Submitted by Shake-Spear4666 t3_10hq2uh in Maine
Comments
steelymouthtrout t1_j5a15lt wrote
And once all that housing is built who's to say that it's going to actually go to any locals and not get snapped up by investors who will turn it into short-term rentals again? Problem isn't lack of inventory the problem is folks hoarding real estate and Airbnb.
DidDunMegasploded t1_j5a914r wrote
I think there are numerous reasons at play. Shitty OOS investors who jack up rent prices, lack of available houses, shitty NIMBYs...
Cougardoodle t1_j5achqb wrote
Exactly!
There was an effort two years ago to drain a piece of wetlands near my place, put in housing. I was definitely willing to hear them out when I pictured an apartment building or even a mobile park... really anything, y'know, useful.
Instead the plan was summer cottages for tourists.
I didn't even have to get involved, another furious neighbor drove a stake through the heart of that bullshit.
GaryHart2024 t1_j5b78ym wrote
I doubt that ~10K apartments wouldn't rapidly lead to saturation of short-term rentals.
We do lack inventory. 10K apartments aren't on AirBnB. It strains credulity to believe as much. And hoarding real-estate doesn't seem likely if you can make money renting what you have.
Sleuthiestofsleuths t1_j5b0pne wrote
This is the answer ⬆️
RealMainer t1_j5a6xw0 wrote
Came here to say this. Building 1,000 apartments in ten years is not going to solve the problem. Even if those homes are only for low income households, not many will go to the homeless. They will be snapped up by single mothers and immigrants as quick as they are built. And I am not saying they shouldn't be, but the point is, 1,000 stretched out over 10 years is not near enough to meet demand.
[deleted] t1_j5aq3vo wrote
[deleted]
RealMainer t1_j5ayx5a wrote
Nobody said it was terrible. In fact I made a point to say, "And I am not saying they shouldn't be." But go on and keep trying to create drama.
GaryHart2024 t1_j5b7giq wrote
I believe you misread that. They said 1,000 per year, for 10 years. That's 10,000 apartments, and they're saying that's a minimum (in addition to single-family home construction).
RealMainer t1_j5c7f2m wrote
I did indeed misread that.
That's much better. Could still be better, but much better than 1000 every ten years.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5bv6og wrote
>Building 1,000 apartments in ten years is not going to solve the problem.
Let's be conservative and say each apartment hosts 60 housing units on average. That results in 60,000 apartment units. 44,000 people moved to Maine between 2010 and 2021. The average family size in Maine is 2.87 people. Assuming each family needs one unit, dividing 44,000 by 2.87 leads us to 15,331 units being used. That's around 45,000 units left.
So... yeah, building apartments would be more than enough to solve the problem lmfao. Godforbid they might attract jobs and industry to the state as well!
Also, there were only 900 immigrants to Maine in 2021. Good way to bring the race card into this.
RealMainer t1_j5c73dl wrote
> Let's be conservative and say each apartment hosts 60 housing units on average.
Are you crazy? The average apartment building in Maine has maybe six apartments at most, and the apartments Maine housing built a decade ago had two apartments each, basically duplexes.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5cr9j6 wrote
And yet no mention of your race baiting which you brought into this. Very interesting
RealMainer t1_j5ohoum wrote
> race baiting
You are the only one who brought up race. It says a lot about you that that's the first thing you thought of after reading my comment.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5p0vr9 wrote
You claimed "all new housing goes to immigrants" despite only 900 immigrants moving to Maine in 2021. Stop lindy hopping around the point and explain your race baiting.
RealMainer t1_j5pb282 wrote
You do realize that all immigrants are not of a single race right? Maybe in your head you are imagining some racist stereotype of an immigrant but that’s on you bub, not me.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5pc7i4 wrote
So, it's racist to note that most immigrants are people of color? Lmfao, what's next, is it racist to point out that you're white? Give me a break.
And where did I say they were "Of a single race?" I said you're race baiting, i.e., blaming problems white people created on nonwhite people. Which is exactly what you meant with that comment.
According to PEW research center, 68% of documented immigrants are Asian or Hispanic. If you add undocumented immigrants, that balloons to about 90% Hispanic or Asian (With around 7% being Hispanic), and only around 5% white.
Again, where are you going with this? Does 900 migrants moving to Maine each year create a housing crisis? Or does the lack of affordable/government subsidized housing cost it?
Knowing you, you'll resort back to "Fox News brown people bad keep Maine White"
RealMainer t1_j5pftan wrote
I can hear your brain overheating as you type, trying to crank out some way to justify your obvious racism. It’s funny because I believe you believe you’re not racist but you are undeniably having racist thoughts. And all in an attempt to prove someone else is racist. What a joke. Maybe think a little more next time before you automatically regurgitate some white knight bullshit on the internet. You only expose your own racism by doing so.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5z8pus wrote
Noting that most migrants are brown is racist? Lmao, especially as I’m brown this comes off as desperate. Keep crying into your LePage body pillow
RealMainer t1_j63svlr wrote
First of all you're as white as snow, so stfu. Second of all, don't come into a thread where someone is accusing another person of being racist and get mad when the person being accused defends himself. Jesus Christ cry me a river.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j64x4lp wrote
>Jesus Christ cry me a river
ironic when you're the one writing novels weeping on a week old thread
RealMainer t1_j65yv0w wrote
I don't live on reddit, it just happens to be the first time I logged in since posting.
