Minneapolis 2040, and the blowback ("There goes the neighborhood!")

[roomtempmayo]

When a property would be redeveloped anyway, maybe the developer puts in two or three moderate-sized homes rather than one huge one.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the 2040 plan provides for lot splitting.  Most of our lots aren't that big to start with.  For example, mine is only 50x130, which is maybe slightly smaller than average, but not a whole lot.  A lot of Minneapolis was platted as a town of small bungalows, which doesn't leave enough room for a typical lot to be split.

I think you're generally right that what we'll see are basement conversions and a few ADUs.

The fear that developers are going to come into neighborhoods of $1m+ homes and start knocking houses down to build duplexes and triplexes is of course fearmongering nonsense.  There's way more money to be made putting up a chipboard and plastic (but it's got marble counters!) SFH that'll sell for $1.2m than a triplex that would optimistically rent for $5000/mo gross.

[seattlecyclone]

When a property would be redeveloped anyway, maybe the developer puts in two or three moderate-sized homes rather than one huge one.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the 2040 plan provides for lot splitting.  Most of our lots aren't that big to start with.  For example, mine is only 50x130, which is maybe slightly smaller than average, but not a whole lot.  A lot of Minneapolis was platted as a town of small bungalows, which doesn't leave enough room for a typical lot to be split.

Not sure where you got "lot splitting" out of that sentence. I was thinking more of a duplex or triplex: two or three homes in one building on one lot.

[roomtempmayo]

When a property would be redeveloped anyway, maybe the developer puts in two or three moderate-sized homes rather than one huge one.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the 2040 plan provides for lot splitting.  Most of our lots aren't that big to start with.  For example, mine is only 50x130, which is maybe slightly smaller than average, but not a whole lot.  A lot of Minneapolis was platted as a town of small bungalows, which doesn't leave enough room for a typical lot to be split.

Not sure where you got "lot splitting" out of that sentence. I was thinking more of a duplex or triplex: two or three homes in one building on one lot.

Ah, I guess I incorrectly translated "homes" to "houses."

[seattlecyclone]

But back on the topic of lot splitting...

I present this example from my neighborhood: a two-bedroom detached single-family home on a 30' x 40' (1,200 square foot) lot. It's a small house, with a tiny yard to the side, and yet it really doesn't look too out of place in a neighborhood where most lots are in the 4,000-6,000 square foot range. From the looks of things, it was split off from a larger 30' x 120' corner lot (the neighboring house on the corner is on a 30' x 80' lot, and the two adjacent houses are on 30' x 120' lots).

So much about this doesn't conform with the current single-family zoning codes. The current code generally requires 5,000 square feet for a minimum lot size if you're splitting lots. It requires you to leave 20' clear between the sidewalk and the house, which this one clearly doesn't do, and 20' behind as well. This house was built when you could basically do what you wanted with your land, and so it's grandfathered in.

Compared to nearby houses of similar size on larger lots, this one sold for $100k-200k less. Is giving up a yard worth that much money? Some might say yes, and some might say no. Unfortunately we don't allow people to make that choice for themselves anymore in much of the city's land area. The minimum lot size means you usually have to pay that extra $100-200k for a yard in that neighborhood, even if you don't really value a yard that much, unless you find the rare grandfathered exception like the house I linked above. The areas where denser housing is allowed are gerrymandered into such a small area that the land values in those areas are artificially inflated as a result. Turns out there are quite a few people who will pay more to not have a large yard, and they are in fact forced to do so because we have so limited the amount of space in our city where large yards are optional.

The tide is somewhat turning here. The new ADU regulations make creation of a backyard cottage easier. While you still can't officially split the lot in this situation, several people are experimenting with condominium agreements on these lots, which have the effect of splitting ownership of the property even if it is still technically one property.

[Hash Brown]

I present this example from my neighborhood: a two-bedroom detached single-family home on a 30' x 40' (1,200 square foot) lot. It's a small house

That price is crazy for such a small and unremarkable house. That's like a $90,000 $50,000 house in Ohio.  Example: https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1630350/6412-Elmwood-Ave-Elmwood-Place-OH-45216

 

[seattlecyclone]

Yes, yes it is crazy. This is what happens when your city's economy is booming and yet you zone the majority of your city's land area exclusively for detached houses on relatively large lots. These areas have been largely built out, so the number of houses is not increasing, and yet the number of people who would like to live in them is going up and up every year. The price goes up with how high on the income ladder you need to be at in order to make a strong bid on the limited inventory. It's really quite predictable, preventable, and sad. The San Francisco area is a particularly egregious example of this phenomenon, but Seattle has also seen an unhealthy amount of housing price inflation.

[Hash Brown]

Yes, yes it is crazy. This is what happens when your city's economy is booming and yet you zone the majority of your city's land area exclusively for detached houses on relatively large lots. These areas have been largely built out, so the number of houses is not increasing, and yet the number of people who would like to live in them is going up and up every year. The price goes up with how high on the income ladder you need to be at in order to make a strong bid on the limited inventory. It's really quite predictable, preventable, and sad. The San Francisco area is a particularly egregious example of this phenomenon, but Seattle has also seen an unhealthy amount of housing price inflation.

I still content that triplexes (or four-plexes) aren't really an answer because it's unlikely that an institutional investor or investors will descend upon Minneapolis, Seattle, or anwhere else with the aim of building 100+ small multifamilies.  It's difficult for anyone to sell a portfolio of small multifamilies, so there is little incentive to build them in large numbers.  Meanwhile it's tough for mom & pop landlords to get the financing to build one or two of them, then there are plenty of opportunities to get ripped off by contractors. 

I agree that ADU's and finished basement apartments can help but they all still cost upwards of $100k or more, and there is no guarantee that the cost will be recovered when the property is sold. 

A solution for single-family homes is attached narrow row homes (15-18 feet wide) on shallow lots (75 or so feet deep, enabling 150-foot block).  That density makes transit viable.  But transit can't work when single-family homes are situated on 50x150 lots. 

 

[Just Joe]

That price is crazy for such a small and unremarkable house. That's like a $90,000 $50,000 house in Ohio.  Example: https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1630350/6412-Elmwood-Ave-Elmwood-Place-OH-45216

Seattle money is a 4500 sq ft 5 bedroom high end home with acreage here.

[merula]

As long as this thread is serving as a Twin Cities urbanism catch all... Is anyone else excited about Carter's proposal to turn the northbound lane of Ayd Mill into a dedicated bike/pedestrian path??

I am pumped, I am especially pumped because I am adamantly opposed to St. Paul footing a large portion the mill and overlay bill for this road that offers relatively little financial benefit to St. Paul.

