We ain’t a big city


I think a mutual loan program that funds upgrade of older homes or replaces them with an eco-efficient multi-dwelling home could provide income for the resident/landowner and that provides an affordable rental for qualifying applicants would be an alternative approach to apartment complexes and large parking lots within a PAD.

Perhaps a subsidy that offers property owners the means to rehab an older home into multiple units by placing it into a land trust that would provide an upgraded home for the owner/resident with the caveat that the additional rental units remain deed restricted for lower incomes.

When I lived in Vermont there was a program that matched elders that owned their own home with younger folk that needed housing.

Perhaps something could be created that would allow an owner/resident to remain in their home with upgrades to accommodate multiple units by placing the property in a land trust.

In effect we could create more housing without disrupting the character of old Moab.

Higher density means more cars, more traffic and more fumes at the expense of green space.

In a high-density PAD up to 40 units could be built on one acre. Let’s say one-third of those 40 units are one bedroom, one-third are two bedroom and one-third are three bedroom; if a parking space is required for each bedroom that would be 78 cars on a one-acre lot. Yet very often even a single bedroom apartment sleeps two people, each with a car.

We have already reduced setbacks to seven feet from a building to the sides of a property line eliminating big shade trees and usable greenscape.

Higher density makes sense in an urban setting with abundant public transportation. But not in a rural area where everyone drives everywhere.

The quest to provide high density at the sacrifice of green space for three-story apartments and swaths of paved parking is a big-city mentality that belongs in a big city. We ain’t never gonna be a big city.

Is this the best way to provide more housing options?

­–Kaki Hunter