And who started crying first? Exactly.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j66b54s wrote
I just told you I'm not reading anything you're saying lmfao, and yet you're still replying. Desperate ass LePage bootlicking mf
RealMainer t1_j68prwi wrote
I think you may be short a few brain cells. But no really, I totally believe you are not desperately pressing refresh over and over on your phone waiting for my reply lol. Also not sure why you think I like lepage when I have several anti lepage posts in my post history. But you’re not reading this after all, so no wonder you sound so ignorant. I tried to give you a free education but I should have taught you how to read first!
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j69ty9y wrote
Holy shit, you're still going on?? My guy you need to get a hobby, you're way too latched to this. Typical conservative no life moment
RealMainer t1_j69vqx0 wrote
Are you still pretending to not read my comments yet still responding? So sad.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j6aifc2 wrote
Dude youre latched as fuck. Once again, I’m not reading the manic ramblings of some freak with a LePage body pillow soaked in cum.
RealMainer t1_j63y6ds wrote
> According to PEW research center, 68% of documented immigrants are Asian or Hispanic. If you add undocumented immigrants, that balloons to about 90% Hispanic or Asian (With around 7% being Hispanic), and only around 5% white.
You can't add undocumented immigrants into your stat about documented immigrants and then expect the stat to go up to 90% dummy. That's not how stats work. If the stats on documented immigrants are 68% Hispanic/Asian as you say, then that means the other 32% is something else. After all, it's DOCUMENTED.
Adding the number of undocumented immigrants, which we don't have numbers for because they are UNDOCUMENTED does not change the stats of documented immigrants. Therefore if you say 34% of documented immigrants are Asian and 34% of immigrants are Hispanic, then the remaining 32% are white or black. It evens out quite nicely actually. You can't say the majority of immigrants are brown anymore, can you, because Asian, white and black people are not referred to as brown by anyone except the most ignorant of people.
As far as undocumented, there is no way to know the exact numbers, but it's probably very similar, or if anything more white and Asian immigrants because white and Asian immigrants can get into the country easier via visas and then just never leave, as opposed to people south of the boarder who have to take much riskier chances to get in illegally.
iceflame1211 t1_j5ylgcp wrote
he clearly said "and I am not saying they shouldn't be" after pointing out the fact that yes, a lot of affordable housing does indeed go to immigrants and single mothers.. it also goes to firemen, waiters, veterans, disabled, and elderly/retired people.
That user said absolutely nothing derogatory about immigrants despite a few closed-minded commenters like yourself trying to make it seem that way.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5yustg wrote
He’s literally blaming Maine’s housing shortages on migrants despite Maine receiving a grand total of 900 migrants per year. If you don’t think it’s racist to immediately blame minorities for problems then you’re probably a typical mindless LePage drone too. Go move to Texas or something.
iceflame1211 t1_j5ywi1d wrote
You say "he's literally blaming Maine's housing shortages on migrants". He didn't say that... at all, anywhere.
Pointing out that immigrants and single mothers can move into affordable housing is not blaming the housing shortage on migrants. You're making insane conclusions based on an incompetent interpretation of one sentence, focusing on the migrant portion of his comment more than single mothers likely because of your own personal bias.
I'm not sure why you're interpreting what he said the way you are. He's not wrong in saying migrants move into affordable housing. They do. As he pointed out, so do single mothers. As I pointed out, so do vets, elderly, etc.
You're the one that's somehow interpreting these facts as migrants being the cause of Maine's housing shortage. That's not what he's saying. That's not what I'm saying. Your interpretation of our words are woefully incorrect; you are wrong.
He's tried to respectfully explain this several times to no avail. I'm trying to clarify his words for you too, but instead of referring to anything he actually said or have intelligent debate, you're just being rude.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5z8epc wrote
Not reading your long ass explanation as to why immediately blaming brown people for this nation’s issues isn’t racism. Especially when you’re trying to justify blaming 900 new migrants a year as destroying this state’s housing market. Sorry LePage fanboy. You’ll never see another far right governor again here.
iceflame1211 t1_j5zayyx wrote
I thought your reading comprehension seriously needed work, but if you refuse to read anything from people trying to help you understand the things you very obviously don't, I guess that's a separate issue.
I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm a LePage fanboy either? I'm most certainly not, and quite glad he didn't become governor... but that has ~absolutely~ nothing to do with this topic and probably ties back into your abysmally low reading comprehension skills. Similar to how you can't point out where the other user blamed brown people for the housing crisis- You can't, because he didn't.
The user said that single mothers and migrants will move into affordable housing. This is a fact that is true in Maine; these two groups indeed do make up a portion of the tenants that move into affordable housing. If the user said veterans and elderly people, perhaps you wouldn't be accusing them of "blaming brown people" as you put it. Competent people can recognize he wasn't blaming anyone, in addition he tried to clarify this and explain several times that he was simply pointing out that affordable housing is immediately snapped up upon creation. You decided to be a douche to him, like you are to me.
I can explain it to you but I can't comprehend it for you. Clearly the words people say have no basis in your reality, so you do you buddy, I'm done.
PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j5zb80w wrote
Jesus Christ you’re still going? The fact you feel the need to write a thesis on why you’re not racist says a lot about you
Trilliam_West t1_j5a2gl0 wrote
So that's not happening.
Too many people are perfectly okay with driving by homeless people on their way to town meetings where they will deride anything that would increase housing.
Miserable_Bridge6032 t1_j5az5z1 wrote
Thats the thing, it will happen, but not for the homeless, homes and apartments will be built to attract people to stay and move because the working population is also aging out I think, most people leave maine, even if they eventually try to come back, most people cant even come back even if they want to rn because the housing is so ridiculous even in comparison to other places that seem crazy. It wont be to save the homeless but to save the economy really, imo.
