|
Post by Administrator on Dec 14, 2010 9:06:13 GMT -7
This thread is about the statement on families and neighborhoods in the Vision 2030 document. The recommended language follows. You can see the members of the Family and Neighborhood subcommittee that drafted the statement at www.provo.org/current_issues.visioning_submembers.html#family.Provo City is characterized by well-maintained neighborhoods that accommodate diversity and enrich quality of life while maintaining their own unique sense of place. Provo’s neighborhoods are well-connected and offer recreational opportunities by capitalizing on its abundant local natural amenities. Provo’s neighborhoods offer families and individuals a safe and positive environment in which to interact and prosper. Goal 1. Improve neighborhood inter-connectivity Objective 1.1. Encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment throughout Provo.
Objective 1.2. Create and maintain bike trail and sidewalk systems that connect all parts of Provo.
Goal 2. Capitalize on natural resources and neighborhood amenities.Objective 2.1. Consider gathering and social spaces (plazas, community gardens) within the context of each neighborhood.
Objective 2.2. Utilize our beautiful Provo River to foster gathering and an increased sense of community.
Objective 2.3. Improve the access and recreational uses of primary access points to the Wasatch Mountains east of Provo, such as Slate and Rock Canyons. Goal 3. Help neighborhoods in the City establish their own identity and sense of place.Objective 3.1. Create neighborhood gathering places that draw people from their homes and encourage interaction, awareness, and interdependence.
Objective 3.2. Encourage strong neighborhood organizations.
Objective 3.3. Foster a strong sense of ownership and “place” in each neighborhood.
Objective 3.4. Provide and publicize a clearinghouse for information about neighborhoods for residents. Goal 4. Give families, individuals, and businesses opportunities to participate in neighborhoods.Objective 4.1. Use social networking, the internet, and other communications tools to involve all individuals in neighborhood discussions and activities.
Objective 4.2. Foster activities that involve and support youth and students attending local schools and universities in city activities and government
Objective 4.3. Seek to minimize divisions within the community by removing perceived barriers to interaction and fostering a sense of belonging. Goal 5. Encourage owner occupancy or long-term residency by creating healthy and balanced neighborhoods for schools, businesses, religious congregations, and community organizations.Objective 5.1. Maintain low crime rates in neighborhoods.
Objective 5.2. Maintain and encourage good quality, sustainable housing and infill developments.
Objective 5.3. Increase direct landlord responsibility for over use of city resources.
Objective 5.4. Continue the support of neighborhood loan and grant programs that encourage owner occupancy or long-term residency and revitalization. Goal 6. Maintain and improve the physical appearance and beauty of neighborhoods. Objective 6.1. Plant larger, long-lived canopy trees in parks, green spaces, and recreation areas where shade will increase the enjoyment of future users.
Objective 6.2. Assure adequate enforcement of zoning regulations.
Objective 6.3. Provide and maintain attractive landscaping in medians and corridors.
Objective 6.4. Beautify and improve gateways into the city.
Objective 6.5. Seek grants and promote volunteer efforts to improve neighborhood appearance.
Objective 6.6. Use non-profit partners to assist revitalizing Provo neighborhoods as needed in focused efforts to improve curb appeal and neighborhood appearance. Goal 7. Ensure neighborhoods are well informed and educated on city related issues.Objective 7.1. Have effective communication tools in place to disseminate information to the public. Objective 7.2. Improve the emergency notification system to better inform the public and keep neighborhoods safe.
|
|
|
Post by dianebc on Feb 2, 2011 14:01:47 GMT -7
A lot of work is required to achieve "safe, desirable neighborhoods." There has to be enough money allocated for adequate numbers of police for our population. Last I heard we are a little low there. Zoning has to support owner occupancy and control the numbers of student rentals so that our few family neighborhoods don't disappear. Schools should not be shut down. Parks have to be created and maintained. Roads have to be repaired. The neighborhood chair program must be maintained and supported by city administration. And federal & state grant monies should be sought diligently so that housing rehab can occur in the older central neighborhoods.
|
|
|
Post by propertyrights on Mar 14, 2011 17:02:59 GMT -7
Much of "Provo's Vision 2030" statement is admirable. The main issue I have is with Provo's view of property rights (or the lack thereof, as it happens). Specifically, the "two-kitchen" zoning regulations (though there are many others).
