Urban Redevelopment

Question: Write an essay on Urban Redevelopment. Answer: Urban redevelopment is the rehabilitation or urban areas by replacement of old buildings with better houses, parks, roads, industrial areas according to comprehensive plans. During this renewal, major impacts on landscapes occur, playing a part in the history of cities (Wang, 2010). Further, there is business relocation, destruction of structures and displacement of people during this renewal. Redevelopment involves coming up with better pedestrian zones, making better use of the underutilized regions of the city by integrating them into a citys history. In addition, it involves renovation of sidewalks, integration of business activities and residential, afforestation and increasing the number of security lights (Wang, 2010). Australia having the highest population growth level among developed nations put pressure to housing, health and transport infrastructure. Sustainable development has been an issue of concern in this country in order to improve the living standards of the citizens. Coming up with the appropriate policies of carrying out urban development without affecting low income earners is therefore a pressing need to Australia. According to Downs, A. (2009), the challenge is coming up with viable cities incorporating transformation projects and properly planned infrastructure at the same time bringing up social and economic development. Discussed in this paper are the policy recommendations necessary for urban redevelopment without raising house rent that results to displacement of low income earners in Australia. Trueventus urban renewal Australia Trueventus urban renewal Australia is a strategic framework and discussion platform with the aim of shipping the Australian urban renewal policy in creating a sustainable city. Government representatives, policy makers, investors and other key decision makers are coming together to address the issue (Wang, 2010).The government has the duty of coming up with policies which safeguard the quality and ensure affordable housing such that its citizens despite their income level can easily access housing(Wang, 2010). A multifaceted strategy addressing housing challenges is necessary to achieve this objective. Importantly the government should ensure affordability of the houses where the low income earners reside. Protection policy In order to protect the people from rising rents, the government should come up with a protection policy. Good cause eviction policy is one way to protect the tenants as it ensures they are not evicted without a good reason (Berry, 2003). As much as it does not protect those who cannot afford rent it reduces indiscriminate evictions, allowing residents to adjust to rent hike. In addition residents get more time to get alternative housing. The owner is required to issue a good reason for eviction such as failure to pay rent and intentional destruction of the unit. Again for the purpose of protecting low income earners the government should come up with clear processes for filling petitions as well as penalties for landlords who unfairly evict tenants. In addition vulnerable groups such as pregnant woman and the elderly should be protected from no fault evictions (Wang, 2010). Condominium Conversion Protection Condominium conversion protection serves as a policy which protects the renters from their rental units being converted into condominiums and sold to other renters. In addition it solves the issue of inadequate rentals to the low income earners. Residents should be issued with up to three years notice before conversion even giving them a chance to buy a unit before selling it to new residents, saving financially capable residents from displacement. Condo conversion protections also requires that the owner pays a fee that is directed to affordable housing to minimize the impacts of reduced rental housing brought about by condo conversion. A lottery which restricts the number of convertible buildings annually should also be established as a means of preventing displacement. The residents have the right of first refusal against the owner selling the entire building which can lead to the transfer of ownership to a person who is ready to preserve the building for rental purposes affordabl y. Give Density Bonuses Another policy applicable in Australia to increase affordability of housing amidst urban redevelopment is the policy of density bonuses (Shaw, 2004). Under this land owners receive a bonus such as to build more units than the allowed ones if they agree to make a certain portion of the unit affordable to low income earners. In another approach of the density bonus policy, owners are allowed to develop their property beyond existing zoning specifications (Shaw, 2004). In return they make sure a share of the new residential is affordable to low income earners. The owner can also receive financial assistance for development from the community with a promise of including affordable units in the development. In addition the government should mobilize initiative from volunteers to build affordable houses in favor for the low income earners as a moral persuasion. The government may give landlords who consent to the moral persuasion a land tax holiday or tax cuts as incentives (Shaw, 2004). Rent Stabilization Notably rent stabilization is a practical strategy to prevent displacement and rent hike. The strategy ensures that rent can only be increased by a specific amount annually making it easy for those unable to adjust to sudden rent rise. In addition rent stabilization policy assist renters to select a house based on their anticipated income for the future. Mandatory inclusion zoning is another strategy addressing housing needs of the low income earners, (Lees, 2008). The requirement of this policy is that developers should make a portion of the newly developed units affordable. According to this policy about 10 to 20% of the new unit should be affordable to individuals at a certain income levels. For effectiveness the policy should be adopted prior to the development (Lees, 2008). Tax Increment Financing According to Zukin (2007), tax increment financing is a strategy for financing infrastructure plus other public improvements the government should use to reduce the negative externalities caused by tax burden on land owners. Tax increment financing raises the capability to maintain a low but steady rental increments. It includes funding for investments such as sidewalks, electricity bills and water expenses. Therefore, communities are able to pay increments on property taxation. Zukin. (2007) explains that the policy can be used for other purposes such as pooling funds for affordable housing as well as prioritizing cheap home ownership. Linkage Fees Program Linkage fees program is a mechanism where the government generates funding for affordable housing in places undergoing redevelopment (Zukin, 2007). It does so by asserting a fee to nonresidential developments and spends the money to come up with affordable housing. Hotels, manufacturing facilities are examples of the nonresidential developments that raise the funds. Justification of this fee is in the fact that in areas with both residential and nonresident developers, competing for land, land value rises as well as housing challenge. This is in contrary to areas where developmental and non-residential are not in direct competition. Further, the initiative of funding nonresidential development can foster neighborhood change through creation of amenities that attract extra charges and higher income earners who want to reside near their workplaces (Zukin, 2007). In return rent and home value increase tremendously which explains the justification for linkage fee and promotes fair sharin g between the nonresidential developers and the commercial