[deleted] t1_j5cyzfg wrote
[deleted]
Trilliam_West t1_j5d5247 wrote
I think the homeless rate reduction will ride the coat tails of what you mentioned, assuming we produce enough new housing. If we produce enough housing, landlords will be more willing to work with the homeless (and other distressed communities) in order to fill vacant units. Right now, landlords can be very particular about tenants since they have so many interested renters.
Automatic_Virus_4279 t1_j5c1bix wrote
Also; too many people are perfectly okay with living on the streets. There’s many who find it “easier”, I’m not being rude here either. I’ve heard this directly from the source multiple times.
meowmix778 t1_j5fgybj wrote
I think it's because so many delude themselves into thinking either it's their fault oh well or they believe in this magical voluntarily homeless person who's out there having a good life.
dedoubt t1_j5a7kqc wrote
>not building enough homes and apartments only made the homeless crisis worse.
I'm sure that's part of it but from the perspective of someone who has had unstable housing for years, lived with friends/relatives/in my car/dilapidated trailers & cabins just to have shelter, the real issue is that rent prices are fucking out of control. I simply could not afford to pay rent in most places, and definitely couldn't afford to pay rent plus save money for first/last/deposit to move elsewhere. Edit- meant to say that I technically have stable housing now because I got a small inheritance after my sister died, so I was able to buy some off grid land with a decrepit trailer on it, but it's going to take a lot of work to make it livable in winters, so I'm still shuttling around to various places. (Planning to build a cabin, but that'll take time.)
One place I rented in 2018 increased rent from $600 to $900 on the shitty apartments in the building in one year, increasing every time a tenant moved out. Last I checked, those apartments were $1200+. The building didn't magically become less shitty over the course of a few years, they badly paint the place occasionally, but everything is old, paint peeling and barely functional.
Having new places built wouldn't have helped me, because new buildings generally charge even more for rent.
dirtroad207 t1_j5aa8up wrote
Building new housing doesn’t help now. It helps 15 years from now. If there was adequate construction 15 years ago rent wouldn’t be as crazy as it is today.
If we don’t build more now then the housing situation is going to go full San Francisco or Boston in ten years.
dedoubt t1_j5ak2rp wrote
>Building new housing doesn’t help now. It helps 15 years from now. If there was adequate construction 15 years ago rent wouldn’t be as crazy as it is today.
I totally get that, but in addition to building more housing, stopping the rent prices hikes would help immediately. There is no reason that the apartment I used to rent 5 years ago for $600 should be $1200+ now, except that property management places can get more profit.
dirtroad207 t1_j5arb5x wrote
Yes for sure.
redwall_hp t1_j5b4l4v wrote
And, like anything, rent prices are a function of the demand and the supply. Housing is artificially scarce and often employs protectionist policies to inflate the price so it can be used as an investment vehicle for rentiers.
That's why you have cities like San Francisco with moratoriums on apartment construction or questionable zoning laws that promote suburbanization: the goal is to drive up prices and prevent competition from pushing them down.
The demand for housing is inelastic, so the supply is the main driver of the cost, since the demand side can't drive it down by not buying.
dirtroad207 t1_j5bmrx3 wrote
Yes. I prefer a government solution that creates nice public housing. But there are two important factors when doing government housing:
-
No means testing. You need mixed income households so that it doesn’t create permanently impoverished neighborhoods. You also need buy in from the the middle class so that people want to keep the programs running.
-
It can’t be self funded. In the past housing programs in the US were set up to be self funded and had very little margin for vacancy. Basically as soon as they weren’t at max capacity they had no budget for essentials like trash removal and basic maintenance. This means that sometimes the government eats a loss. That loss is always going to be cheaper than the long term cost of caring for unhoused people.
Creating this kind of housing will flood the market with housing thereby driving down demand. It will also function as a price anchor.
This is something that requires federal funding. It won’t ever happen in the US.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5afceq wrote
If you build it, they will move north from Boston and NYC.
respaaaaaj t1_j5acnhc wrote
The best way to bring down rent prices is to build more housing
dedoubt t1_j5ajr7w wrote
>The best way to bring down rent prices is to build more housing
That will help in the future. In the present what would help is somebody stopping the ever increasing rental prices, right now.
GaryHart2024 t1_j5b7lge wrote
More units stalls increases. There's pretty decent research on this.
respaaaaaj t1_j5b6gxm wrote
The issue with that is that short term measures to bring down on existing housing costs (rent control, limiting short term rentals second homes etc) discourages construction and frequently leads to landlords going condo potential driving rent up or at least availability down while also preventing the long term cost reduction that more construction brings.
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5b72tm wrote
So while places build new housing for prices to maybe fall 10 or 20 years from now, eff the people that need relief right now?
respaaaaaj t1_j5b81la wrote
Yes government policy needs to balance short and long term interests, but the biggest issue is that attempts at short term reductions in costs of housing frequently backfire and either don't help short term and hurt long term or just straight up hurt both. This shit should have been addressed 5 to 10 years ago, but the best that can realistically be done is start on it now. (And it doesn't take 10 to 20 years for newly built housing to impact housing, nor does it take 10 to 20 years to build new housing).
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5b9yy4 wrote
Government (at any level) really doesn't do long term planning at all. In fact, I can't think of a single policy or program that is long term focused, other than maybe public lands conservation.
respaaaaaj t1_j5bawbi wrote
I guess that would depend on what you consider long term, because things like zoning, environmental protections (of any kind), fishery and wildlife management, infrastructure, tax credits aimed at promoting particular kinds of buildings products vehicles home upgrades (heat pumps extra insulation windows that retain more heat) etc are all what I'd call long term just off the top of my head.