Now that half of it will be far cheaper to maintain and provide big benefits to those of us who ride & walk, I'm on board with the costly (but badly needed) mill and overlay.

It also would inch us a little closer on the way to St. Paul Cyclist's holy grail of connecting into the greenway with a dedicated bridge. Still tons of obstacles in the way, but it would make the case much more compelling.

I'm glad Mayor Carter came part way around on Ayd Mill, and this compromise is better than nothing.  I'd still rather see the whole thing turned into a linear park.

And I'll add that I hate the hostage-taking logic that either the city pays for this commuter road, or else the commuter traffic will just speed through residential areas.  St. Paul should learn from Chicago and put in commuter tolls.

If we have zero choice about the city paying for commuter roads, I guess I'd rather see the traffic on Snelling where it might stop at local businesses than on Ayd Mill where it definitely won't.  So, yes, I think Carter is at least taking a step in the right direction, even if he's beginning from the worst possible position.

I'm with caleb. It's definitely better than the full mill and overlay, but I'd rather have it as a park. Or, keep this two-lane development but close off the 35 access that Kelly opened with no imput. Everyone who's a St Paul resident, please write your councilmember and Carter, because they're getting a ton of opposition mail. (Batsignalling @J Boogie, @EvenSteven, @Kris)

I think this will send more people onto Snelling, which might be good for local businesses, but let's not forget that Snelling is residential. I lived right on it for the first nine years of my time in St. Paul, and now I live a few blocks off of it. The medians that were installed from St Clair to Summit and from Sherbourne to Como should be extended; it doesn't feel like somewhere you should be doing 50 when they're there, and it's especially ridiculous to not have them between Summit and University.

[J Boogie]

As long as this thread is serving as a Twin Cities urbanism catch all... Is anyone else excited about Carter's proposal to turn the northbound lane of Ayd Mill into a dedicated bike/pedestrian path??

I am pumped, I am especially pumped because I am adamantly opposed to St. Paul footing a large portion the mill and overlay bill for this road that offers relatively little financial benefit to St. Paul.

Now that half of it will be far cheaper to maintain and provide big benefits to those of us who ride & walk, I'm on board with the costly (but badly needed) mill and overlay.

It also would inch us a little closer on the way to St. Paul Cyclist's holy grail of connecting into the greenway with a dedicated bridge. Still tons of obstacles in the way, but it would make the case much more compelling.

I'm glad Mayor Carter came part way around on Ayd Mill, and this compromise is better than nothing.  I'd still rather see the whole thing turned into a linear park.

And I'll add that I hate the hostage-taking logic that either the city pays for this commuter road, or else the commuter traffic will just speed through residential areas.  St. Paul should learn from Chicago and put in commuter tolls.

If we have zero choice about the city paying for commuter roads, I guess I'd rather see the traffic on Snelling where it might stop at local businesses than on Ayd Mill where it definitely won't.  So, yes, I think Carter is at least taking a step in the right direction, even if he's beginning from the worst possible position.

I'm with caleb. It's definitely better than the full mill and overlay, but I'd rather have it as a park. Or, keep this two-lane development but close off the 35 access that Kelly opened with no imput. Everyone who's a St Paul resident, please write your councilmember and Carter, because they're getting a ton of opposition mail. (Batsignalling @J Boogie, @EvenSteven, @Kris)

I think this will send more people onto Snelling, which might be good for local businesses, but let's not forget that Snelling is residential. I lived right on it for the first nine years of my time in St. Paul, and now I live a few blocks off of it. The medians that were installed from St Clair to Summit and from Sherbourne to Como should be extended; it doesn't feel like somewhere you should be doing 50 when they're there, and it's especially ridiculous to not have them between Summit and University.

Will do. I live one block away from Lexington so I am in favor of keeping single car lanes on Ayd Mill. I want Lexington to be more, not less bikable and walkable especially since it's the only route to trader joes.

TBH Ayd Mill runs through one of the nicer parts of St. Paul already. I think lower income neighborhoods should be prioritized for beautification style projects. I get that we have to make some decision and investment now as it's in an awful state - I just think a full linear park conversion would be a lot of $$$ to spend in zip codes that have Summit Ave, which is kiiiiiiinda like a linear park already with its generous tree lined boulevard.

I think it makes some sense to keep it as a road as long as it's already here, as it allows drivers to travel in a more fuel efficient manner (less full stops). Removing the 35E connection could help - I think it'd probably make sense to sunset the weight limitation on 35E so that truck drivers coming from 94 westbound would be less incentived to exit on Snelling and take Ayd Mill.

[accolay]

Just one anecdote, but my physically disabled husband is thrilled about the ban and wishes it would come to St. Paul. And not just because it would make his headache around Carbucks2.0 go away.

You must be talking about Snelling and Marshall where I've seen them have to have a traffic cop direct people in the drive up line.

[accolay]

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/5060-NE-Central-Ave-Minneapolis-MN/16820374/

Freestanding non-chain, sit down restaurant.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/765-NE-53rd-Ave-Minneapolis-MN/12488953/

My dude, neither of those are in Minneapolis.

[Another Reader]

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/5060-NE-Central-Ave-Minneapolis-MN/16820374/

Freestanding non-chain, sit down restaurant.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/765-NE-53rd-Ave-Minneapolis-MN/12488953/

My dude, neither of those are in Minneapolis.

Don't know the Minneapolis area.  The address is Minneapolis so the general area is the same.  And frankly, it shouldn't make any difference whether they are in the City limits or just outside.  The use drives the value.  The gross sales of the chain fast food restaurant make it possible to collect a much higher rent, driving the property value.   

[accolay]

Don't know the Minneapolis area.  The address is Minneapolis so the general area is the same.  And frankly, it shouldn't make any difference whether they are in the City limits or just outside.  The use drives the value.  The gross sales of the chain fast food restaurant make it possible to collect a much higher rent, driving the property value.

Yes, we are all very aware you are not from the Minneapolis area. I think what would be best is that you stop complaining about how we're living and how OUR elected officials are making decisions about OUR city. Start your own thread about how much you're strangely over interested in hating the future City of Minneapolis planning, and why people who actually live here should care about that opinion.

[Kris]

Just one anecdote, but my physically disabled husband is thrilled about the ban and wishes it would come to St. Paul. And not just because it would make his headache around Carbucks2.0 go away.

You must be talking about Snelling and Marshall where I've seen them have to have a traffic cop direct people in the drive up line.

Lol! I instantly recognized the reference to this atrocity, too!

[Kris]

As long as this thread is serving as a Twin Cities urbanism catch all... Is anyone else excited about Carter's proposal to turn the northbound lane of Ayd Mill into a dedicated bike/pedestrian path??

