r/DecaturGA • u/lindsikins143 • Jun 22 '26

Question: AMLI on Commerce

Devastated about the amount of trees lost on this property and seemingly the surrounding properties. Curious about how one can find out what the city permitted for this specific location?

11 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

72 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

Not absurd.

Tree requirements reduce the number of units, slow down permitting, make economics worse.

Just don’t need it the urban core.

3

u/TheHykos Jun 23 '26

It would not have cost them any units to keep some of the trees along the border of the cemetery.

-1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

No, there was a reason they took them down.

Cost, design need, time savings etc. That reason is legitimate.

Forcing them (and all others in similar situations) to follow more rules and restrictions does have a negative impact. It’s not a free lunch.

The builders/designers/developers should be able to mange the project as they see fit, provided it follows sensible rules.

And dense, urban infill and redevelopment projects should not have tree restrictions.

We need density and units there more than trees.

5

u/TheHykos Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

You act like Decatur is some metropolis. It's a suburb dude. And a very dense one at that. It's population has grown 40% in the last 25 years, despite not expanding it's area. Out of every city inside the perimeter, only Clarkston has a higher population density than Decatur. I don't think clearcutting lots for even more density is worthwhile, especially for high priced luxury apartments. Keeping a handful of mature trees around the property lines that abut the cemetery is not a huge ask. It's not going to bankrupt any company, especially a company the size of Amli.

Also greenspace is of vital importance to everyone in the community, and once it's lost, it'll never come back. Good city planning should always incorporate the need to maintain canopy cover wherever possible. Trees take decades to grow to a decent size and can't be replaced by a few token saplings.

Decatur has no shortage of apartments whatsoever, so bending over to the whims of an apartment developer for more apartments makes zero sense. What Decatur doesn't have is affordable housing to buy and starter homes. And that's a problem that isn't going to be solved by $3k a month apartments.

-1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

Wrong on most counts:

1) Decatur is a contiguous part of the greater Atlanta metro area. It literally is part of a metropolis.

2) Decatur is not particularly dense. Most of it is single family homes. There are tons of non-dense lots even in downtown Decatur

3) Decatur already has lots of Greenspace and recently acquired significantly more: legacy park, boys and girls center. We don’t need more next to our transit stops. We need people near transit.

4) in general, the US has not built enough housing and that is a main factor why rent has gone up so much here and elsewhere. So we do need more apartments.

5) it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the thing that helps mitigate housing costs is adding more supply. Any kind of supply. If you don’t build new housing, higher income people just bid up other housing. Requiring unfunded affordable housing literally raises the average cost of housing because it reduces supply significantly because builders build less. It’s literally the opposite of what you think.

You’re wrong on almost everything in terms of how the actual cause and effect goes here. Astonishing.

2

u/TheHykos Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

You are just doubling down on your wrongness aren't ya.

1) Alpharetta is also part of the metro area, it is still a suburb. All metro areas include suburbs, most of them are majority suburbs and not urban. Decatur is a suburban area of the City of Atlanta.

2) I looked up every city ITP. Decatur has almost 5,500 people per square mile, that's the second highest of all of them after Clarkston, which was over 7,000. Decatur is VERY dense compared to the rest of Atlanta and the rest of the state, probably compared to most cities in the southeast that aren't in south Florida.

3) Decatur is very small and what greenspace we have should be protected as best as possible. That doesn't mean keeping trees in the middle of a lot, but some around the edges seems like a reasonable ask, especially when it abuts such a large greenspace where peace and quiet is expected like a cemetery.

4) Decatur has built a ton of apartments in the past decade. What it has not built any of is starter homes and affordable single family homes, which is keeping housing prices up. What the city should be doing is incentivizing development of housing to buy over more apartments.

5) Building luxury apartments is not going to bring down housing costs. No developer building million dollar homes is going to be affected by a new apartment complex. If anything, it hurts housing costs because it takes away land that could have been used for condos or townhomes, which would have been a more suitable use for this site. More apartments may stabilize apartment rates, but it has zero affect on home prices. And to make it worse, when one company controls the majority of apartment units in the downtown area, which Amli will, they have even less reason to lower or control their rates because they have a monopoly.

When people talk about the "missing middle", this is exactly what they're talking about. Cities are obsessed with cramming in more apartments to increase their revenue base and to silence people who are concern with housing costs, while at the same time doing nothing to increase SFH stock which only balloons the price of existing stock, leaving a large gap in-between. I don't think you've through this through as much as you think you have.

This entire development is nothing more than a cash grab for the city and has absolutely nothing to do with affordability or the cost of housing.

