Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

I guess I will need to start buying buildings and renovating them myself. However, I don't think one lowly wargamer has the scratch to do it all on their own in one lifetime. However, that seems to be the springboard in the original article. One couple who bought a lot of property and renovated it all themselves. Maybe that is the spark it takes.

Do you think wealthy people want to live in an apartment next to commercial? EDIT: this statement is not meant as a criticism, but a question.

Yes. it is part of what is driving the boom back to urban. That is why you see condos above retail/restaruant in many new developments.

People with disposable income are startig to value time and convenience more and don't want to drive all over the place, which is also aligning around the buy and support local movement, and bike/walkable community efforts.

So this is zoned as retail only and not light commercial?

Wait, Loud Races till 3am?
You bet I would complain, I like my sleep. I dont care if it is a weekend. I have kids, I would for sure complain.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wait, Loud Races till 3am?
You bet I would complain, I like my sleep. I dont care if it is a weekend. I have kids, I would for sure complain.

And my argument would be: don't rent the apartment there. As I said, the city's view is that the track is there legally, zoned legally, and operates legally. Any change in how they operate must be between the new apartments, and the track itself.

And I'm sure you could move out without losing your money, a lot of places worry about poor ratings online, and you could argue a false advertising premise if the apartment listing says "quiet neighborhood"

Or. Y'know, they could not do races till 3am. Which I bet is already illegal, people just never care.
And if I had to argue "False advertising" to get my deposit back, I would need a lawyer.
I dont see the problem with sububanizing. Its been proving that people that live in cities live longer, have a higher standard of living, are in better health and are more happy.

And my argument would be: don't rent the apartment there. A

Why are you supporting one property owner stealing the rights of all the other property owners around him, without just compensation? Thats absolute theft.

 Frazzled wrote:
In the South we have a term for people who act like this - "trash."

I assure you, sir, that all of these cars and other detritus scattered around our land are actually priceless treasures and lawn ornaments!

That old Cadillac with cottonwoods grown up around it is my library full of old pulp fiction. That rusty old refrigerator with holes shot in it is my smoker. That old tractor and that Diamond T with the tree growing through it go perfectly with the fireweed and rose bushes, respectively. (Plus, maybe that prospector isn't dead somewhere out in the hills and he might want his truck back one of these decades.)


Who was there first does make a difference when it comes to noise and lights. Maybe not legally, but morally. I care about as much about the laws as I do about the fine print on a EULA, which is one benefit of moving out to the middle of nowhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Or. Y'know, they could not do races till 3am. Which I bet is already illegal, people just never care.
And if I had to argue "False advertising" to get my deposit back, I would need a lawyer.
I dont see the problem with sububanizing. Its been proving that people that live in cities live longer, have a higher standard of living, are in better health and are more happy.

So we'll all live in the suburbs and be vegans and spend four days a week doing yoga? Meanwhile alcohol, cookies and anal sex will be illegal?

There are a lot of things that have certain benefits, and a lot of things that have certain risks. There are also people who enjoy doing some of the things that have risks and hate doing some of the things that have benefits. That's for each person to decide, and thankfully there's plenty of room for everyone. We don't have to hammer each person to fit into the shape we think is best.

Ok that was awesome.

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

See, this is what our town did ad it worked great. With Low Income comes problems with mobility that more wealthy people dont have. For many poorer people, grocery shopping is an hours/day long affair.
but if you put them in the center of town, where all the amenities are, including a grocery store, restaurants they can now afford because more income because they are walking eerywhere, jobs, places to play, only problem is schools.
But they also tried the High income housing and it flopped bigtime.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In the South we have a term for people who act like this - "trash."

I assure you, sir, that all of these cars and other detritus scattered around our land are actually priceless treasures and lawn ornaments!

That old Cadillac with cottonwoods grown up around it is my library full of old pulp fiction. That rusty old refrigerator with holes shot in it is my smoker. That old tractor and that Diamond T with the tree growing through it go perfectly with the fireweed and rose bushes, respectively. (Plus, maybe that prospector isn't dead somewhere out in the hills and he might want his truck back one of these decades.)