I am pumped, I am especially pumped because I am adamantly opposed to St. Paul footing a large portion the mill and overlay bill for this road that offers relatively little financial benefit to St. Paul.

Now that half of it will be far cheaper to maintain and provide big benefits to those of us who ride & walk, I'm on board with the costly (but badly needed) mill and overlay.

It also would inch us a little closer on the way to St. Paul Cyclist's holy grail of connecting into the greenway with a dedicated bridge. Still tons of obstacles in the way, but it would make the case much more compelling.

I'm glad Mayor Carter came part way around on Ayd Mill, and this compromise is better than nothing.  I'd still rather see the whole thing turned into a linear park.

And I'll add that I hate the hostage-taking logic that either the city pays for this commuter road, or else the commuter traffic will just speed through residential areas.  St. Paul should learn from Chicago and put in commuter tolls.

If we have zero choice about the city paying for commuter roads, I guess I'd rather see the traffic on Snelling where it might stop at local businesses than on Ayd Mill where it definitely won't.  So, yes, I think Carter is at least taking a step in the right direction, even if he's beginning from the worst possible position.

I'm with caleb. It's definitely better than the full mill and overlay, but I'd rather have it as a park. Or, keep this two-lane development but close off the 35 access that Kelly opened with no imput. Everyone who's a St Paul resident, please write your councilmember and Carter, because they're getting a ton of opposition mail. (Batsignalling @J Boogie, @EvenSteven, @Kris)

I think this will send more people onto Snelling, which might be good for local businesses, but let's not forget that Snelling is residential. I lived right on it for the first nine years of my time in St. Paul, and now I live a few blocks off of it. The medians that were installed from St Clair to Summit and from Sherbourne to Como should be extended; it doesn't feel like somewhere you should be doing 50 when they're there, and it's especially ridiculous to not have them between Summit and University.

Will do. I live one block away from Lexington so I am in favor of keeping single car lanes on Ayd Mill. I want Lexington to be more, not less bikable and walkable especially since it's the only route to trader joes.

TBH Ayd Mill runs through one of the nicer parts of St. Paul already. I think lower income neighborhoods should be prioritized for beautification style projects. I get that we have to make some decision and investment now as it's in an awful state - I just think a full linear park conversion would be a lot of $$$ to spend in zip codes that have Summit Ave, which is kiiiiiiinda like a linear park already with its generous tree lined boulevard.

I think it makes some sense to keep it as a road as long as it's already here, as it allows drivers to travel in a more fuel efficient manner (less full stops). Removing the 35E connection could help - I think it'd probably make sense to sunset the weight limitation on 35E so that truck drivers coming from 94 westbound would be less incentived to exit on Snelling and take Ayd Mill.

I’d rather have a park, too. But yeah, thanks for the heads up! Will contact Carter and my councilcritter.

[merula]

TBH Ayd Mill runs through one of the nicer parts of St. Paul already. I think lower income neighborhoods should be prioritized for beautification style projects. I get that we have to make some decision and investment now as it's in an awful state - I just think a full linear park conversion would be a lot of $$$ to spend in zip codes that have Summit Ave, which is kiiiiiiinda like a linear park already with its generous tree lined boulevard.

I think it makes some sense to keep it as a road as long as it's already here, as it allows drivers to travel in a more fuel efficient manner (less full stops). Removing the 35E connection could help - I think it'd probably make sense to sunset the weight limitation on 35E so that truck drivers coming from 94 westbound would be less incentived to exit on Snelling and take Ayd Mill.

Could not agree more that the weight and 45mph (!!!) limits on that stretch of 35E are ridiculous and solely benefit the overlook houses, which goes exactly to your point about efforts that serve the richest parts of the city. And you're absolutely right that we should beautify other parts of the city before Summit. (I was thinking that as I was looking at the medians on Google maps, as I had forgotten how far north they go, but I had ALSO forgotten that the St Clair-Summit ones are planted and the Sherbourne-Como ones are not. I think that's because of the Mac contribution, but come on, where was Hamline?)

You must be talking about Snelling and Marshall where I've seen them have to have a traffic cop direct people in the drive up line.

That location is known in some circles as "Carbucks", because of the traffic problems. And, honestly, the cop is the tip of the iceberg. They are now proposing another gas-station-location-to-drive-thru a few miles away (Randolph and Hamline), which is being called "Carbucks 2.0".

Actually, the Snelby Area Starbucks would be a really great look at property tax revenue of drive-thru and not, because they moved from their non-drive-thru location to that location. Granted, the old location wasn't stand-alone, didn't have a parking lot, and had a smaller seating area, and you're probably never going to get the sales numbers. (Plus it's not ACTUALLY in Minneapolis.)

Here's one example, from a part of Minneapolis I know fairly well: East Lake Street. There are a bunch of drive thrus, and a bunch of similar stand-alone restaurants. I picked two chains with similar appeal: McDonalds at 3110 E Lake and Subway at 3425 E Lake

The McDonalds is 0.75 acres and will pay $42,745.67 in property taxes in 2019. The Subway is 0.41 acres and will pay $32,529.82. (I've left special assessments off of both.) The non-drive-thru location will pay 40% more per acre in property tax than the drive thru, in the exact same neighborhood.

This effect would be expected to be even more pronounced if we were using a comparison of a multi-story building with first floor commercial. For example, in the same area there's a building with two sit-down restaurants (Addis Ababa/El Nuevo Rodeo) on the first floor and second floor residential: 2709 E Lake. That parcel will pay $79,321.13 in 2019 on .32 acres, or 335% more than the drive thru 3.5 blocks away.

[Another Reader]

TBH Ayd Mill runs through one of the nicer parts of St. Paul already. I think lower income neighborhoods should be prioritized for beautification style projects. I get that we have to make some decision and investment now as it's in an awful state - I just think a full linear park conversion would be a lot of $$$ to spend in zip codes that have Summit Ave, which is kiiiiiiinda like a linear park already with its generous tree lined boulevard.

I think it makes some sense to keep it as a road as long as it's already here, as it allows drivers to travel in a more fuel efficient manner (less full stops). Removing the 35E connection could help - I think it'd probably make sense to sunset the weight limitation on 35E so that truck drivers coming from 94 westbound would be less incentived to exit on Snelling and take Ayd Mill.

Could not agree more that the weight and 45mph (!!!) limits on that stretch of 35E are ridiculous and solely benefit the overlook houses, which goes exactly to your point about efforts that serve the richest parts of the city. And you're absolutely right that we should beautify other parts of the city before Summit. (I was thinking that as I was looking at the medians on Google maps, as I had forgotten how far north they go, but I had ALSO forgotten that the St Clair-Summit ones are planted and the Sherbourne-Como ones are not. I think that's because of the Mac contribution, but come on, where was Hamline?)