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5bdsyh wrote
Yeah, this is true. My previous comment was certainly too lazy and lacked nuance.
respaaaaaj t1_j5be8q0 wrote
You are right that outside of emergency relief there aren't many short term actions taken by governments in regards to housing, because all of the short term options that governments have tried have risks of backfiring both short and long term.
New-Work-139 t1_j59rzzm wrote
I’ve been saying this for a while. Development is the only solution and for that you need builders. Things like (severe) rent control are not exactly encouraging that to take place.
maineac t1_j5cq96p wrote
The issue is that they have basically dismantled mental health in this state. All the places that the mentally ill were housed have been systematically shut down or reduced to where they no longer can take care of the people that need it. There are thousands that were in mental health facilities that no longer have anywhere to go and this is increasing because they are no longer helping anyone.
baxterstate t1_j59ua48 wrote
Maine will have to go to all towns near to urban areas and change the zoning to accommodate more housing, particularly multi family housing.
As an example, in North Yarmouth you should be able to build 4-5 two family homes on an acre lot. Instead, right now, you can only have one single family home on a 3 acre lot.
That is absurd. Three acres isn’t enough for a working farm anyway, so why waste acreage and prevent any attempt to address the housing and apartment shortage?
vsanna t1_j59y436 wrote
You absolutely can farm on three acres. Not all farms are huge mechanized operations. If it's good soil (which we don't have a lot of up here) then it should be protected. Though in North Yarmouth, I have a feeling it's more of a property value issue than a land management one. Personally I believe in tax hikes on second and seasonal homes (excluding camps that aren't suited for year round habitation). There is a LOT of housing that isn't being fully utilized and is just serving as investment.
baxterstate t1_j5aglik wrote
You absolutely can farm on three acres.
___________________________________________________
Well, I won't argue that point. My bet is that it'll never be used as a farm. Since we're in a rental housing crisis, I'm thinking about the number of two family homes that could be built on those 3 acres.
In MA, there are cities and towns where you can build a two family on 10000 sf or maybe less. There should be at least one zone in every city and town in Maine with similar zoning. If Mainers wanted to retain the bucolic look of Maine, they could zone the rest of the city or town the way it's always been. Just think of what would happen if every town within an hour's drive of Portland had two acres of it's land zoned for 2 family homes on 10,000 sf lot? You'd have an affordable owner occupied home AND an apartment to help that homeowner pay the mortgage.
vsanna t1_j5ahkwj wrote
Not always topographically possible, but I get where you're coming from. The main issue in rushing to develop is that developers don't consider the environmental effects of what they're doing. Hence, Brunswick's current moratorium on development.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5afl2s wrote
>If it's good soil (which we don't have a lot of up here) then it should be protected.
No farms, no food.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5aqpn7 wrote
Would you shit upstream from your camp? Time is a stream.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5at4tq wrote
Nonsensical rubbish.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5avy8y wrote
What part? It is is a very simple statement. I am just pointing out that poisoning soil is like ruining the future.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c62k8 wrote
It is a statement which appears not responsive to anything I posted.
TarantinoFan23 t1_j5cajve wrote
I was trying to just say the same thing as you but in a way that is less... Ambiguous as to the reasoning
TheDanMonster t1_j5bifrm wrote
More than that, there’s no water to farm in North Yarmouth. I come from well drilling and a lot of north Yarmouth is bone dry unless you spend north of $25k on a well. And that’s just for domestic use…
IamSauerKraut t1_j5cai2i wrote
>a lot of north Yarmouth is bone dry
You've got 2 brooks merging with the Royal River in North Yarmouth. Last time I was near Runaround Pond, it was not dry so Chandler Brook cannot be dry. Same with the river coming from New Gloucester. Not dry at Cunningham's in the Intervale.
TheDanMonster t1_j5cbv2h wrote
That’s not how artisan wells work. And drawing from running waterways for domestic and agriculture use is not legal.
Check out the states waterwell mgs database online if you want to check whether it’s comparatively “dry” or not.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5ch3vt wrote
North Yarmouth has no true artesian wells. As Mr. Ryerson told us all those years ago: a pumped well is not artesian.
Nevertheless, a working streambed and soggy areas suggest the water table is relatively high. I highly doubt North Yarmouth is "bone dry" as you claim.
TheDanMonster t1_j5cj1ph wrote
Ok. You can still look up the well database on Maine.gov if you don’t want to take a licensed professional’s opinion.
Trilliam_West t1_j5a3l06 wrote
Most people do not farm. It makes no sense for the government to force people to waste a finite resource, like land, for a potential activity they may have no desire or need to engage in.
vsanna t1_j5ah4ox wrote
Many people who would like to farm are locked out because of rising land costs and development. If we want to continue to eat, we need to work on regionalizing food supplies. This is part of the discussion around the next farm bill.
Guygan t1_j59uuqx wrote
> in North Yarmouth you should be able to build 4-5 two family homes on an acre lot. Instead, right now, you can only have one single family home on a 3 acre lot.
But this is exactly what those people want. They want a white, wealthy enclave where only millionaires can afford to live.
2SticksPureRage t1_j5d5wao wrote
I remember the thread on here about a month ago that someone posted that basically said plots should be smaller to enable more housing builds and towns and cities shouldn’t limit the amount of new construction in their jurisdiction, and like every redditor was against this.
I know it’s easy to rag on the rich but I highly doubt your average home owning r/Maine redditor is a millionaire living in some enclave in Maine, yet they share these same views. “Not my backyard”.