Who was there first does make a difference when it comes to noise and lights. Maybe not legally, but morally. I care about as much about the laws as I do about the fine print on a EULA, which is one benefit of moving out to the middle of nowhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Or. Y'know, they could not do races till 3am. Which I bet is already illegal, people just never care.
And if I had to argue "False advertising" to get my deposit back, I would need a lawyer.
I dont see the problem with sububanizing. Its been proving that people that live in cities live longer, have a higher standard of living, are in better health and are more happy.

So we'll all live in the suburbs and be vegans and spend four days a week doing yoga? Meanwhile alcohol, cookies and anal sex will be illegal?

There are a lot of things that have certain benefits, and a lot of things that have certain risks. There are also people who enjoy doing some of the things that have risks and hate doing some of the things that have benefits. That's for each person to decide, and thankfully there's plenty of room for everyone. We don't have to hammer each person to fit into the shape we think is best.

Ummmm, you do realize that, in most suburbs, Meat is still a thing right?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
[Ummmm, you do realize that, in most suburbs, Meat is still a thing right?

Yes. The point I was trying to make was that there are probably studies out there showing that a vegan diet leads to people living longer, healthier, happier lives. There are probably also studies showing that regular yoga sessions lead to people living longer, healthier, happier lives.

Maybe such studies would be right. Maybe whatever information you have on people living in the suburbs being happier is right. The point is that I don't care. I'm going to eat meat even if it's bad for me. I tried yoga and didn't enjoy it. I tried living in the suburbs, and I absolutely hated it.

If people like living in the suburbs, that's fine. I think it's crazy and no way to live, but people enjoy different things. I wouldn't move into the suburbs and then use the threat of overwhelming violence to force people to tear out their lawns, plant gardens and remodel their houses to all look different. I expect people who like living in the suburbs not to move into a community of people like me and then use the threat of overwhelming violence to force us to start planting lawns and paint our houses matching colors.

Sorry if I'm not being clear.

Also, sorry Easy E for dragging the discussion off-topic.

I feel if they moved there, paid the money for the house, they have every right to it and not hear races(You havent said what kind, im assuming either car races) in the wee hours of da morning.
They are as much member of the community as other people and have a right to put forth their ideas.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

See, this is what our town did ad it worked great. With Low Income comes problems with mobility that more wealthy people dont have. For many poorer people, grocery shopping is an hours/day long affair.
but if you put them in the center of town, where all the amenities are, including a grocery store, restaurants they can now afford because more income because they are walking eerywhere, jobs, places to play, only problem is schools.
But they also tried the High income housing and it flopped bigtime.

Thanks for sharing that. I hope it works great here too.

I am skeptical that it will do much to draw people/consumers/money/investment back into our downtown.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I feel if they moved there, paid the money for the house, they have every right to it and not hear races(You havent said what kind, im assuming either car races) in the wee hours of da morning.
They are as much member of the community as other people and have a right to put forth their ideas.

I wasn't the one who brought up races, I was mostly talking about people who want to turn everything into the suburbs. I did quote your entire post instead of just the bit about suburbanization, so I'm sorry if I made things confusing.

The specific scenario does make a difference. We might not be in disagreement at all. Say the drag strip intentionally built far outside town where the noise wouldn't be a problem. Then a community of people who love racing sprang up around the strip. Then someone decided to move in next to the drag strip, knowing full well that they held races late at night.

If the newcomer decided to try to convince the other members of the community that there shouldn't be late night drag races, I would wonder why they moved there, but I think that would be acceptable. If the newcomer just decided that they had more lawyers, politicians and obscure laws written by faraway jerks on their side and forced the drag strip to stop holding late night races against the will of the rest of the community, I don't think that would be acceptable. Just like I would find it unacceptable if a drag strip was built in the midst of a residential neighborhood over the objections of the people who were there first. Even if the person building the drag strip had the law on their side, I don't think it would okay.



