can sell it to a developer and have them build dense housing.

Yes!! That's exactly what I want.
.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/16bf78de.png

city and local zoning boards have failed the State and its citizens in not allowing housing to be built. The State is deciding that they have a vested interest in putting their thumb on the scale to improve the housing conditions.

And again, this bill is to reduce the minimum home and lot size. The cities still have vast amounts of power in dictating their aesthetic wants (even to the detriment of reducing housing supply and creating more homeless).

Stop lying about this bill!!

emblem-man posted...

Why is that a fear. If people are fine buying those houses let them. If people want homes that are further away from each other, they can pay more for those houses. The point is, let people choose.

The root cause is housing supply and bills to remove minimum lot sizes will help fix that issue. We have a housing affordability crisis and we should treat it as one. That means doing hard things in order to fix the issue. We can't keep saying it's a crisis and then be too worried to remove minimum lot sizes for single family home. It's insane..

The problem isn't lot sizes. The problem is you're not allowed to build homes at all in most zones. A zone that contains single family houses can basically only contain single family houses. That scene from the end of Batteries Not Included is a legal impossibility.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The problem isn't lot sizes. The problem is you're not allowed to build homes at all in most zones. A zone that contains single family houses can basically only contain single family houses. That scene from the end of Batteries Not Included is a legal impossibility.

We need denser houses and need to upzone. If the state can't pass a law to reduce home sizes, I have doubts it can pass actual "drastic" laws such as upzoning. I'd love to upzone all the areas. You'd still have people like Sorozone complaining that it's wrong though.l by outright lying

emblem-man posted...

Stop lying about this bill!!

I'm not, but I did lie as I want to post one more time.

emblem-man posted...

The incentive is being able to make money by building more houses on less space, still making a profit, but selling at a cheaper price to those who can now afford it.

I don't know why you don't understand this. Developments have no incentive to do this though. They are going to maximize profits, the demand for houses is huge. We all know this. Why make dense housing on smaller lots, when the profit margins are going to be bigger on bigger housing. This bill allows them to build, but there is no incentive to actually build smaller housing.

It's nice to think they they are going to be such altruistic about housing needs. Though, keep living that dream I guess.

Sorozone posted...

I don't know why you don't understand this. Developments have no incentive to do this though. They are going to maximize profits, the demand for houses is huge. We all know this. Why make dense housing on smaller lots, when the profit margins are going to be bigger on bigger housing. This bill allows them to build, but there is no incentive to actually build smaller housing.

It's nice to think they they are going to be such altruistic about housing needs. Though, keep living that dream I guess.

There is a demand for housing period. If they can build denser housing on land that wouldn't have made financial sense before, due to scaling, then they'll also do it. Having a new type of housing allows them to utilize land in newer ways and produce even more economies of scale.
I absolutely do not think they'll do this from altruistic feelings. They'll do it because they can make money from doing it while also selling the house at a lower price. That's their incentive.

But whatever, we're at an impasse and this conversation is useless