Provo's “two-kitchen” zoning regulations serve no health or safety reasons. Instead, the zoning regulations take away a considerable amount of the value of the property by destroying its income-generating power, while also unnecessarily punishing owner-occupiers. Restricting the use of private property has the same effect as physically taking the private property.
if an action is wrong and tyrannical when an individual does it to their neighbor, that action is still wrong and tyrannical when a government does it to its citizens. Stated differently: Government can only do to individuals what you or I have the God-given right to do to each other. All other actions—even if they are sanctioned by man-made “laws” and seem "desirable"—are immoral and tyrannical.
If you don't like the fact that I have two kitchens in my private property, do you have the right to kidnap and detain me while taking my money away if I refuse to remove a second kitchen from my home? No, and neither does government. Life, liberty and property are God-given rights. You and I can do whatever we want unless we infringe on someone else's inalienable rights. Until then, no matter how much we may not "like" what someone is doing, we cannot constitutionally and righteously take away part or all of their rights.
When you take away someone's right to use their private property, the restriction has to be out of absolute necessity and it has to include the exercise of a private God-given right that the citizens already possess as individuals. You can't restrict use of private property merely as a result of musing, “Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could prevent homeowners from having two kitchens and unrelated occupants in their house at the same time?” Or, “Hmm, wouldn't it be neat if we could force our neighbors to act like we want them to just to satisfy a personal preference even though we and our property aren't threatened?”
At this point some may say, “But we're not taking away your private property! We're just stopping you from using it in a way that would negatively impact us as your neighbors.” Really? So if a mother worried that we might drive into and injure her children, I suppose we'd be fine if that mother disabled the gas pedal in our cars. If we can't drive, we can't run into her kids, right? And after all, it's not like she's taking away our car, she's just preventing us from using it in a certain way that she sees as threatening.
Never mind that this involves the theft of God-given property rights at the whim of Provo's citizenry. After all, how does my having two kitchens and five occupants cause a public concern, if you having one kitchen and eight occupants is supposedly acceptable? The number of kitchens in a home is irrelevant, and focusing on the number of kitchens in order to prevent overcrowding and increase property values reflects weak reasoning and illegal restraint.
We should at least be honest and admit that the purpose of these stringent zoning regulations is to keep students and other low-income riffraff from living next to us. Of course, we'd never do that because that purpose is as unconstitutional and petty and ridiculous as it sounds!
I say shame on anyone who uses the law as a “Pied Piper” to lead the low-income “rats” out of our neighborhoods to drown in the waters of increased economic hardship and adversity. And these zoning regulations do have direct effects on property owners such as widows.
1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; 2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! - Isaiah 10:1-2
Provo is as bad as the most crime-ridden ghetto in America. Why? Hypocrisy. At least in the ghettos when your neighbor robs you at gunpoint they don't pretend it's because the color of your money—green—violates the aesthetic sensibility of the majority. You know you're the victim of robbery because the robber is overly-self-absorbed (to put it nicely).
But in a clean, well-ordered city such as Provo, when your neighbors rob you of your right to have unrelated friends stay with you while at the same time having two kitchens in your own home, the reasoning is couched in noble language that makes those arguing against it seem cruel, anti-family and greedy. What do I mean?
The reasons I can't have unrelated people live with me while also having two kitchens is purportedly to achieve several goals according to Provo's City Code: increase my convenience; prevent overcrowding and street congestion; improve my property value; and ensure my economic well-being (Provo City Code, 14.01.020). Let's go down the list and see if the zoning regulations achieve their stated purposes, shall we?
First, increase my convenience: Is it more convenient for my wife to have to get a job and leave our daughter in daycare so we can pay our bills? Or is it more convenient to have a married couple paying us to live with us so my wife can stay home with our daughter? Is it more convenient to have to move to a city without such unreasonable zoning regulations so my friend with lupus can have a live-in housekeeper/nanny, or it it more convenient to be able to have a live-in housekeeper with their own kitchen for private use? The current zoning laws require the former conditions to exist. So does the zoning lead to our convenience? Not even close.