You must be talking about Snelling and Marshall where I've seen them have to have a traffic cop direct people in the drive up line.

That location is known in some circles as "Carbucks", because of the traffic problems. And, honestly, the cop is the tip of the iceberg. They are now proposing another gas-station-location-to-drive-thru a few miles away (Randolph and Hamline), which is being called "Carbucks 2.0".

Actually, the Snelby Area Starbucks would be a really great look at property tax revenue of drive-thru and not, because they moved from their non-drive-thru location to that location. Granted, the old location wasn't stand-alone, didn't have a parking lot, and had a smaller seating area, and you're probably never going to get the sales numbers. (Plus it's not ACTUALLY in Minneapolis.)

Here's one example, from a part of Minneapolis I know fairly well: East Lake Street. There are a bunch of drive thrus, and a bunch of similar stand-alone restaurants. I picked two chains with similar appeal: McDonalds at 3110 E Lake and Subway at 3425 E Lake

The McDonalds is 0.75 acres and will pay $42,745.67 in property taxes in 2019. The Subway is 0.41 acres and will pay $32,529.82. (I've left special assessments off of both.) The non-drive-thru location will pay 40% more per acre in property tax than the drive thru, in the exact same neighborhood.

This effect would be expected to be even more pronounced if we were using a comparison of a multi-story building with first floor commercial. For example, in the same area there's a building with two sit-down restaurants (Addis Ababa/El Nuevo Rodeo) on the first floor and second floor residential: 2709 E Lake. That parcel will pay $79,321.13 in 2019 on .32 acres, or 335% more than the drive thru 3.5 blocks away.

That's very interesting.  To me, what that implies is the basis of taxable value may not be fair market value as determined through comparable sales or the income approach to value.  A chain fast food restaurant is far more valuable in the real estate market than some similarly located building housing a local restaurant, even a Subway franchise.  It also says that the property tax laws favor the higher yielding fast food operator over the owner of the local restaurant or the building in which that restaurant operates.  Your property tax laws may account for all the vacant retail space I see on the street views I pulled up.

[merula]

That's very interesting.  To me, what that implies is the basis of taxable value may not be fair market value as determined through comparable sales or the income approach to value.  A chain fast food restaurant is far more valuable in the real estate market than some similarly located building housing a local restaurant, even a Subway franchise.  It also says that the property tax laws favor the higher yielding fast food operator over the owner of the local restaurant or the building in which that restaurant operates.  Your property tax laws may account for all the vacant retail space I see on the street views I pulled up.

That's a very interesting goal post move there. Thanks for your contributions.

[seattlecyclone]

That's very interesting.  To me, what that implies is the basis of taxable value may not be fair market value as determined through comparable sales or the income approach to value.  A chain fast food restaurant is far more valuable in the real estate market than some similarly located building housing a local restaurant, even a Subway franchise.  It also says that the property tax laws favor the higher yielding fast food operator over the owner of the local restaurant or the building in which that restaurant operates.  Your property tax laws may account for all the vacant retail space I see on the street views I pulled up.

That's a very interesting goal post move there. Thanks for your contributions.

It's not even an accurate goal post move. From the freaking county assessor's office: "The value of your property is determined by the assessor. Valuation reflects the estimated fair market value of the property as of January 2 of the year before taxes are due." There's no complicated formula meant to give special privileges to chain restaurants over mom-and-pop shops. It's just the fair market value, which can be appealed by the property owner if they have reason to believe the assessor valued it wrong. Below this it mentions that commercial properties will be taxed at a higher rate than residential ones, but this shouldn't come into play when comparing two commercial properties in the same municipality.

More than moving the goal posts, I think @Another Reader continues to ignore that we're talking about things on a per-acre basis. In response to the Strong Towns article comparing a drive-through to the same amount of land a block down the same major street developed to hold a half dozen businesses, they give two examples from Minneapolis (an Indian restaurant and a fast food chain). Both are relatively car-oriented establishments with most of the lot paved over for car parking.

The Indian restaurant is an older building on a smaller lot on a less-trafficked street with less of a finely-honed corporate business model. Of course it's not going to be worth as much! That completely misses the point of the Strong Towns article. The "shiny, new" Taco John's is worth a lot more than any of the "old, blighted" properties down the street in isolation, but because there are 10 "old, blighted" properties occupying the same land area the old block brings in more tax revenue than the new.

Again with this example of the drive-through McDonald's against the non-drive-through Subway, the point is missed again. @Another Reader simply argues that the McDonald's should be worth more than the Subway. It is worth more. The drive-through allows them to make more money than if they didn't have it, and the property is valued accordingly. No argument there. However it's not worth enough more to make up for the fact that it uses a whole lot more land.

[Another Reader]

That's very interesting.  To me, what that implies is the basis of taxable value may not be fair market value as determined through comparable sales or the income approach to value.  A chain fast food restaurant is far more valuable in the real estate market than some similarly located building housing a local restaurant, even a Subway franchise.  It also says that the property tax laws favor the higher yielding fast food operator over the owner of the local restaurant or the building in which that restaurant operates.  Your property tax laws may account for all the vacant retail space I see on the street views I pulled up.

That's a very interesting goal post move there. Thanks for your contributions.

It's not even an accurate goal post move. From the freaking county assessor's office: "The value of your property is determined by the assessor. Valuation reflects the estimated fair market value of the property as of January 2 of the year before taxes are due." There's no complicated formula meant to give special privileges to chain restaurants over mom-and-pop shops. It's just the fair market value, which can be appealed by the property owner if they have reason to believe the assessor valued it wrong. Below this it mentions that commercial properties will be taxed at a higher rate than residential ones, but this shouldn't come into play when comparing two commercial properties in the same municipality.

More than moving the goal posts, I think @Another Reader continues to ignore that we're talking about things on a per-acre basis. In response to the Strong Towns article comparing a drive-through to the same amount of land a block down the same major street developed to hold a half dozen businesses, they give two examples from Minneapolis (an Indian restaurant and a fast food chain). Both are relatively car-oriented establishments with most of the lot paved over for car parking.

The Indian restaurant is an older building on a smaller lot on a less-trafficked street with less of a finely-honed corporate business model. Of course it's not going to be worth as much! That completely misses the point of the Strong Towns article. The "shiny, new" Taco John's is worth a lot more than any of the "old, blighted" properties down the street in isolation, but because there are 10 "old, blighted" properties occupying the same land area the old block brings in more tax revenue than the new.

