Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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?

20

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.

17

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.

8

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.

2

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.

3

TarantinoFan23 t1_j5aqpn7 wrote

Would you shit upstream from your camp? Time is a stream.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j5at4tq wrote

Nonsensical rubbish.

−1

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.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j5c62k8 wrote

It is a statement which appears not responsive to anything I posted.

0

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

0

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…

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

1

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.

2

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.

13

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”.

3

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.

0

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.

−7

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.

4

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.

1

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.

0

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.

3

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.

1

P-Townie t1_j5bf4k9 wrote

A 401k millionaire is literally wealthy off of other people's labor.

−2

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!]

3

P-Townie t1_j5crso3 wrote

Not the contributions, the gains are made off of the labor of others.

0

IamSauerKraut t1_j5cx186 wrote

Makes absolutely no sense in the real world.

2

P-Townie t1_j5cyldg wrote

Sounds like you're not able to defend your position.

1

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.

2

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.

3

IamSauerKraut t1_j5evvxr wrote

A simpleton's view of stock ownership to be sure.

1

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

10

Ebomb1 t1_j5aqxrw wrote

I only learned that from the house price post on the sub today. That's a fucking crazy minimum.

2

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?

0

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.

6

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.

4

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.

2

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.

1

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/

2

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.

−1

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.

0

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.

1

P-Townie t1_j5bfjmk wrote

Ok Boomer. Times have changed.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j5c8zlx wrote

>Times have changed.

Right.

Few complained as heartily as the keyboard whiners of today.

2

[deleted] t1_j5bvth2 wrote

[deleted]

−1

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.

−1

Guygan t1_j5agi29 wrote

Because people who work here need a place to live.

2

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.”

2

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.

−3

BloobityBloobity t1_j5ap6uf wrote

Wages in Maine are also very depressed compared to most other states.

1

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.

2

_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.

4

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.

1

_freeheeler_ t1_j5c8ql0 wrote

Bangor 248k

Presque Isle 215k

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.

1

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.

2

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.

4

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.

1

Trilliam_West t1_j5aq632 wrote

Oh noes, people that aren't rich and white might be able to move here.

−2

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.

0