Better development is a matter of preference. Some prefer an apartment in a city.
Others prefer a detached home o n half an acre in a small town with low crime, good schools, honest government, where most people know and count on their neighbors.
I've lived in cities: Oakland, California when it was still , to some extent, "the Athens of the Pacific. I've lived in Modesto, Burbank, Glendale and Covina. I've lived inn an apartment inNYC - weat 13th; west 111th near Broadway/ I lived in Madison NJ - one murder (crime of passion) in 30 years. I've lived in Virginia west ofDC. I've even lived in Tokyo and on a hill overlooking Buckner Bay in Okinawa IMO, we should let people live where they choose.
Erik, I've also lived in cities (Detroit; Chicago, south, north and west sides), suburbs (Naperville, IL; Joliet, IL; Palos Hills, IL), and midsize Midwestern cities (Muncie, IN; Bloomington, IN; Peoria, IL). I understand the differences in preference. But I think there's a mismatch between expressed preferences and the actual availability of them. I wouldn't use this proposed program to be presumptive and prescriptive. I'd use it as a way to introduce more choice into suburban environments, incentivized the same way that earlier efforts around canal construction, railroads, and interstate highways got development done - via transportation.
Pete, thanks for your thoughtful reply. What is your assessment of the effect ofreturning to the old law on sale of a home that allowed the gain to be "rolled over," to the extent that the new property price was equal to or greater than the sale price of the existing home?
You are no dunce, you are just young. The "rollover tax" provision (technically a tax deferral) was available for home sellers primarily before May 7, 1997. It allowed taxpayers to defer paying capital gains taxes on the sale of a principal residence if they purchased a new, more expensive home within two years. This rule was designed to encourage homeowners to move without being penalized by taxes on inflationary gains.
No worries. It's just that I remember the days when rent was affordable, and homes, insurance and property taxes were affordable. In 1958, three of us signed a one year lease on a brand new two bedroom, LR, Kit apartment one block from campus in Berkeley, California for $1,656 for 12 months. I bought our first home in New Jersey in 1967 for $31,500 - according to Zillow, it would cost me around $ 1 million today. . . . and the taxes would e much, much higher, inflation adjusted.
I lived in a suburban-sprawl neighborhood off one of these stroads (former State Road 334 in Zionsville, Indiana) for several years. The corridor had the ingredients for walkability on paper — mixed uses, density, destinations — but the former highway's design made it hostile to pedestrians. Crossing a four-lane divided highway to get to the pharmacy meant dealing with right-turn-only lanes where drivers weren't looking for foot traffic.
You're right that a federal investment in stroad redesign — better crosswalks, safer signal timing, pedestrian-friendly streetscape — would help. But the adjacent developments would still be car dependent, as their design made pedestrian access an afterthought. Sidewalks weren't continuous. Parking lots cut across natural walking routes. These are developer and zoning decisions, not road design decisions.
Maybe what you're helping me see is that federal infrastructure investment creates the opportunity for better development, but it doesn't guarantee it will happen without local buy-in on how development actually gets designed.
If you read through again you'll note that I don't limit this program to stroad redesign. I would envision it as something akin to a blend of the kind of urban renewal that took place under the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1968, and the public works of the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. There are commercial, industrial, even residential frontages on many stroads that are underutilized and ready for improvement. This would be one way to create new streets and new development that are more coordinated, safe, and human-scaled.
Better development is a matter of preference. Some prefer an apartment in a city.
Others prefer a detached home o n half an acre in a small town with low crime, good schools, honest government, where most people know and count on their neighbors.
I've lived in cities: Oakland, California when it was still , to some extent, "the Athens of the Pacific. I've lived in Modesto, Burbank, Glendale and Covina. I've lived inn an apartment inNYC - weat 13th; west 111th near Broadway/ I lived in Madison NJ - one murder (crime of passion) in 30 years. I've lived in Virginia west ofDC. I've even lived in Tokyo and on a hill overlooking Buckner Bay in Okinawa IMO, we should let people live where they choose.
Erik, I've also lived in cities (Detroit; Chicago, south, north and west sides), suburbs (Naperville, IL; Joliet, IL; Palos Hills, IL), and midsize Midwestern cities (Muncie, IN; Bloomington, IN; Peoria, IL). I understand the differences in preference. But I think there's a mismatch between expressed preferences and the actual availability of them. I wouldn't use this proposed program to be presumptive and prescriptive. I'd use it as a way to introduce more choice into suburban environments, incentivized the same way that earlier efforts around canal construction, railroads, and interstate highways got development done - via transportation.
Pete, thanks for your thoughtful reply. What is your assessment of the effect ofreturning to the old law on sale of a home that allowed the gain to be "rolled over," to the extent that the new property price was equal to or greater than the sale price of the existing home?
Maybe I'm a dunce, but I'm not familiar with this.
You are no dunce, you are just young. The "rollover tax" provision (technically a tax deferral) was available for home sellers primarily before May 7, 1997. It allowed taxpayers to defer paying capital gains taxes on the sale of a principal residence if they purchased a new, more expensive home within two years. This rule was designed to encourage homeowners to move without being penalized by taxes on inflationary gains.
Thank you kindly for calling me young, but I can assure that's not the case. We can settle on "uninformed". ;)
No worries. It's just that I remember the days when rent was affordable, and homes, insurance and property taxes were affordable. In 1958, three of us signed a one year lease on a brand new two bedroom, LR, Kit apartment one block from campus in Berkeley, California for $1,656 for 12 months. I bought our first home in New Jersey in 1967 for $31,500 - according to Zillow, it would cost me around $ 1 million today. . . . and the taxes would e much, much higher, inflation adjusted.
I lived in a suburban-sprawl neighborhood off one of these stroads (former State Road 334 in Zionsville, Indiana) for several years. The corridor had the ingredients for walkability on paper — mixed uses, density, destinations — but the former highway's design made it hostile to pedestrians. Crossing a four-lane divided highway to get to the pharmacy meant dealing with right-turn-only lanes where drivers weren't looking for foot traffic.
You're right that a federal investment in stroad redesign — better crosswalks, safer signal timing, pedestrian-friendly streetscape — would help. But the adjacent developments would still be car dependent, as their design made pedestrian access an afterthought. Sidewalks weren't continuous. Parking lots cut across natural walking routes. These are developer and zoning decisions, not road design decisions.
Maybe what you're helping me see is that federal infrastructure investment creates the opportunity for better development, but it doesn't guarantee it will happen without local buy-in on how development actually gets designed.
If you read through again you'll note that I don't limit this program to stroad redesign. I would envision it as something akin to a blend of the kind of urban renewal that took place under the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1968, and the public works of the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. There are commercial, industrial, even residential frontages on many stroads that are underutilized and ready for improvement. This would be one way to create new streets and new development that are more coordinated, safe, and human-scaled.
That's what I get for scanning the text instead of doing a deep read; sorry about that. So much interesting stuff to read, never enough time.