Again with this example of the drive-through McDonald's against the non-drive-through Subway, the point is missed again. @Another Reader simply argues that the McDonald's should be worth more than the Subway. It is worth more. The drive-through allows them to make more money than if they didn't have it, and the property is valued accordingly. No argument there. However it's not worth enough more to make up for the fact that it uses a whole lot more land.

Market value of the land here needed to support a typical fast food restaurant in a high traffic corner location when last I looked at one a few years back: $60 per square foot or more.  Market value to support the secondary location Subway: maybe $30 per square foot.  Building coverage ratio is much lower for a fast food because of parking and setback requirements plus the drive through. Cost of land per square foot of building is much, much higher.  Eliminate the drive through and lower the number of spaces needed for a different use and much of the corner premium disappears.

Different jurisdictions use different methods to determine "market" value.  They may also re-value only periodically and some areas are often well below true market value.  I don't know how your Assessor in Minnesota determines market value.  Cost from a manual?  Comparable sales?  I do know how it's done in California. Comparable sales of similarly located chain fast food restaurants and the income approach. True fair market value for a change in ownership or new construction.

Although in Minnesota sales tax revenue appears to be a less important consideration, my guess is the fast food sales are many times the smaller restaurant sales.  Would be interesting to compare the City's share of the sales tax revenues of the two properties.

[Davnasty]

Strong Towns did a follow up to the Taco John's case study with guidelines on how to do your own comparison.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/19/value-per-acre-analysis-a-how-to-for-beginners

This article also includes another example (in Minneapolis). It compares a small restaurant to a Target and not a fast food chain, but again, if anyone has an interest in doing the math themselves these guidelines could help.

[accolay]

Following because somebody is smoking crack: Empty lot in South Mpls. I think only one house was there- unsure if it burned down or the house was torn down for other reasons.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3115-E-42nd-St-Minneapolis-MN-55406/122173438_zpid/

It's not zoned for commercial real estate. The county assess it's taxable market value at $78,900. What's the strategy here?

[seattlecyclone]

Following because somebody is smoking crack: Empty lot in South Mpls. I think only one house was there- unsure if it burned down or the house was torn down for other reasons.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3115-E-42nd-St-Minneapolis-MN-55406/122173438_zpid/

It's not zoned for commercial real estate. The county assess it's taxable market value at $78,900. What's the strategy here?

The property is located along an arterial street, near a state highway and light rail line, and the neighboring properties just across the alley are zoned for commercial real estate. Perhaps the seller is hoping to find someone who would pay an inflated price and then petition for a rezone? That's my best guess.

[katscratch]

The last structure there was a vacant church that burned down in an arson fire about 8 years ago if I'm remembering correctly.

Aside from one property on 42nd & 31st, the hot dog place and the building it's in, the neighborhood around that site is zoned R1A - single family dwellings.

The land value is comparable to the rest of the area.

Pockets of neighborhoods along that strip of hwy/LRT have been redeveloped fairly rapidly in the past five years, but this particular crossing is not part of current redevelopments.

I'm in a very similar neighborhood, but zoned AP for airport overlay and R4 for multiple family dwellings, with the occasional building zoned for small businesses on corners. My neighborhood has not changed much in the last decade. My land itself is valued about the same per sq/ft.

I think the last time that site was listed for sale at $500,000 was a bit optimistic hahaha

[roomtempmayo]

Here's one example, from a part of Minneapolis I know fairly well: East Lake Street. There are a bunch of drive thrus, and a bunch of similar stand-alone restaurants. I picked two chains with similar appeal: McDonalds at 3110 E Lake and Subway at 3425 E Lake

The McDonalds is 0.75 acres and will pay $42,745.67 in property taxes in 2019. The Subway is 0.41 acres and will pay $32,529.82. (I've left special assessments off of both.) The non-drive-thru location will pay 40% more per acre in property tax than the drive thru, in the exact same neighborhood.

This effect would be expected to be even more pronounced if we were using a comparison of a multi-story building with first floor commercial. For example, in the same area there's a building with two sit-down restaurants (Addis Ababa/El Nuevo Rodeo) on the first floor and second floor residential: 2709 E Lake. That parcel will pay $79,321.13 in 2019 on .32 acres, or 335% more than the drive thru 3.5 blocks away.

Huh, very interesting.  That Subway has always seemed super dead to me, so I'm surprised it's paying that much in property tax.

The other spot that would be interesting is the old Taco Bell drive through that's now the Hi-Lo Diner.  I don't know how to pull the historical tax records, but I would guess that spot is doing more sales and paying more taxes now than it ever did as a drive through.

[accolay]

St. Paul should learn from Chicago and put in commuter tolls.

I love you man, but I think following Illinois and Chicago with toll roads is a horrible idea.

[TheContinentalOp]

https://reason.com/2019/09/17/minneapolis-doesnt-want-landlords-to-check-tenants-criminal-history-credit-score-past-evictions/

Minneapolis, Minnesota, has passed a strict new law regulating the ability of landlords to screen potential tenants by researching their credit scores, criminal backgrounds, and eviction histories.

On Friday, the City Council unanimously approved an update to the city's Renter Protection Ordinance, requiring landlords to apply "inclusive screening criteria" when selecting applicants or else follow an onerous "individualized assessment" process.

"This ordinance provides a necessary protection for residents by ensuring they are not exploited with excessive move-in costs and have a fair opportunity to access housing," said City Council President Lisa Bender in a statement following the vote.

Under the inclusive screening process, property owners are forbidden from rejecting a potential tenant for having an insufficient credit score, or for having insufficient credit history.

Landlords are also forbidden from turning down potential tenants for any misdemeanor convictions older than three years and for most felony convictions older than seven years. The law does allow landlords to reject applicants that have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, or first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but only if those convictions were within the last 10 years.

[Another Reader]

https://reason.com/2019/09/17/minneapolis-doesnt-want-landlords-to-check-tenants-criminal-history-credit-score-past-evictions/

Minneapolis, Minnesota, has passed a strict new law regulating the ability of landlords to screen potential tenants by researching their credit scores, criminal backgrounds, and eviction histories.

On Friday, the City Council unanimously approved an update to the city's Renter Protection Ordinance, requiring landlords to apply "inclusive screening criteria" when selecting applicants or else follow an onerous "individualized assessment" process.

"This ordinance provides a necessary protection for residents by ensuring they are not exploited with excessive move-in costs and have a fair opportunity to access housing," said City Council President Lisa Bender in a statement following the vote.

Under the inclusive screening process, property owners are forbidden from rejecting a potential tenant for having an insufficient credit score, or for having insufficient credit history.