I've been talking with some other people about possibly starting a farmer's market or maybe a co-op. Someone else started a community garden, but that mostly flopped because most everyone has plenty of space to start their own summer garden if they're so inclined. We've been reducing the size of the annual plots and planting perennials. A heated winter greenhouse might be of more benefit to the community than a community garden plot. I think I could get one built on the cheap, but it probably would violate building codes and I'd guess things on public property would have to go through all sorts of hoops for insurance reasons. It'll probably be a lot easier to just build my own and give the excess to the food bank.

 Frazzled wrote:

And my argument would be: don't rent the apartment there. A

Why are you supporting one property owner stealing the rights of all the other property owners around him, without just compensation? Thats absolute theft.

Because the apartment renters are not owners.... For one thing. On another, a friend associated with our rugby club held a number of joint club events at her house, which was literally on the same fething street as the drag strip, on a Saturday night, during "race season" and there was largely zero discernible noise from the track, and I don't think her house was any farther from the track than the apartments were. Only thing I could figure is based on the shape of the hills in the area.

As for why local PD, and local government is on the same side as the track, is probably from a safety point of view. The track isn't running NHRA events, it's been operating for some 30+ years as a "street racing" venue, which coincidentally keeps the racers off the streets. And with PD dealing with drunk soldiers on most weekends, I would say the last thing they need is to deal with racers on top of that.

 Easy E wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

I guess I will need to start buying buildings and renovating them myself. However, I don't think one lowly wargamer has the scratch to do it all on their own in one lifetime. However, that seems to be the springboard in the original article. One couple who bought a lot of property and renovated it all themselves. Maybe that is the spark it takes.

Do you think wealthy people want to live in an apartment next to commercial? EDIT: this statement is not meant as a criticism, but a question.

Yes. it is part of what is driving the boom back to urban. That is why you see condos above retail/restaruant in many new developments.

People with disposable income are startig to value time and convenience more and don't want to drive all over the place, which is also aligning around the buy and support local movement, and bike/walkable community efforts.

That's the situation here in Henley, partly because the most historic and desirable buildings are in the town centre. There are also "suburban" roads further out of the town centre, of course, and large mansions a bit farther out where it turns into countryside.

Recently there is a trend for redeveloping commercial properties into residential.

 Frazzled wrote:
So this is zoned as retail only and not light commercial?

You see retail, restaurant, office space and professional. All the parts of modern white collar living mixed together in medium density office blocks and apartments, basically. It's quite a nice idea to think that if you tweak your neck there's a physio in walking distance, that kind of thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
So we'll all live in the suburbs and be vegans and spend four days a week doing yoga? Meanwhile alcohol, cookies and anal sex will be illegal?

There are a lot of things that have certain benefits, and a lot of things that have certain risks. There are also people who enjoy doing some of the things that have risks and hate doing some of the things that have benefits. That's for each person to decide, and thankfully there's plenty of room for everyone. We don't have to hammer each person to fit into the shape we think is best.

You've missed the complexity of the issue. I mean, yeah, it's all fun to stand on a soap box and say 'I make my choice and you make your choice and that's that'... except my choices affect your choices and your choices affect my choices.

And people are choosing to move out in to rural areas and bring many of their suburban sensibilities with them. And it isn't enough to say "we were here first", because that's not how things work. Stuff changes. Local rules move to reflect the community. In many cases the by-laws don't even get changed, they just start getting enforced for the first time in a long time.

This a complex issue, because it isn't fair to someone who's lived in an area for a long time to have it change around him by people who bought in knowing what the area was like. But it also isn't fair for people to be unable to do anything about an obnoxious neighbour just because he did all those obnoxious things for years before the new person moved in. There's really no one simple answer.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And my argument would be: don't rent the apartment there. A

Why are you supporting one property owner stealing the rights of all the other property owners around him, without just compensation? Thats absolute theft.

