DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ingeneensueva** · 12-04-2006, 08:40 AM

But how much do we actually know about the developer's ability to "complete the project within the guidelines"? If there must be document filings and approvals to get a building off the ground, then there's also a point at which the developer realizes a return on investment. The thing is, if zoning is restricting the size, shape, or use of your building, you're less likely to turn a profit, and your motivation for development is gone

You've missed the point of my criticism of the article.

In the first paragraph, he mentions building permits, years of submitting plans, and long running battles. Then he states a project can be made or broken "on any basis the bureaucrats wish." None of this has anything to do with zoning, and as a real estate attorney, he should know this.

That zoning restricts the size, shape and use of the building is a known, fixed commodity. The variables that cause delays and escalating costs that the developer cannot anticipate are the other things I mentioned.

A perfect example of this is Atlantic Yards. Ratner designed a project to comply with zoning. No one has changed the zoning on him; no bureaucrat has reinterpreted the existing rules to state he is in violation. The delays have come from the EIS, Eminent Domain, lawsuits, and his continual downsizing to appease politicians and the local community.

As far as the Dept of City Planning is concerned, Ratner's original design is in compliance with their regulations.

The only instance in NYC where zoning requires the developer to submit plans that could be subjectively rejected is in historic districts.

(Something else she talked about is diversity of uses, and its implicit benefits for city life. Once you stop dictating what kind of buildings can go where, you can gain a much more vibrant urban environment. Just another thing to think about.)

If you removed zoning, you would, in all probability, get the opposite. All Manhattan would look the same.

But how much of the squalor was because of a lack of zoning?

I never said it was. You said the city got along well before zoning; I said it didn't.

But there's another arbitrary dimension to it all: the granting of zoning variances. How often do we see certain developers get preferential treatment to build something closer to what they want, while others get turned away? It happened just recently with Trump's project in SoHo.

It wasn't a variance.

12-04-2006, 08:40 AM	#19
ingeneensueva Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 399 Senior Member	But how much do we actually know about the developer's ability to "complete the project within the guidelines"? If there must be document filings and approvals to get a building off the ground, then there's also a point at which the developer realizes a return on investment. The thing is, if zoning is restricting the size, shape, or use of your building, you're less likely to turn a profit, and your motivation for development is gone You've missed the point of my criticism of the article. In the first paragraph, he mentions building permits, years of submitting plans, and long running battles. Then he states a project can be made or broken "on any basis the bureaucrats wish." None of this has anything to do with zoning, and as a real estate attorney, he should know this. That zoning restricts the size, shape and use of the building is a known, fixed commodity. The variables that cause delays and escalating costs that the developer cannot anticipate are the other things I mentioned. A perfect example of this is Atlantic Yards. Ratner designed a project to comply with zoning. No one has changed the zoning on him; no bureaucrat has reinterpreted the existing rules to state he is in violation. The delays have come from the EIS, Eminent Domain, lawsuits, and his continual downsizing to appease politicians and the local community. As far as the Dept of City Planning is concerned, Ratner's original design is in compliance with their regulations. The only instance in NYC where zoning requires the developer to submit plans that could be subjectively rejected is in historic districts. (Something else she talked about is diversity of uses, and its implicit benefits for city life. Once you stop dictating what kind of buildings can go where, you can gain a much more vibrant urban environment. Just another thing to think about.) If you removed zoning, you would, in all probability, get the opposite. All Manhattan would look the same. But how much of the squalor was because of a lack of zoning? I never said it was. You said the city got along well before zoning; I said it didn't. But there's another arbitrary dimension to it all: the granting of zoning variances. How often do we see certain developers get preferential treatment to build something closer to what they want, while others get turned away? It happened just recently with Trump's project in SoHo. It wasn't a variance.
	Quote