Candygramformrmongo t1_j5hye3v wrote
That’s absolutely false. North Yarmouth isn’t Falmouth Foreside. Most of the people concerned about growth in NY are older and/or on fixed income who want to preserve the rural nature of the town and who are concerned about taxes - of which the school budget is the big driver.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5ag35z wrote
>But this is exactly what those people want.
"those people" sounds childish.
Also, if folks work for their wealth (being a 401k millionaire isnt what you think it is), why are they not allowed to live as they wish? Or do you want them to have fewer rights than you do? Frankly, if a person lives according to what they earn thru their own hard work, then they've earned the right to live as they wish.
Guygan t1_j5ag8m6 wrote
> if a person lives according to what they earn thru their own hard work, then they've earned the right to live as they wish
Found the libertarian.
gingerbreadguy t1_j5bo0ca wrote
I don't think idiotic zoning rules are libertarian. To me the libertarian stance would be to have as few regulations as possible and see if these "401k millionaires" can compete with deep pocketed developers who could spring up multiunits, make more money off that land than a single McMansion could bring, and increase the tax base, bring in more businesses now that they have a growing market, and raising property values over time. (Okay, caring about increasing the tax base isn't very libertarian.) But I guess popular libertarianism has strayed pretty far from original principles anyway.
Btw these potential farms would be better served by not being overtaken by and competing with suburban sprawl and development. Density at an inner core would hopefully help rural areas stay truly rural. It actually cruelly takes up potential farm land to force non farmers to develop in this way.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5ak7eh wrote
I guess that's a bad thing, eh? If I take what I earn and buy what I want, that's bad because... someone wants to work at crack donald's and they don't want to walk to far to get there? I'm guessing that putting in extra hours and saving up for something better is bad, too, eh? Because "libertarian."
Under your theory, I should never have bought anything better than a yugo.
gingerbreadguy t1_j5boqzl wrote
The zoning as described that you're defending is a market manipulation so you're (unfairly by your own logic) excluding multiunit developers from competing against you. This zoning isn't a free market--it's a politically imposed regulation that favors current SFH owners at the expense of others. But it doesn't even favor those same owners in the long run. They'd have way more long term wealth if they allowed dense development. So they're just short sighted hoarder ding dongs.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c5nzn wrote
>This zoning isn't a free market--it's a politically imposed regulation that favors current SFH owners at the expense of others.
Zoning is very much a political creature, true. Not sure it was ever intended to be "free market," whatever the heck that means in this context. Its purpose is to provide different zones for different uses within a municipal entity. It neither favors nor disfavors single family homes.
Single family home zoning is intended to provide areas, i.e., zones, where single detached homes are the only type of structure (aside from a detached garage) that may be built on one specific lot. The zoning allows for the formation of residential areas in which other types of intrusive construction, ie, high-density housing, industrial or manufacturing, warehouses, transfer stations, XXX uses, etc., are not allowed. Those types of uses are allowed in other areas of the municipality (indeed, most states require a municipality to provide zones for other uses) within those specific types of zones.
Zoning of any type has long been a controversial subject. I understand why those who advocate for doing away with single family housing so, but outside of Maine rezoning away from single family homes has resulted in increased density, increased crime and increased gentrification of older and more stable neighborhoods. It all may sound great in theory, but the result is not always what the loudest advocates expect.
P-Townie t1_j5bf4k9 wrote
A 401k millionaire is literally wealthy off of other people's labor.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c8wdn wrote
>A 401k millionaire is literally wealthy off of other people's labor.
huh.
So, the contributions they make from their paychecks are actually coming from other people's paychecks?
[That is not how it works!]
P-Townie t1_j5crso3 wrote
Not the contributions, the gains are made off of the labor of others.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5cx186 wrote
Makes absolutely no sense in the real world.
P-Townie t1_j5cyldg wrote
Sounds like you're not able to defend your position.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5d7153 wrote
You put forward a position. I challenge it. Your position has no facts, no evidence, nothing backing it up. Just... blather.
P-Townie t1_j5d8u63 wrote
Stocks are ownership stakes in companies. The workers of those companies are the ones generating the profits you're benefiting from without working.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5evvxr wrote
A simpleton's view of stock ownership to be sure.
P-Townie t1_j5f3eyj wrote
Enlighten me.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5f8eog wrote
Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. I shall not do it for you.
P-Townie t1_j5gk358 wrote
That's physically impossible. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-nonsense_n_5b1ed024e4b0bbb7a0e037d4
Candygramformrmongo t1_j59w8em wrote
You don’t need to go to N Yarmouth. Imagine how many homes for the homeless you could build on Riverside golf course
Ebomb1 t1_j5aqxrw wrote
I only learned that from the house price post on the sub today. That's a fucking crazy minimum.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5afhgh wrote
>you should be able to build 4-5 two family homes on an acre lot.
Absurd. Why do you want any town in ME to turn into Brooklyn dense?
baxterstate t1_j5aiumb wrote
You don't have to zone the entire town that way, just a couple of acres in each town. The people who wait on you in restaurants, work in the big box stores, take care of your elderly, etc. can't afford to buy a single family on a big lot. Rents are also equally unaffordable.
Neither do will the kids of those who do. Most young people can't afford to buy a single family costing $328,000, (which is the median price of a 1 family in Maine). Most young people don't have the requisite 10% for a down payment or enough income to qualify for the payments.
We need to make it possible for builders to build more multifamily homes all over Maine to provide affordable first time homes for buyers and stable rents.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5aloan wrote
>We need to make it possible for builders to build more multifamily homes all over Maine to provide affordable first time homes for buyers and stable rents.