Because the apartment renters are not owners.... For one thing. On another, a friend associated with our rugby club held a number of joint club events at her house, which was literally on the same fething street as the drag strip, on a Saturday night, during "race season" and there was largely zero discernible noise from the track, and I don't think her house was any farther from the track than the apartments were. Only thing I could figure is based on the shape of the hills in the area.

As for why local PD, and local government is on the same side as the track, is probably from a safety point of view. The track isn't running NHRA events, it's been operating for some 30+ years as a "street racing" venue, which coincidentally keeps the racers off the streets. And with PD dealing with drunk soldiers on most weekends, I would say the last thing they need is to deal with racers on top of that.

The apartment owners are leasing from property owners. Their rights are being infringed. This is a no brainer.

 Frazzled wrote:

The apartment owners are leasing from property owners. Their rights are being infringed. This is a no brainer.

City views it otherwise. The way I see it is, you knew there was a track present, noise comes with race tracks the same way that a golf ball through the window is a risk of living on a golf course.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The apartment owners are leasing from property owners. Their rights are being infringed. This is a no brainer.

City views it otherwise. The way I see it is, you knew there was a track present, noise comes with race tracks the same way that a golf ball through the window is a risk of living on a golf course.

The way you view it is not how the law has generally viewed it over the last say 8 centuries.

City views it how they want because the race track has more money. Thats why zoning is a joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The apartment owners are leasing from property owners. Their rights are being infringed. This is a no brainer.

City views it otherwise. The way I see it is, you knew there was a track present, noise comes with race tracks the same way that a golf ball through the window is a risk of living on a golf course.

Also people sue and win every day for errant golf balls.

 Frazzled wrote:

City views it how they want because the race track has more money. Thats why zoning is a joke.

Just did some google searching, and it seems that racetracks across the country operate in much the same way as the one in Clarksville, TN (the one I've been talking about). If I had to guess the "legal" reason the city hasn't done anything about it, beyond money/safety issues (as I said, if these guys weren't racing at the track Fri/Sat. nights, they'd be on the public roadways) is that they sent someone to the apartment complex with a noise meter and found the noise levels to be under the limits for the distance away from the track.

But, that's just a guess, as I don't live there anymore, and am not really going to do THAT much digging.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

City views it how they want because the race track has more money. Thats why zoning is a joke.

Just did some google searching, and it seems that racetracks across the country operate in much the same way as the one in Clarksville, TN (the one I've been talking about). If I had to guess the "legal" reason the city hasn't done anything about it, beyond money/safety issues (as I said, if these guys weren't racing at the track Fri/Sat. nights, they'd be on the public roadways) is that they sent someone to the apartment complex with a noise meter and found the noise levels to be under the limits for the distance away from the track.

But, that's just a guess, as I don't live there anymore, and am not really going to do THAT much digging.

I have no idea, as I've not seen any racetracks near anyone.

 sebster wrote:
You've missed the complexity of the issue. I mean, yeah, it's all fun to stand on a soap box and say 'I make my choice and you make your choice and that's that'... except my choices affect your choices and your choices affect my choices.

And people are choosing to move out in to rural areas and bring many of their suburban sensibilities with them. And it isn't enough to say "we were here first", because that's not how things work. Stuff changes. Local rules move to reflect the community. In many cases the by-laws don't even get changed, they just start getting enforced for the first time in a long time.

This a complex issue, because it isn't fair to someone who's lived in an area for a long time to have it change around him by people who bought in knowing what the area was like. But it also isn't fair for people to be unable to do anything about an obnoxious neighbour just because he did all those obnoxious things for years before the new person moved in. There's really no one simple answer.

You're right, I have been oversimplifying things. It is a complex issue, and what is right does depend on the individual circumstances.

It was also partly my intention to be deliberately over the top because I thought it was funny, but I probably didn't do a good job of it and the humor might not have come through. I wasn't joking about my basic points, but I was trying to make them in a halfway joking manner.