developers (Zukin, 2007). According to Davidson. (2008) Linkage fees also acts as a solution for the imbalance caused by the job housing ratio where commercial developers outpace affordable housing in a certain neighborhood. Commercial projects, offices and parks increase demand for affordable houses whose members are workers in this businesses. Imbalance between demand and supply for affordable units raise rent hence distorting the peaceful existing of the neighborhood. Linkage fee policy has several purposes such as determining how and who benefits from the fee. In the linkage fee program, communities decide a balance between the amount of funds to be raised and the economic development to foster. Increasing costs discourages commercial development (Zukin, 2007). Housing Trust Funds Notably, housing trust funds is a practical policy in reducing housing coats and minimize displacement. The policy works to generate and bring together financial resources to promote housing development and support local government departments to maintain affordable housing for the low income earners. Societies that establish new funding incentives, an example of tax increment financing can come up with a housing trust fund that prioritizes on expenditures. In addition the policy can be financed through revenue bonds, real estate transfer of taxes and taxes collected from building improvements. Housing trust funds have the advantage of flexibility which allow communities come up with initiatives that meet the needs of the society. Further, the policy can be used for preservation and growth of homebuyer assistance programs and promotion of ongoing rental subsidies, (Lees, 2008). Targeting Local Housing Resources Targeting federal, state and local housing resources is important in promoting affordable housing. The initiative uses Home and Community Development Block Grants that assist in funds distributing to ensure equality in the community by giving equal weights to applications from all individuals. The policy makes the decision on whether and how to come up with the allocation target for the resources in the community Boddy, M. (2007). Importantly, recognition of societys decision on grant allocation and available funds outdoes the impact on the production of affordable rent rates, due to the federal decision on raising the funding through the low Income Housing tax credit. Communities have a chance to increase their allocation if they are willing and have the capability to control the funds. Tax Incentives According to Atkinson, R. (2004) Local and state tax incentives should be used to encourage maintenance of existing affordable housing. Tax incentives, promote housing goals such as development of affordable taxes, lower property tax rates and a longer period of tax payment. Credit facilities should be offered in cases of property underutilization which promotes development through the raised tax rate for land improvements. Tax incentives foster development without a specified population target but with a great emphasis on the requirements needed to meet the tax objectives. The government should use tax to stimulate development projects if they lead to increased affordable housing. In addition, the tax policies should specifically aim at promoting affordable units in the allocated neighborhoods (Lees, 2008). Parking Incentives In reference to Lees. (2008), the government should as well make use of parking incentives in creating affordable shelter for the people of Sydney. Parking incentives policy aims at motivating development without increasing the cost and space required. Reducing parking requirements for residential developers, reduces the cost of production, hence increasing the availability of affordable housing. This would particularly be applicable for Sydney with its large population and high land costs. Like other incentives, parking incentives promotes different kinds of development (Freeman et al, 2004). Hence, the government must specify the target population that benefits from the new units. In addition, the incentive should consider raising developmental units without expanding the parking space. Yet, as the population density raises, parking space tightens, reducing transit space which raises concern as to whether parking supply is a sufficient strategy. Expedited Permitting Accordingly, the government should enhance expedited permitting, which is important in cost reduction associated with delays and red tapes in permits acquisition. According to Weber, R. (2002) Time is an important factor and therefore long durations of obtaining building permits or approvals could cause a great deal of efficiency. Expedited permitting can reduce development costs by coming up with clearer and shorter permit processes such as online fees payment and automated payments. Communities should clearly differentiate between requirements and development needs to receive expedited permitting. For those who chose expedited permitting policy, parallel processes should be put in place to ensure affordable and new developments (Berry, 2003). Impact Fees Impact fees is another incentive the government can use to the advantage of low income earners as far as housing is concerned. According to Berry. (2003), it is designed as a onetime charge to cater for development project such as waterlines, schools and pathways. In reference to Berry .(2003),through cutting this fees, new development projects for affordable housing can foster incentives to lower costs even further. Summary To summarize, bearing in mind the consequences that come along with poor housing, the government has a large pool of choices to pick from to ensure affordable housing. The mentioned incentives are especially a shortcut in fighting this challenge. A combination of the incentives would be far more efficient not only to promote affordable housing but also to maintain the housing. If anyone is to be productive out there, then it begins from a comfortable home. References Atkinson, R. (2004). The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance?. European Journal of Housing Policy, 4(1), 107-131. Berry, M. (2003). Why is it important to boost the supply of affordable housing in Australiaand how can we do it?. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 413-435. Boddy, M. (2007). Designer neighbourhoods: new-build residential development in nonmetropolitan UK citiesthe case of Bristol. Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 86-105. Davidson, M. (2008). Spoiled mixture: where does state-ledpositive'gentrification end?. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2385-2405. Downs, A. (1981). Neighborhoods and urban development. Brookings Institution Press. Freeman, L., Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52. Lees, L. (2008). Gentrification and social mixing: towards an inclusive urban renaissance?. Urban Studies, 45(12), 2449-2470. Randolph, B., Holloway, D. (2005). The suburbanization of disadvantage in Sydney: new problems, new policies. Opolis, 1(1). Shaw, K. (2004). Local limits to gentrification. Gentrification in a global context, 172. Wang, Y. P., Murie, A. (2000). Social and spatial implications of housing reform in China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 397-417. Weber, R. (2002). Extracting value from the city: neoliberalism and urban redevelopment. Antipode, 34(3), 519-540. Wu, F. (2004). Residential relocation under market-oriented redevelopment: the process and outcomes in urban China. Geoforum, 35(4), 453-470. Shaw, K. (2004). Local limits to gentrification. Gentrification in a global context, 172. Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: largescale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542-577. Zukin, S. (2007). Gentrification: culture and capital in the urban core. Annual Review of Sociology, 129-147.