sutisuc t1_iypfwvm wrote
Reply to comment by ahtasva in In Newark's Growing Ironbound, Neighborhood Hopes Potential Stormwater Utility Will Bring Needed Relief by madsheb
Yes and parking, housing, etc are all related to land use bub. That’s why the debate is should housing, parking, etc occupy a space.
ahtasva t1_iyqfs4n wrote
🤣🤣🤣 you keep saying the same thing over and over without explaining how. It’s almost as if you are a robot whose program as malfunctioned🤷🏾♂️.
They are all related…. 🤔, tell me how?
TrafficSNAFU t1_iysdelv wrote
I did some quick maths. Using satellite imagery on Google Maps I compared the 61-94 Main Street in Newark's Ironbound to the Edison Parking Lot at 160 Edison Place. Bare in mind this isn't a perfect methodology for multiple reason but the simplified maths are interesting. I picked that particular portion of that block on Main Street as it had 24 residential buildings with "Bayonne Boxes," these were 61-85 Main St and 70-94 Main St. I decided to roughly measure the square footage of their front yards, excluding what appeared to be the City sidewalk. I also excluded measuring the backyards as it was a little harder to determine what was and wasn't paved. I estimated the two rows of homes on each side of the street had roughly 6,880 sq ft of paved driveway/front yard area. In caparison, I estimated that the aforementioned Edison Parking Lot had around roughly 77,112 sq ft of paved parking area. If we assume that each of the residential buildings I measured on that block of Main Street can accommodate two families (households) per building, you have dwelling space for 48 households. Even if we assume one household per building, we still have 24 households. I agree that property owners, regardless of the size of the properties they own should seek any reasonable means to reduce stormwater runoff (reducing impervious surfaces with green space, using more previous types of paving, installing rain barrels, etc), we have to remember the old adage about being "penny wise and pound foolish." I don't think one has to stretch an inference to determine that residences probably provide more value to a community than a parking lot, and that's before we even considers the numbers I calculated.
ahtasva t1_iyt0h9z wrote
Your method is based on false logic. The only thing that matters is the ratio of expected impervious surface into actual impervious surface. That is the only apples to apples comparison.
I believe code requires the max buildable area for a standard lot not exceed 50%. I am almost certain that there isn’t a single lot in the ironbound that adheres to code. A combination of reasons are to blame:
- Loose granting of variance as a result of corruption and/or apathy
- Illegal extension
- Illegal paving over of unpaved surface area
The question is not what the best land use is; it’s whether or not parking lots are the cause of the flooding problem. On that count, they are no more responsible than the average residential lot that is paved over.
If we are Ok with allowing the owners of the average residential lot paving over their lots; why hold the owners of the parking lots to a different standard?
The article perpetuates a popular talking point amongst “activist”, that paved parking lots are either wholly or disproportionately responsible for access run off. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. It’s wise to remember that the parking lots are paved over with the permission of the city, which I presume approves these request on the basis that the residential lots have the impervious surface area required by code.
Bottom line, it does not matter if the parking lots are converted to housing, from a run off perspective; it’s more them likely that there will be no change in net impervious surface area.
A more pertinent question is why don’t we tell the truth? Tell property owners that their homes are flooding because they choose to pave over their yards, throw trash in the street and clog up the catch basins. That their unwillingness to co-operate with the street cleaning schedule has a direct causal effect to flooding.
Unfortunately, In the neo liberal zeitgeist, every issue has to be viewed through a lens of victim and culprit, hence the false narrative that paved over parking lots cause flooding. Poor home owner= victim; greedy parking lot owner = culprit.
How does this false narrative help homeowners ?? It does not! The proposed solution creates more Bureaucracy. Dozens of 100k / year paper pushers, who will raise taxes that the wealthy developers will bribe their way out of. It’s the rest of us who will have to foot the bill.
Start by enforcing existing laws and zoning standards. Restore impervious surfaces and clean up the streets and catch basins.create more open spaces. If all that fails, then we can start billing landowners for runoff.
TrafficSNAFU t1_iyt99t5 wrote
I don't disagree with your sentiment in the last paragraphs about enforcing existing codes and worrying about developers not being held accountable, but to ignore that some land use choices generate more stormwater run off and other externalities than others, seems short sighted to me. I also like to point out, that the residential structures, may have been built prior to the current building/zoning codes being made and hence may have been grandfathered in. I don't know the history of how building codes evolved in Newark so that is only educated guess on my part. Additionally, in 2018, Newark's Office of Sustainability had established some programs regarding stormwater runoff. One of them was a catch basin adoption program and another was a rain barrel giveaway, while the City hasn't seemed to follow up on these efforts, their decision to run these programs indicates to me that this issue isn't purely seen in the way you describe. Additionally, the NJDEP's Resilient NJ for Northeastern NJ, also looks at variety of strategy to mitigate flooding issues from the micro to the macro level. While there are plenty of big ticket items suggested in various scenarios, plenty was written on the importance of small scale action.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments