From: | Tony Chenhansa <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Fri, 29 Oct 1999 11:53:47 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-brownfields |
Subject: | [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries |
>From Clay Carter <Clay.Carter@cclr.org> I agree that urban affordable housing is not a policy priority, but I'm sure that you recognize that urban growth boundaries contribute to affordable housing shortages by reducing the amount of available developable property and increasing property values (SF's semi-de facto urban growth boundary - the bay - along with other factors, has contributed to one of the most expensive housing markets in the U.S.). My point is simply that, while considering measures to curb sprawl, we must recognize that tools like urban growth boundaries come with interesting and important challenges to existing urban communities. How can we anticipate the impacts upon the housing market that come from reducing the supply of developable land? There are many potential answers. Clay ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To read CPEO's archived Brownfields messages visit http://www.cpeo.org/lists/brownfields If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to cpeo-brownfields-subscribe@igc.topica.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____________________________________________________________ Got a Favorite Topic to Discuss? Start a List at Topica. http://www.topica.com/t/4 | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-BIF] "L.A. Panel Decides on Toxic School" Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] "L.A. Panel Decides on Toxic School" Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Urban Growth Boundaries |