I'd love to see places like #umich and other universities cultivate discussions around how to fix it. Here's one scholar I'd like to hear more from. time.com/6958382/case...

In Ann Arbor, we had a practice years ago of handing out a piece of paper to planning commissioners showing everyone's attendance for the last quarter. It helped encourage people to step up or step out. In a paid position, paying per meeting has been a good option for some munis.

Exhibit A: if you don’t like the direction, attack the process.
Exhibit B: split the opponent’s base.
Exhibit C: exploit the BS asymmetry principle (Brandolini’s Law) and flood the zone with misinformation.
Exhibit D: keep moving the goalposts.

Some folks have not read the playbook.

“Faced with such requirements, developers may choose not to build, or to build fewer projects, limiting housing supply and driving up rents.” www.upjohn.org/research-hig...

Reminded of: “building 100 new market-rate units opens up… 70 units in neighborhoods earning below the area’s median income. In the poorest neighborhoods, it opens up… 40 units. That’s far more than the…affordable units policymakers often require new developments include… [in] inclusionary zoning.”

So this is better than having left turns, but my guess is that it is still significantly more dangerous overall than a roundabout. The writer exposes the typical speed-first, traffic engineer mindset by criticizing roundabouts for their potential to get gridlocked.

Mind you, city council already made the political decision to preemptively limit single-family areas to 35' — which of course did nothing to appease the bad-faith actors behind the "Pause the Plan" movement.

Remember, kids: apartment buildings are "viruses."

youtu.be/rXyXkPtLMU4?...

The map should have been changed but wasn't. There are lots of higher-density townhouse and multifamily complexes (R3-R4) that are now proposed to be downzoned to Residential. They should be Transition. (E.g., most/all the brown areas on the left, my map, should be Transition on the right.)

“That’s far more than the five to 15 affordable units policymakers often require new developments include as a condition of approval, a practice called inclusionary zoning. Faced with such requirements, developers may choose not to build…” www.upjohn.org/research-hig...

Also excellent to build just at market rate. “Building 100 new market-rate units opens up the equivalent of 70 units in neighborhoods earning below the area’s median income. In the poorest neighborhoods, it opens up the equivalent of 40 units.”

This is great! I'm proud that our current City Council has recognized that we have so little vacant land (and historic districts that will never change) that we need to welcome new residents *everywhere* we can! All the cities that people love to visit and walk around in have evolved over time.

Nice! I note that "buildings over four stories must include affordable units." Curious if there were any discussion of subsidizing units through public funding instead of making this a developer/new resident obligation? Or estimates of how many developments will avail themselves of the premium.

Yes, hopefully staff is drafting UDC language with placeholders for heights/uses/setbacks. Unfortunately the new consultant map calls for dubious side quests: 1) creating new district lines within R1 districts and 2) prohibiting all-residential buildings in large swaths of the city.

This would require ~60% of each property's frontage to have retail and restaurants. Low-traffic uses like banks and offices that are dark at night and bad for walkability would be limited to 40% frontage. It's a "death by 1000 cuts" issue that other cities protect themselves against — we should too!