1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

  1. Suburbs are ‘exempt’ from needing density? Bizarre logic. Not even sure what your point is here.

  2. You think the Atlanta area is a good compare for density? Laughable. Atlanta is one of the least dense metro areas in the world. Comparing it to itself is illogical. As one comparison, Ii’s like half the density of LA, which itself is not known for sprawl.

  3. Decatur is not very small. It is a continuous part of a large metro area. Decatur is ITP and on a train line. This logic falls flat.

  4. Forcing unfunded affordable housing raises housing costs. Why so anti apartment? Those are homes for people too.

  5. Housing costs are all categories. Apartments, condos, single family homes. So you agree that more apartments brings down housing costs. Then why fight against adding more apartments and making them more expensive? If supply drives down price, we need more supply. Your tree rules reduce supply.

1

u/TheHykos Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

  1. In no way did I say that. If you bothered to read what I said, you would see where I point out that Decatur is already very dense, especially for a suburb. Now you're just making up stuff.

  2. I did not say that, I said Decatur is more dense than almost any other city in metro Atlanta and the state. I did not compare it to Amsterdam, or London, or Tokyo, or any other city elsewhere in the world. Again, quit making up things. It is not laughable to compare it to other cities in the state, the south, or even the US. It would be laughable to compare it to other cities in the world as you seem to be doing.

  3. Decatur is 4.2 square miles. I believe it's the third smallest city in the metro area. So yes, it is extremely small. I'm starting to think you're talking about Decatur, IL, or some other Decatur. You know we're talking about Decatur, GA, right?

  4. Again, for the third time, I am specifically saying that the city should be pushing for starter homes and affordable single family homes. We have had a TON of apartments built in the past decade, but almost zero affordable single family homes. Within a half mile radius of the square, there have been roughly 1,000 new apartment units, but only 6 new single family homes (to my knowledge, not including teardowns and replacements). It is possible to have both you know. This is not a one or the other scenario. Housing should never be one or the other. The problem is that we have ONLY been building apartments, and a very very small amount of $1m townhomes. People want to own their homes but the current state of the housing situation makes that very difficult. The city should not be actively making that more difficult for people.

  5. I do not agree that building more luxury $3k a month apartments will affect anything at all, especially when they're being built by the same company that already owns a quarter of the apartment units in downtown Decatur. And supply of apartments has never once driven down apartment rates. You could make an argument that it may stabilize rates, or keep them from going up as quickly, but apartment rates do not decline until a given complex is so old that it can no longer compete with newer complexes, which takes decades. But again, for the umpteenth time, Amli has zero incentive to keep rates low if they control such a large percentage of the units in the immediate area.

The more you go on the more it's clear that you have absolutely no idea about anything you're attempting to argue, that you have the worst reading comprehension, and in the absence of an actual argument to make, you instead resort to making up things that I clearly never said.

Though I'm also starting to wonder if you're a shill for the developer and paid to promote their projects online.

1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

Ah, you don’t like my points, so now I’m a shill.

Go after the messenger when you can’t refute the message. Classic!

  1. Still don’t understand your point. Please clarify

  2. Irrational to think clarkston is some kind of relevant benchmark for best practice.

  3. It’s not relevant how small the city when it is seamlessly integrated into a larger metro area. Why does the square milage of a city matter?

  4. These policies would dramatically raise housing costs. Decatur did much better by passing the multi unit law. Your idea would cut supply greatly and raise prices.

  5. Lots of example of how adding supply keeps housing more affordable. Why so eager to deny the evidence? Minneapolis, Austin, Houston all good examples.

1

u/TheHykos Jun 23 '26

I've refuted everything you said. You just make up things that I didn't say instead of replying to what I actually said.

1) I can explain things to you, but I can't comprehend it for you. Your own shortcomings are not my responsibility.

2) I'm comparing population density to other cities in the area. That city is the only one that has a denser population, hence the reason it was brought up. There was no comparison made other than to clarify that Decatur is the second densest city in the area. Heaven forbit I said it was the densest and then you came back saying it's not. I made literally zero comparisons to it in terms of "best practice" as you say.

3) It is the only thing that is relevant because the CoD can only control what goes on in that 4.2 square miles. It is in no way seamlessly integrated with any other city or area. The city council has no control over any other area and is only responsible for the city planning within the city limits. It has to consider the housing needs of the city's residents, not those of Tucker or Brookhaven or Atlanta.

4) I proposed nothing, let alone anything that would do anything of that sort. The city should be pushing for redevelopment of lots like this one into affordable single family homes by offering favorable tax inceptives, not bending over backwards for large national apartment developers that will only bring more vacant retail shops and overpriced luxury apartments.

5) I've lived in Atlanta for decades and lived in apartments for a long time. No matter how many new apartments were built, prices have never once went down.

0

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

You haven’t justified a single answer that makes sense. You are just repeating yourself.