If builders are not building new housing then folks need to look at why that is the case. Hint: it is not because builders cannot turn a profit.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5atbe7 wrote
>You don't have to zone the entire town that way, just a couple of acres
That's called what, spot zoning? Prohibited. There is a reason it is called zoning.
baxterstate t1_j5bvcid wrote
That's called what, spot zoning? Prohibited. There is a reason it is called zoning.
____________________________________________________
You are mistaken. In every city and town different parts have different zoning. For example, only specific parts have commercial zoning. The zoning can be changed. Towns I lived in in MA sometimes would change the minimum allowable lot size.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c3p72 wrote
>In every city and town different parts have different zoning
I'm fairly certain that in Maine there is case law wherein “spot zoning” is the singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment under the zoning code even though the lot receiving different treatment is indistinguishable from surrounding parcels with respect to physical characteristics and potential uses.
As to MA, spot zoning is, as the link states, unlawful. If it was allowed to occur, it was only because no one challenged it. Judges rarely allow it for small, house-size properties. https://www.phillips-angley.com/blog/2021/05/spot-zoning-what-you-should-know/
IamSauerKraut t1_j5alawd wrote
>$328,000, (which is the median price of a 1 family in Maine).
The median price swings by quite a bit amongst the websites. Neighborhoodscout uses ~$200,000. Zillow nearly $400,000.
I find the use of median to be misleading. But it does point to half of the prices being below that figure. Using average, imho, would provide a better - and truer - figure.
BloobityBloobity t1_j5aoxri wrote
Median is used for housing for a reason. Mean would include $10M waterfront compounds, unreasonably skewing the numbers high, since 99.9999% of mainers aren't looking at those properties. And while those properties are "included" in median, they do not have the same effect.
baxterstate t1_j5aqmy8 wrote
I’m sure the lower prices for single family homes are in isolated, far away areas.
I’d like to see more housing built where there are jobs.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5at29f wrote
I know folks who worked at BIW who lived over by China Lake. They were resilient.
When I was in high school, my summer job was 14 miles distance but I had no way to get there except my bicycle. I did not spend my time whining about it. The next year I found a different job.
P-Townie t1_j5bfjmk wrote
Ok Boomer. Times have changed.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c8zlx wrote
>Times have changed.
Right.
Few complained as heartily as the keyboard whiners of today.
P-Townie t1_j5csk4e wrote
Houses were cheaper relative to wages.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5cxz1r wrote
I lived in a cheap house, yes.
[deleted] t1_j5bvth2 wrote
[deleted]
baxterstate t1_j5c081s wrote
Yeah! Stick all the poor people in one place!
__________________________________________________
Absolutely! Put people without cars near public transportation. What's wrong with that?
Go to Europe and you'll find that most people live in the cities, leaving a lot of land for farms.
Guygan t1_j5agi29 wrote
Because people who work here need a place to live.
Standsaboxer t1_j5gfyau wrote
The guy you are arguing with doesn’t even live in Maine. He left 30 some years ago (if he ever lived here at all) and shits all over the sub.
He makes crazy assertions and when he gets called out on his BS with evidence he acts like he can’t read.
Dude is straight up the post child of “from away.”
IamSauerKraut t1_j5akl3i wrote
Whatever happened to being resilient? If conditions change, we change. If one town does not have what can be afforded, look elsewhere. Man has long desired for a better life. And for the better things in life. This whining about how others have what you do not have is... childish. Be better.
Or get a better job.
BloobityBloobity t1_j5ap6uf wrote
Wages in Maine are also very depressed compared to most other states.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5aslrs wrote
Minimum wage in Maine is what, $13.80/hr? Hardly depressed when compared to other states - a large number of which remain at $7.25/hr. CT's, a much more expensive state, is only $14/hr.
So, you fail at the "very depressed" claim.
_freeheeler_ t1_j5awhvf wrote
Maine median home price is 330k, CT is 337k. And before you say well that's because Portland, that's where you're gonna find any decent paying jobs, CT is going to have way more anyways. The jobs where I live in West Virginia pay same/more than similar positions in Maine and you can rent for well under a grand here and buy houses for 200k in the city. Maine is expensive for what you get.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c2gf4 wrote
WVa is like the Gowanas Canal. Comparing Maine to that is ridic.
I do not doubt that housing prices in, around and south of Portland are higher than in most other parts of the state, but using median prices really says nothing. Does not even provide size of a house sold, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, acreage, town it in which properties are located, proximity to water bodies or major roads, nothing. Just a number where half the number of units sold is below that figure and and the other half higher.
_freeheeler_ t1_j5c8ql0 wrote
They're up everywhere across Maine. Also, WV is comparable to Maine considering it's a rural state, with dying industries and an aging population. But even the Infrastructure in Morgantown is better than most of the state of Maine with bike paths, fiber internet, etc.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5cbysm wrote
Apples and oranges.
Morgantown is at the intersection of 2 major interstates and has a major university located in it. Nothing in Maine like it.
Coal is everywhere in WVa, same with shale gas. Pollution is everywhere. Large farms are cheap. Some state road corridors have more hookers than laborers, and the gas workers from TX, OK and WY are more than happy to utilize their services.
Maine is way different.
BloobityBloobity t1_j5azc52 wrote
Not talking about minimum wage. I have ten years experience in my industry and my salary was 75% of where I used to live. Same with my wife, who has her master's degree. Our combined income barely netted us a house in southern Maine.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5c8o7r wrote
>Our
>
>combined
>
> income barely netted us a house in southern Maine.