Second, prevent overcrowding: Does my family of 3 people plus a married couple in our basement (5 total individuals) contribute to overcrowding? Or does a family of 8 total individuals contribute more to overcrowding? It's okay to overcrowd as long as those overcrowding share the same blood. Yes, that makes so much sense because it has been scientifically proven that overcrowding caused by relatives is no problem... So does the zoning prevent overcrowding? Quite the opposite; it encourages overcrowding based on DNA and genealogy.
Third, prevent street congestion: Between my family and the married couple that was living in our basement, we had two total cars and were using two of our seven off-street parking spaces. I've noticed many in our neighborhood with three or more vehicles. So does the zoning that requires us to kick out our friends and their one vehicle help prevent street congestion? Not even remotely.
Fourth, improve property value: When a younger owner-occupant is considering buying one of two similar homes, they are more likely to buy the home that lets them rent their basement and supplement their income. Zoning laws that prevent homeowners with two kitchens from renting out any portion of their home—great or small—also lessen that home's appeal when it is on the market. So does the zoning that forbids us to rent out our houses increase their market value? Again, quite the opposite. There has been much said about how people renting out their basements caused Provo property values to plunge far more than other counties in Utah. I'd love to examine the evidence, if there is any, because all there is right now is conjecture, opinion and hypotheses.
Fifth, ensure my economic well-being: Provo's zoning laws required me to kick out the married couple living in my basement. This robbed my family of $700 income a month. In any economy this would be more than an inconvenience, but in our current, strained economy the loss of $700 a month is devastating. So does the zoning ensure my economic well-being? Again, the zoning has the opposite effect of what it purports to accomplish.
So the zoning laws decrease my convenience, have no effect on overcrowding or street congestion, decrease my property's value, and destroy my economic well-being. Any other legislation that failed this miserably in fulfilling its stated purpose would be repealed or amended. But let's be honest, the "no-two-kitchens-and-non-related-people-living-with-you-in-your-own-house" zoning regulations have one purpose only: sacrifice property rights to achieve things such as keeping schools open.
Sorry, but we are not endowed by our Creator with the inalienable right to a school that is conveniently located near our home.
If my mother—who cares for my brain-damaged father—lived in Provo with two kitchens in her home and wanted to hire a live-in caretaker, she would have to tell the city, and swear/sign an affidavit, and not own any other homes even if she doesn't live in those other homes (see PCC 14.34.450). What kind of city is this, and what kind of mean-spirited person would impose such unreasonable demands on my mother?
Since the zoning regulations don't achieve any of their stated purposes, what are they for? The unifying justification I hear repeatedly is the purpose of creating and preserving the nebulous concept of a neighborhood with a “family atmosphere.”
What is this “family atmosphere” then? Is it the sound of squealing girls playing night games until 9 or 10 p.m. in the evening? Or is it the family dog who wanders freely through the neighborhood, pooping in my front lawn, the same grass my 24-month-old daughter explores, often putting what she finds into her mouth? Or maybe it's the overabundance of children playing near or in the street that require me to drive under 10 m.p.h. when I'm in a hurry to get somewhere? No, it must be the fact that having only related people living in the neighborhood triggers an increased release of endorphins in all the residents and positively affects our collective brain chemistry.
I submit that invoking this concept of a “single-family atmosphere” is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people's reverence for the “family” by using it as a buzz word in order to build consensus until we amass a majority that allows us to keep the “others” from living near us through the enactment and enforcement of unconstitutional, uncharitable, intolerant zoning regulations that strip homeowners of basic property rights that God gave them upon entrance into mortality.
In short, forcefully taking away your neighbors' property rights in the name of “family” is theft of the worst sort. In my next post I submit a modest proposal to solve the problems apparently plaguing Provo City.
|
|
|
Post by propertyrights on Mar 14, 2011 17:09:24 GMT -7
And now, my own modest proposal to address the zoning regulations and "two-kitchen" rules. The problem? Apparently it's student renters. Decrease the number of student renters and you decrease the number of potential violations of zoning regulations. Simplest and most certain way to limit the number of student renters is to require all men who have fathered four children (and before they can father any more) to submit to a mandatory, city-administered sterilization via vasectomy to ensure no further offspring are created.