Landlords are also forbidden from turning down potential tenants for any misdemeanor convictions older than three years and for most felony convictions older than seven years. The law does allow landlords to reject applicants that have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, or first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but only if those convictions were within the last 10 years.

If I owned rentals in this city, every one of them would have a plan to sell ASAP.  The effect of this incredibly short-sighted legislation will be to cut dramatically the number of single family rentals in this jurisdiction.  No reasonable person would operate rentals under these restrictions.  It will be impossible to make a profit and the landlord, not the City, will be exposed to the liability of renting to criminals that will victimize their neighbors. 

[merula]

Awesome. I hope all those who feel similarly do just what you suggest, as it would make achieving the 2040 plan that much better. Probably help with equitable housing rates too.

[J Boogie]

I'm against the new MPLS screening law. Glad I own property in St. Paul.  I did manage a 2 bedroom in the Nokomis area for a couple years though.

When I created postings, I would mention I needed a certain credit score, a certain income, and a relatively clean background check to come back. If I didn't get any qualified tenants, I'd lower the rent. We pay a premium for stocks that have demonstrated their earnings history dependably, and we naturally want a greater return for taking on more risk.

I am thinking about how I would try to screen effectively and the only thing that comes to mind is requiring a higher income and/or increasing the rent. 

I think this policy was not well thought out. I think it'll result in higher rents as renters who can afford safety will pay for it. If wealthy people have proven one thing, it's that they're willing to use their wealth to ensure they are surrounded by other wealthy people. This new law penalizes the lower income folks who have, in my opinion and that of the rental market, earned their leases through consistent responsible behavior. They are no longer differentiated.

[Another Reader]

Awesome. I hope all those who feel similarly do just what you suggest, as it would make achieving the 2040 plan that much better. Probably help with equitable housing rates too.

The properties that are sold will not be bought by landlords.  They will be bought by owner occupants.  The number of single family rental units will decline significantly, driving rents up dramatically.  The remaining landlords will skirt the requirements in an effort to keep decent tenants.  Over time, all the bad tenants will result in properties that are not maintained because there is no financial incentive to do the work.  The rental housing stock will deteriorate substantially.  It's happened over and over in cities that implement such policies.

[robartsd]

If I owned rentals in this city, every one of them would have a plan to sell ASAP.  The effect of this incredibly short-sighted legislation will be to cut dramatically the number of single family rentals in this jurisdiction.  No reasonable person would operate rentals under these restrictions.  It will be impossible to make a profit and the landlord, not the City, will be exposed to the liability of renting to criminals that will victimize their neighbors.

For the most part, I agree with Another Reader on this one. I wouldn't look to sell a single family home out from under a tenant in place, but would plan to put the house on the market as soon as they gave notice to quit.

[partgypsy]

https://reason.com/2019/09/17/minneapolis-doesnt-want-landlords-to-check-tenants-criminal-history-credit-score-past-evictions/

Minneapolis, Minnesota, has passed a strict new law regulating the ability of landlords to screen potential tenants by researching their credit scores, criminal backgrounds, and eviction histories.

On Friday, the City Council unanimously approved an update to the city's Renter Protection Ordinance, requiring landlords to apply "inclusive screening criteria" when selecting applicants or else follow an onerous "individualized assessment" process.

"This ordinance provides a necessary protection for residents by ensuring they are not exploited with excessive move-in costs and have a fair opportunity to access housing," said City Council President Lisa Bender in a statement following the vote.

Under the inclusive screening process, property owners are forbidden from rejecting a potential tenant for having an insufficient credit score, or for having insufficient credit history.

Landlords are also forbidden from turning down potential tenants for any misdemeanor convictions older than three years and for most felony convictions older than seven years. The law does allow landlords to reject applicants that have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, or first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but only if those convictions were within the last 10 years.

If I owned rentals in this city, every one of them would have a plan to sell ASAP.  The effect of this incredibly short-sighted legislation will be to cut dramatically the number of single family rentals in this jurisdiction.  No reasonable person would operate rentals under these restrictions.  It will be impossible to make a profit and the landlord, not the City, will be exposed to the liability of renting to criminals that will victimize their neighbors.

I'm not really sure what they were thinking. Credit score is a associated with how reliable you are regarding your finances and paying back debt. It's not targeting someone's gender or race, ability to reliably pay on time is something important for a landlord to know. It will end up reducing the amount of rentals because landlords will either get out of the business or increase rent because they are assuming more risks.

[FIPurpose]

https://reason.com/2019/09/17/minneapolis-doesnt-want-landlords-to-check-tenants-criminal-history-credit-score-past-evictions/

Minneapolis, Minnesota, has passed a strict new law regulating the ability of landlords to screen potential tenants by researching their credit scores, criminal backgrounds, and eviction histories.

On Friday, the City Council unanimously approved an update to the city's Renter Protection Ordinance, requiring landlords to apply "inclusive screening criteria" when selecting applicants or else follow an onerous "individualized assessment" process.

"This ordinance provides a necessary protection for residents by ensuring they are not exploited with excessive move-in costs and have a fair opportunity to access housing," said City Council President Lisa Bender in a statement following the vote.

Under the inclusive screening process, property owners are forbidden from rejecting a potential tenant for having an insufficient credit score, or for having insufficient credit history.

Landlords are also forbidden from turning down potential tenants for any misdemeanor convictions older than three years and for most felony convictions older than seven years. The law does allow landlords to reject applicants that have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, or first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but only if those convictions were within the last 10 years.

If I owned rentals in this city, every one of them would have a plan to sell ASAP.  The effect of this incredibly short-sighted legislation will be to cut dramatically the number of single family rentals in this jurisdiction.  No reasonable person would operate rentals under these restrictions.  It will be impossible to make a profit and the landlord, not the City, will be exposed to the liability of renting to criminals that will victimize their neighbors.

I'm not really sure what they were thinking. Credit score is a associated with how reliable you are regarding your finances and paying back debt. It's not targeting someone's gender or race, ability to reliably pay on time is something important for a landlord to know. It will end up reducing the amount of rentals because landlords will either get out of the business or increase rent because they are assuming more risks.

Rent payments are not always reported to the credit score companies. Usually this means that poorer people who even if they reliably pay their rent, may not have a good credit score.

[robartsd]

Rent payments are not always reported to the credit score companies. Usually this means that poorer people who even if they reliably pay their rent, may not have a good credit score.

Quite true. Rent usually only appears on credit report in derogatory items (missed rent) if at all. Similarly, utility bills usually only show up on credit reports if you have missed payments. Someone who has never missed a bill in their life can have no history showing on a credit report if they never used a credit card or installment loan. I suppose I would be OK with ignoring score if I could still deny applications based on derogatory items on a credit report.