Well then. According to most folks in these threads, you are doing very well. Might even be wealthy and in need of having your single family lot turned into high-density housing.
[deleted] t1_j5cuw38 wrote
[deleted]
IamSauerKraut t1_j5cxvfe wrote
Not sure why you think dumping an ad hominem is appropriate.
Trilliam_West t1_j5aq632 wrote
Oh noes, people that aren't rich and white might be able to move here.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5arpwb wrote
Since Maine is very white, what is your point?
Coffee-FlavoredSweat t1_j5bjfw6 wrote
North Yarmouth’s land use ordnance is actually insane. And the people who support it are the worst.
There’s a woman trying to build a couple of duplex houses right in the middle of what you’d consider downtown, and people are all up in arms that she tore down a dilapidated old farm house to do it.
They also had to cut down some nasty, scraggly, pine trees along the road, and someone has the audacity to lament the removal of the “iconic” pines. There was literally nothing iconic about them.
iceflame1211 t1_j5adqjs wrote
Affordable housing developments are the answer, or at least a large part of it IMHO. Maine actually passed a state credit recently to help sprun further development of these projects. They're typically beautiful new buildings or rehabbed old historical ones that are located centrally and required to be affordable for 15-30 years+. They often house dozens of families in a small footprint.
Unfortunately, often nobody wants them in their neighborhoods.
DidDunMegasploded t1_j5c9nox wrote
If we can oust NIMBYs, it would certainly help a lot. But that's like trying to oust anti-vaxxers. Impossible to do. They will always exist.
The irony is real. Sad, but real. Build more affordable housing--that is not owned by greedy dickshits who gouge the prices so it's no longer affordable, TYVM--and it would help a lot with the housing crisis.
djsteve2014 t1_j5y0m5x wrote
The answer isn’t more affordable housing. The answer is to limit short-term rentals, aka AirBnB’s before there’s nothing left for anyone to affordably rent. Yes, even those affordable housing condos are getting converted to AirBnB’s. Everything is being converted to short-term rentals. It blows my mind how folks aren’t seeing the forest for the trees on this issue.
iceflame1211 t1_j5ykjjy wrote
I wholeheartedly agree short-term rentals can be an issue, but it's a very nuanced subject. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say more affordable housing isn't the answer, though. Affordable housing is one of very few topics that politicians on both sides of the aisle generally agree is a good thing, and historically has proven to help house families in need.
Those "affordable housing condos" I assume you mean apartments, but I'm still perplexed by this statement. Affordable housing complexes are required to have a certain set-aside of units remain affordable (opposed to market rate), typically for 15 or 30 years, and often at the end of that period they're "redeveloped" and spun into the same thing again, or sold to non-profits to operate in perpetuity.
Can you tell me the names of any affordable housing projects that have been/are being converted into short term rentals? It's just something I've never witnessed or heard of.
TimothyOilypants t1_j5ajmq6 wrote
We need an aggressive land use tax for seasonal and recreational properties.
This would provide funding for social programs AND encourage those land owners to open up to the rental market.
P-Townie t1_j5bhnvr wrote
We should discourage non owner occupied landlording too.
TimothyOilypants t1_j5biuaj wrote
Business entities should be prohibited from owning residential property full stop.
For private citizens, the tax burden for secondary and tertiary residential properties should increase exponentially unless they agree to rent regulation.
AssumptionLivid6879 t1_j5b209j wrote
Similar news in the paper that Bangor needs $5M invested a year for the next 10 years to rock geezer cradles. I think Northern Lights, housing groups, APRA funds can easily make investments, but the real problem are the NIMBYs that will cry over 300 dwellings a year.
Bangor has plenty of space in its core to take out worthless parking lots, empty lots, unused dollar stores, and churches, but it’ll be hard to get that zoning allowed.
The only structures really being built are those dumbass 2-family garage attached shitshacks that sit on 3 acres of land due to lack of construction talent and zoning laws.
Freeman0032 t1_j5a8kyi wrote
This is a key part of capitalism that we all consent to when we sign up.
Dont look away.
P-Townie t1_j5bgkiw wrote
Huh? How did we consent to this?
Freeman0032 t1_j5bvkrs wrote
Becoming American citizen. Paying taxes.
P-Townie t1_j5c6flq wrote
Like all those Africans who were kidnapped and brought here? The British who were forced off their land after Enclosure?
Freeman0032 t1_j5dbefe wrote
Yeah sure.
derpmcperpenstein t1_j5bmxq6 wrote
Band aids on gunshot wounds, but at least people won't freeze to death.
This situation is just fubar
ClioEclipsed t1_j5cy8f5 wrote
Can someone explain to me why the state will spend millions on hotels, but can't just build housing?
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5a9xka wrote
Has Maine really been underbuilding housing?
I feel like for over 20 years Maine has seen very low, steady population growth of ~ 1% (which is just right - you don't want to be flat or losing population, and you don't want too high of a growth rate) and housing has generally been pretty affordable.
Of course, that's not uniform across the state. Most of Maine has been losing population while the Portland metro and some of coastal Maine has added population faster and has higher housing costs because of it.
But even the Portland metro has been fairly affordable until the past few years.
It seems to me this is more of a sign of exaggerated recent demand that a historical lack of new house construction.
Maybe I'm wrong?
MrsBeansAppleSnaps t1_j5ag8h7 wrote
You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. And why would you? Being 2,000 miles away from here...