After all, offspring inevitably grow up and go to college and need somewhere to rent. As they say, instead of hacking at the leaves of the problem, hack at the roots. Then we could dispense with all this wasted time and money spent creating needless legislation, along with the requisite government bureaucracies to oversee and enforce it.
And since zoning officers currently have to come to your house to investigate every anonymous complaint, we could have the doctors make a good 'ole fashioned house call to administer the vasectomy. It doesn't get any simpler or more convenient. Plus, not having more than four children increases the economic well being of the family.
Anyone with children knows that from the moment they are born they are human vacuums attached to the family bank account, requiring a constant supply of expensive clothes, doctor visits, shots, shoes, food, toys, car seats, books, babysitters and much, much more. By limiting family size we not only prevent overcrowding and street congestion, we increase citizen prosperity by leaving more of our money in our bank accounts. Also, we would make certain that Provo City's growth is calculated and orderly, as it ought to be.
-Signed, a Concerned Citizen with Noble Desires
I highly doubt God endowed your or I with the right to a single-family neighborhood, or the right to limit how many kitchens we can have in our own houses! The absurdity, audacity and overbearing spirit behind these regulations has made me ask my wife several times in the past year whether we are living in Fascist Germany or Independent America.
Always remember: If you don't have the God-given right to do something to me or my property, you cannot empower government to do that same thing to me or my property. As for Life, Liberty and Property:
"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.
5 A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation. 6 God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains...” - Psalm 68:5-6
Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. - Exodus 22:25
Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. - Isaiah 1:17
Yea, ye overwhelm the fatherless, and ye dig a pit for your friend. - Job 6:27
Thou hast sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless have been broken. - Job 22:9
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. - Psalm 82:3
1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; 2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! - Isaiah 10:1-2
And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. - Zech. 7:10
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts. - Mal. 3:5
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. - James 1:27
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. 8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. 9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. 10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. - D&C 98:4-10
76 And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you— 77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; 80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. - D&C 101: 76-77, 80
Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever. - D&C 109:54
|
|
|
Post by tomof12 on Mar 15, 2011 21:35:58 GMT -7
I live south of BYU in the Joaquin area, and I am encouraged by the general agreement that this extraordinary historical neighborhood needs to be improved. I live in a wonderful home built in 1890 that I put a lot of time and money into, but I have renters next door who never cut their grass (nor dispose of yard waste, nor fix broken sprinkler heads) and a very ugly three-story rental-box-plus-asphalt across the street. Not very homey. I am glad that high-density quality housing for students is being built between 5th and 6th North, and more will soon follow along 8th North. This is good because it will reduce the demand for student rentals south of 5th (i.e. the area that the city's general plan wants to improve). Now, my big concern is that if building these high-density apartment buildings is the ONLY concrete measure to improve the neighborhood south of 5th, it will simply fail. If BYU students move out of their ugly apartment boxes and dark basements to go fill the new housing, then UVU students and other stray young people will take their place. This will change nothing; it may make things worse. With the hundreds of new apartments that will be built in the next few years (and the new on-campus housing that BYU is working on), there needs to be NEW ZONING REGULATIONS that actually guarantee improvement. If this is not done NOW (with all the new high-density student housing going up), then when will it be done? Such an obvious opportunity--a ready-made excuse, really--will not likely come again. If we want more owner-occupants and less ugly rental boxes--and I believe that is the general desire--we need to have ordinances/regulations that take the bull by the horns. I don't mind if there are transitional periods involved--landlords and such need time to adjust--but something needs to be done. The ultra-free-market, do-nothing-and-hope-for-the-best approach won't work here. I bought a home that was renovated by NeighborWorks--a great program--and I want that spirit of renovation to extend to my neighborhood. I want it to BECOME a neighborhood. I want children to actually trick-or-treat at my door. (They don't, regardless of how inviting it looks. It is just assumed that people don't really live in this part of town!)
Thanks for listening.
|
|