[partgypsy]

We have a pretty significant number of landlords on this forum. Landlords, from your experience what IS useful information to know about tenants, and which is not really useful? I'm thinking verification of a stable source of income, and rental history (talk to last landlord) would be in there but what is useful and what is not? 

[dougules]

We have a pretty significant number of landlords on this forum. Landlords, from your experience what IS useful information to know about tenants, and which is not really useful? I'm thinking verification of a stable source of income, and rental history (talk to last landlord) would be in there but what is useful and what is not?

It might be worth making a spinoff thread under real estate.

[accolay]

We have a pretty significant number of landlords on this forum. Landlords, from your experience what IS useful information to know about tenants, and which is not really useful? I'm thinking verification of a stable source of income, and rental history (talk to last landlord) would be in there but what is useful and what is not?

I'm waiting for no-nonsense landlord to make a post or blog entry about this since he's from this area.

[roomtempmayo]

Looks like it didn't take long for at least one four-plex to pop up: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2709-30th-Ave-S-2-Minneapolis-MN-55406/2081581873_zpid/

For those not familiar, this lot is on the edge of a middle class neighborhood of 200-350k houses, but is also a couple blocks from a commercial shopping center with some rundown real estate in between.

$1800/mo for 1250 sq ft in a four-plex with no yard or garage listed.  I'm not thinking they're going to have many takers.  You can rent a nice 2-3 bedroom SFH with a yard and garage for less in a better part of that neighborhood.

[katscratch]

That's not outrageous rent for that neighborhood, especially for new construction. The odd location on an alley is a bigger turnoff than price. I think it would be difficult to find a decent SFH rental in that neighborhood for the same total price per month without stalking listings and finding a new landlord who just looks at the appearance of the neighborhood and doesn't know the desirability of that area.

Too bad the city hasn't come up with any ideas for increasing overall housing stock which might contribute to slowing the insane exponential rental prices which might allow for more affordable housing developed.... ;)

ETA I bike by that particular building almost daily (I was actually talking about it with friends last week because of the alley and the design is a bit weird for that block) and it looks like two units are occupied.

[roomtempmayo]

That's not outrageous rent for that neighborhood, especially for new construction. The odd location on an alley is a bigger turnoff than price. I think it would be difficult to find a decent SFH rental in that neighborhood for the same total price per month without stalking listings and finding a new landlord who just looks at the appearance of the neighborhood and doesn't know the desirability of that area.

Too bad the city hasn't come up with any ideas for increasing overall housing stock which might contribute to slowing the insane exponential rental prices which might allow for more affordable housing developed.... ;)

ETA I bike by that particular building almost daily (I was actually talking about it with friends last week because of the alley and the design is a bit weird for that block) and it looks like two units are occupied.

Does it look out at that fenced in junkyard-looking lot next to Anne Sullivan?

[katscratch]

Not quite but its views are almost worse - Donnelly Stucco across the street, the overgrown bushes along the Greenway, and the alley garage behind it. My buddy and I were talking about it - it's in a perfect location for what we need, 15 minute walking distance to everything I currently leave my house for except my workplace, no plane noise, no downtown hubbub, less crime than a lot of other neighborhoods. But it's just so bland and boring and in such a weird corner of the block.

[Shane]

I live in a nice, walkable neighborhood as well.  Wide lots, no sidewalks

You live in a walkable neighborhood with no sidewalks?

🤔

Yeah, I noticed that too. wtf? :)

[Shane]

There's this problem though. Owning a car is just too cheap. Gas is too cheap.

If more people took public transport, there would be more routes and greater frequencies.

If more cities had better local public transport, people would be more inclined to take the train.

Unfortunately, except for the New England area, taking the Amtrak rarely makes sense. And even then, it only makes sense if you drive with 1-2 people. Add 2-3 kids and public transport makes 0 sense.

All you have to do is look at how many people are driving and do the math. Public transport could take over places like San Fran, but people are still willing to pay 3-4x more just to drive their car. If people took public transit, there would be enough demand to have buses every fifteen minutes driving in from every major exit.

Part of it is that driving needs to become more painful. Give public transport it's own lane, car pooling of 4 minimum, stop giving electric vehicles HOV status. Add higher tolls that buses don't have to pay.

Make demand go up, make it more available, make it to where even the rich people have to take it.

^^This. When driving anywhere by car, especially with just one person in the vehicle, is, by far, the most expensive, least convenient way to get from point A to point B, people will choose to live closer to the places where they work, go to school, shop, recreate, etc., and to walk, ride a bike or take public transport. Until then, Americans will continue to make the rational choice to drive everywhere in their cars, because it's more convenient and doesn't really cost much, if at all, more than other alternatives.

[Shane]

I remember being an exchange student in French and feeling like true freedom was the ability to go anywhere you wanted to simply by walking out your front door. Buses are clean, frequent reliable and go everywhere. Any place that isn’t a total cow farm in the country is accessible by trains that are way faster and better on all levels than anything I’ve seen in the states. I went wherever I wanted whenever I wanted at a relatively affordable rate (thanks to student discounts!) and never once had to think about where to park a car. The only issue I had was when I shut the night club down in my little city and had to wait for the buses to restart at 5:00 in the morning. ;)

Americans who've never lived outside the US for any significant period of time are often the ones who believe that public transport can't work. Once a person experiences a well-run public transit system, it's a lot easier to imagine it might be possible in the US, as well.

[Shane]

I spent time living in Europe during my military enlistment. Once getting over being a little timid about my safety I became very adventurous and tried to travel as much as I could for several years.

I came away thinking that EVERY American needs to travel out of the states. At that point in my life my travels had taken me to a few of our regional spots and the beach and that's about it.

Everything I knew about Europe came from a few Hollywood spy movies and the evening news about terrorists. This was back in the 1980s.

Sometimes I get the impression that there is an effort in our culture to make us Americans afraid of the rest of the world. That's stupid. I think it holds us back.

I very much wish he had the train service and bike infrastructure here that I've seen in other parts of the world.

I have traveled Europe quite a bit (my wife is Scandinavian).  I think the idea of this amazing European public transit is romanticizing.  I don't see it.  Yes they have lots of trains, but that's because domestic air is rarely as affordable and good as it is in the States.  We have planes.  They have trains.  We don't need all the trains because we can fly.  And the trains in Europe often have fares in line with an low-fare airline in the US.  We also have plenty of areas in the US with substantial public transit.  NYC, for example.  Most of our larger cities have great public transit.