Maine has been underbuilding for a long time. We were short thousands of units already in 2019. Now of course it's much worse in the remote work/airbnb world we live in. And no, Portland was not that affordable before Covid. While it looks like the population hasn't been growing fast, what your little analysis doesn't include is that's because many people, particularly smart young people, simply leave the state for better opportunities. If there were jobs and reasonably priced homes here, they might stay. Not to mention people delaying having children because of the cost of living, which keeps the population low.
Even now, with a tremendous amount of demand for housing, there is very little construction taking place. If you were actually from here you could drive around and see for yourself. Portland is building some units; great. But pretty much every other town kills every project in sight for no reason at all. Let me know if you want me to send you the articles, there are dozens.
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5azz34 wrote
Maybe I don't. That's why I asked.
But historic housing prices and population growth rates would suggest otherwise, even in Portland, up until around 2019-ish.
Unlike where I'm from (Boise) which has had one of the highest growth rates over the past 20 years, even more so over the past 5, and the surge in prices reflect that. And even so we weren't dramatically under built until maybe around 2019. Certainly wasn't in most of the rest of that, which had a more flat (or declining) population and low housing prices (sub $200k) until 2020, and now most stuff is above $300k.
There's something else going on. There's no way Rupert Idaho has ubderbuilt homes over the past 20 years when people were literally leavong, population was declining, and house prices were cheap (but not now).
And I recognize you from some of the planning forums... and you're a complete ideologue about this stuff.
AssumptionLivid6879 t1_j5b2jhy wrote
How do armchair urban planners end up on these kind of threads?
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5b63f4 wrote
Well, except I'm actually an urban planner (for over 20 years) and I actually mod the urban planning forum, but nevermind all that, right....?
I'm curious. It's why I asked the question. I don't presume to know much about Maine.
AssumptionLivid6879 t1_j5b72o6 wrote
Then what happened to Boise LOL
SabbathBoiseSabbath t1_j5b9r7s wrote
Probably something similar to Maine...
In a very short time a whole bunch of people moved into Boise from wealthier states and drove the median price from about $240k to over $560k... that's in just under 3 years.
Meanwhile our minimum wage is still $7.25/hr and wages simply haven't kept pace.
We still do build a lot, more and more year over year, but we've just hit a limit on how much we can pump out. Partially because of the number of construction workers we have in the area, plus Covid-related shut downs, supply chain issues, developers not wanting to over leverage or carry risk, how long it took to restart construction coming out of the 2008 Recession, etc. A while bunch of reasons.
So we're behind and getting more behind, but it isn't a zoning or "NIMBY" issue either. We've capped out how much we are able to build. And over the past 6 months developers are pushing pause on projects.
It's not just a sprawl or density thing either. We're doing both. We have an entire downtown area (west downtown) which is mostly empty parking lots, that is already zoned for multiuse, multifamily, no height limit, high density development. Developers aren't bringing those projects (lots of reasons why).
So yeah, it's complicated. Far beyond what a single planner can do. But it's always fun when the actual armchair planners (like you) tell me what's what... especially when they're usually in their mid 20s and have just started watching Strongtowns or Notjustbikes over the last year or two and are now experts on everything. It makes for a good laugh.
Odd_Understanding t1_j5aj408 wrote
It's definitely not as straightforward as simply not building enough houses. That quote from the article is dumb, they may as well say "failure of the past to predict increased demand on housing in the future has caused a shortage of housing in the present". A pointless observation...
Not to say there doesn't seem to be an issue brewing. Maine (and much of the US) has been pushing unsustainable growth since the late 40s, and the downsides of that is becoming more apparent.
Development in Maine has trended towards sprawl. A few relatively dense population centers surrounded by networks of suburban sprawl. Portland, Brunswick/Bath, Lewiston/Auburn, Augusta, Bangor...
In addition to increased demand from people moving to Maine from out of state, demographic shifts within the state are placing pressure on the denser parts of Maine. People who 30 years ago built 30+ minutes out of town using gov loan programs and cheaper land, are now realizing they can't afford the upkeep and distance from services as they age. So they sell or refi and buy something in the dense part of town. Problem is even younger folk on Maine wages can't afford to live 30+ minutes from town with rising prices, not to mention deferred maintenance on the homes.
IamSauerKraut t1_j5ag66o wrote
Not wrong.
Automatic_Virus_4279 t1_j5c1kwq wrote
"We need everything. Clothing, shelter, food," Landry said. And they should start with a job and a behavior contract.
baxterstate t1_j5en165 wrote
Governor Mills should ask the town leaders of every town to select 2-5 acres where two family homes can be built on 10,000 sf lots.
By Massachusetts standards, that’s a generous lot size. Many 2 family homes in MA are built on 5000 sf lots.
A two family home is more affordable due to the rental income. New two family homes won’t have the lead paint and asbestos issues of existing two family homes and they’ll be tighter, more energy efficient.
The sudden increase in the number of apartments will ease the current housing crisis and will give young Mainers an incentive to stay in Maine. Those homeless who are not afflicted with mental illnesses or substance abuse will find it easier to find affordable housing.
The increase in affordable homes will broaden and increase tax revenues so that Maine can take care of those homeless who are unable to care for themselves.
The increase In affordable housing will also encourage businesses to relocate in Maine.
HoboDeter t1_j5gjxbu wrote
If you're looking to build affordable housing why not go with high density housing instead of small homes?
Shake-Spear4666 OP t1_j59qvcd wrote
Quote from the article:
MaineHousing says a decade of not building enough homes and apartments only made the homeless crisis worse.
"And that's how we're going to get out of this long-term, is to just keep building more," Brennan said.
He says we'll need at least 1,000 apartments built each year over the next 10 years, and hundreds of new homes, to meet the housing need in Maine.”