 Easy E wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

See, this is what our town did ad it worked great. With Low Income comes problems with mobility that more wealthy people dont have. For many poorer people, grocery shopping is an hours/day long affair.
but if you put them in the center of town, where all the amenities are, including a grocery store, restaurants they can now afford because more income because they are walking eerywhere, jobs, places to play, only problem is schools.
But they also tried the High income housing and it flopped bigtime.

Thanks for sharing that. I hope it works great here too.

I am skeptical that it will do much to draw people/consumers/money/investment back into our downtown.

Fair enough, a small town isnt the same as a suburb.
But I am curious, what do you mean by "Small Town" like you said. We have a "Small Town" near us, but its bigger then my other communitie. Is it a small town where there is only a sheriff? OR bigger?
Im just curious, because "Small Town" is such a weird term that applies to so much.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

See, this is what our town did ad it worked great. With Low Income comes problems with mobility that more wealthy people dont have. For many poorer people, grocery shopping is an hours/day long affair.
but if you put them in the center of town, where all the amenities are, including a grocery store, restaurants they can now afford because more income because they are walking eerywhere, jobs, places to play, only problem is schools.
But they also tried the High income housing and it flopped bigtime.

Thanks for sharing that. I hope it works great here too.

I am skeptical that it will do much to draw people/consumers/money/investment back into our downtown.

Fair enough, a small town isnt the same as a suburb.
But I am curious, what do you mean by "Small Town" like you said. We have a "Small Town" near us, but its bigger then my other communitie. Is it a small town where there is only a sheriff? OR bigger?
Im just curious, because "Small Town" is such a weird term that applies to so much.

This is a great point. Our "Small Town" isn't so small any more at 26K and the county seat of government. It is much larger than many of the communities around us.

However, the entire community is geared to think and act like a small town. My wife and I sometimes refer to it jokingly as "Pleasantville" since everyone wnats to pretend it is still the 1950s and are staunchly against changing anything. The old boys club reinfroces that thought process, however despite their best efforts time keeps slipping, slipping, slipping into the future. That is part of the town's existential crisis, it isn;t a suburb yet, but it is no longer a small town, so what is it?

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
You're right, I have been oversimplifying things. It is a complex issue, and what is right does depend on the individual circumstances.

It was also partly my intention to be deliberately over the top because I thought it was funny, but I probably didn't do a good job of it and the humor might not have come through. I wasn't joking about my basic points, but I was trying to make them in a halfway joking manner.

Sorry I missed the comedy. It's there, I just missed it because I've been on the internet so long and seen so many instances where I've assumed something was a joke and it turns out they were deadly serious

 sebster wrote:
Sorry I missed the comedy. It's there, I just missed it because I've been on the internet so long and seen so many instances where I've assumed something was a joke and it turns out they were deadly serious

Isn't it wonderful when we all come to a greater understanding of each other's positions? Now I just need to find the words to convince you that me running around in my underwear blasting my shotgun is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to be doing at 5:30 AM.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Isn't it wonderful when we all come to a greater understanding of each other's positions? Now I just need to find the words to convince you that me running around in my underwear blasting my shotgun is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to be doing at 5:30 AM.

No need to convince me, the shotgun does all talking.

 sebster wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Isn't it wonderful when we all come to a greater understanding of each other's positions? Now I just need to find the words to convince you that me running around in my underwear blasting my shotgun is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to be doing at 5:30 AM.

No need to convince me, the shotgun does all talking.

It sounds to me like he's trying to out Aussie the Aussies

 Easy E wrote:
Exactly my point! I do not understand the incentive? Many of them were not local to the community either.

I was hoping someone could shed some light on the situation.

You get to take a nice loss on unused retail space.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Isn't it wonderful when we all come to a greater understanding of each other's positions? Now I just need to find the words to convince you that me running around in my underwear blasting my shotgun is a perfectly reasonable thing for me to be doing at 5:30 AM.

No need to convince me, the shotgun does all talking.

It sounds to me like he's trying to out Aussie the Aussies

Is having a fox try to eat all your chickens a problem in Australia too? Or is it dingoes trying to eat your chooks?