Even in Miami where I live, there are buses everywhere.  You could easily ride your bike to a bus, hop on the bus and use public transit.  We have trains and movers, too.  The difference is we have plenty of parking and low taxes on cars, plus cheap gas, which encourages people to drive.  When Europeans come here, they don't ride their bikes around and take buses, the first thing they do is buy a car and love the freedom of having a car.  That should tell you something.  If all the public transportation is so much better, why are they not using it here?  The reason is simple, they can actually afford a car here and it's practical.

I can tell you that the public transportation is no better in the suburban/rural areas of Scandinavia than it is in many parts of the US.  You still have to ride a bike to a bus, wait for a bus, ride the bus, switch buses, get to a train station, etc. etc. etc.  It's all the same shit.  Yes, their cities are generally VERY bike friendly and have good transportation, they do a great job with that, but as soon as you leave the dense cities, it's not much different than the suburban areas in the US.  The only thing I wish we did better here is make our urban areas/cities more bike friendly.

Maybe you haven't been to Europe recently? Ever heard of Ryan Airlines? There are a bunch of other budget airlines in Europe, now, as well. Flying from Point A to Point B in Europe is now dirt cheap, and people still ride trains, because sometimes they're more convenient. Airports tend to be outside of cities, whereas, train stations are usually right in city centers, so more convenient to access without a car.

[Shane]

Interesting thread. Just finished reading the whole thing.

I loved @seattlecyclone 's ideas about decoupling housing from parking. If an apartment without a parking spot cost $200K and an apartment with an off-street parking space cost $300K, buyers could decide for themselves. People who want/need to have a car parked right where they live would suck it up and pay the extra $100K to buy a place that includes off-street parking. People who work from home, are retired, or maybe ride their bike or take public transit could save lots of money by buying a place without included off-street parking. If we made all public, on-street parking paid, it would add a revenue source for the city, and the people who use it would be the ones who pay for it.

BTW, my family and I spent 5 nights in a great neighborhood in Minneapolis last August. We stayed only a few blocks from Matt's Bar & Grill. Two of the five nights we were there I walked down to Matt's to enjoy a draft beer and a Juicy Lucy. The huge, old house where we stayed was really cool. The owner of the house was an older, retired woman who lived alone with her dog on the first floor. She had a long-term tenant in the basement, and she rented the 2nd and 3rd floors out to short term tenants through Airbnb to help make ends meet. We LOVED our short stay in Minneapolis! We walked all over the neighborhood where we stayed. People were friendly. Taco trucks were everywhere and really delicious. Would love to return to your beautiful city again someday! Good luck with your experiment on increasing housing density. I think you're doing the right thing. Allowing homeowners who want to to legally create extra living units on their properties, seems like common sense to me.

[Zette]

I’ve lived my whole life in car-centric suburbs and don’t get the hate directed at them.  It’s really not that big of a deal to drive to the grocery store, Target, hardware store, library, and local (chain) restaurants and shopping.   Most non-work car trips are within a 2-5 mile radius, take no more than 10-15 min, have plenty of parking, and are not congested outside of rush hour. As a SAHM, I generally put less than 10k miles on my car per year, and my gas costs are a small part of the budget.

The real pain and congestion comes when you have to venture outside of your immediate area to go to work.  If there were clean, convenient mass transit to get from the suburbs to the office complexes and factories that employ large numbers of people, we suburbanites would use it. My ideal would be to have all these suburban areas continue to be car friendly locally, but with light rail links between communities so that you would take the train for commuting longer distances.

San Diego almost has this along the coast, but missed the boat by not scheduling the trains frequently enough.  We lived 2 miles (a 5 min drive) from the Coaster, and my husband worked at a company where he could have taken a van from the coaster to his office.  If the train had run every 15-20 min, he totally would have used it for commuting.  But the schedule only had few trains in the morning, and a few in the evening, at times that didn’t work with our school drop off schedule and his need to work past 6pm in the evening.  When relatives came to visit, it wasn’t possible to use the coaster to go to the major shopping malls or tourist sites that were near the stations because of the schedule — you’d be stuck at the mall for 5 hours without a return train.  The city could massively reduce the need for highway construction if they would just use the infrastructure that has already been built more effectively.

Adding more duplexes and ADU’S will keep the character of neighborhoods and improve housing affordability, but it doesn’t solve the mismatch of where the homes and the jobs are.  The commute traffic is going to get worse without serious investment in rail and rail links.
 

I

[FIPurpose]

I’ve lived my whole life in car-centric suburbs and don’t get the hate directed at them.  It’s really not that big of a deal to drive to the grocery store, Target, hardware store, library, and local (chain) restaurants and shopping.   Most non-work car trips are within a 2-5 mile radius, take no more than 10-15 min, have plenty of parking, and are not congested outside of rush hour. As a SAHM, I generally put less than 10k miles on my car per year, and my gas costs are a small part of the budget.

The real pain and congestion comes when you have to venture outside of your immediate area to go to work.  If there were clean, convenient mass transit to get from the suburbs to the office complexes and factories that employ large numbers of people, we suburbanites would use it. My ideal would be to have all these suburban areas continue to be car friendly locally, but with light rail links between communities so that you would take the train for commuting longer distances.

San Diego almost has this along the coast, but missed the boat by not scheduling the trains frequently enough.  We lived 2 miles (a 5 min drive) from the Coaster, and my husband worked at a company where he could have taken a van from the coaster to his office.  If the train had run every 15-20 min, he totally would have used it for commuting.  But the schedule only had few trains in the morning, and a few in the evening, at times that didn’t work with our school drop off schedule and his need to work past 6pm in the evening.  When relatives came to visit, it wasn’t possible to use the coaster to go to the major shopping malls or tourist sites that were near the stations because of the schedule — you’d be stuck at the mall for 5 hours without a return train.  The city could massively reduce the need for highway construction if they would just use the infrastructure that has already been built more effectively.

Adding more duplexes and ADU’S will keep the character of neighborhoods and improve housing affordability, but it doesn’t solve the mismatch of where the homes and the jobs are.  The commute traffic is going to get worse without serious investment in rail and rail links.
 

I

You're trying to disconnect suburban car travel from work commutes, but I don't think they are separate issues.

There aren't more trains because to take the train, people have to drive to the train station. They have to drive to the train station because suburbia is twice as big as it needs to be because of parking lots. They have to take a van at the other side for the same reason. Add that all up and those extra pieces all increase the cost and the time of using public transportation causing less people to take the train.

If suburbia were smaller, if the commercial space on the other side were smaller, then Train/Bus stops could all be closer to more people's destinations. Without so many parking spots, more space would be available for bike riding or electric scooters. More people could actually cause additional routes to be created.