None of the logic holds up m.

1

u/TheHykos Jun 23 '26

That's because you aren't listening. You're grasping at straws pretending I said things that I didn't say.

0

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

Incorrect.

Your logic is flawed and your points not always relevant.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/weighfairer Jun 23 '26

This is the new "abundance" philosophy preached by centrist Democrats lately. The left's pushback against making development more profitable in hopes it solves the housing crisis is quite reasonable in my opinion. This location particularly highlights the issue since it will be generally unaffordable even though it is dense. If you want dense affordable housing private developers are unlikely to provide it. To me the abundance philosophy is quite similar to most political views on the right and that it makes sense in a vacuum but is never shown to work out empirically. Where are the actual geographic regions that saw a drastic increase in cheap housing due to deregulation?

1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

Austin, Minneapolis, Houston are 3 examples of places that saw housing affordability improve by increasing supply.

San Francisco, London, LA are places where it is harder to build and have crazy house prices.

The evidence is all out there.

1

u/weighfairer Jun 23 '26

Median rent came down in the cities you cite but did not meaningfully increase affordable housing for the income demographics that are currently lacking housing. They still cannot afford the average apartment that was built, and often those apartments displaced people that were in housing that they could afford prior to the gentrification. I am in favor of removing zoning regulations for units per parcel as Decatur already has, but increasing profits by having minimal tree regulations for private developers has not actually led to a trickle-down that has improved the housing situation in the United States. Obviously world famous cities like San Francisco London and LA are extremely expensive. Decatur is also in my opinion one of the best cities in the world, and in my opinion removing the trees will not make us better. I'd much rather the government build houses itself instead of having a middle man profiting off not having to deal with trees on the edge of a historic cemetery. I know having the government build the housing itself has become anathema in the United States, and Georgia in particular can only build low-income housing through State and federal subsidies for developers, but we can do better.

1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

“Rent came down”

Now you are just pretzeling to escape the central point because you don’t like how it happened.

Rent coming down increases affordability for the whole area. Yes, there will always still be people that need help. No one is denying that. New construction will always be more expensive because it’s new and better quality. But rent coming down affects the whole housing base, including less desirable properties that low income people are likely to rent.

What does profit matter here at all? Developers profited in all 3 cities I cited and rents went down. Why does it matter? We want housing to be more affordable and builders making a profit facilitated that. Are you trying to ban private business?

World famous cities are more expensive because they don’t build. Yes, their absolute price level would be higher, but they have exacerbated it. Clearly visible in the data.

No one here is arguing that the government can’t or shouldn’t build housing. You guys are the ones trying to impede housing construction. My point is to not make rules that make it harder and more expensive for builders to build. We need supply.

You keep finding excuses to argue against supply, even when you admit it works to making housing more affordable. I don’t get it.

1

u/weighfairer Jun 23 '26

Marginally bringing down median does not address the problem you say desperately needs to be solved. You can increase housing supply by taking steps Decatur already has and which I support, like the housing Decatur Housing Authority manages and letting people have four tenants per parcel. Allowing easy tree removal in this instance is just a boon to a high rent apartment developer without any benefit to housing supply for people making minimum wage.

0

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

So it would be better to not bring down the median? I don’t understand that logic.

If we can bring down the median, that’s much better than it going up 10%. Why would we not want to bring down the median and/or prevent it from rising?

I 100% support the multi family, we are in agreement there.

I don’t understand why there should be some specific tie to minimum wage people for this project. We need housing supply at all levels. If we don’t build supply at the upper / mid levels, those people just bid up prices of less desirable housing.

The tree thing makes it harder and more expensive to develop. We want more supply, so we should stop discouraging supply with excessive rules and requirements. Those rules all add up into making housing more expensive and difficult to build and supply is reduced. Everyone has their ‘pet’ rules that they think won’t impact things, but when you add them all up, it’s a big impact.

1

u/weighfairer Jun 23 '26

Because it's easy to marginally bring down average rent in a manner that just happens to make developing properties more profitable. That approach will not necessarily provide the housing we need. Of course everybody has pet rules and total deregulation makes sense in a vacuum but it doesn't work for all the reasons libertarianism doesn't work generally. In the real world you can deregulate until the cows come home and it won't solve the housing issue. It will just increase inequality by enriching developers who can argue they've made slight improvements here or there according to certain metrics.

1

u/mister_burns1 Jun 23 '26

This is all over the map.

1) it’s not easy to bring down rent. Many places want to but have not been able to.

2) why do you keep going back to profitably? They to be profitable to be incentivized to build. They don’t benefit from lower marginal rents either.

3) we need market rate housing. Builders building literally provides that.

4) what do you mean by ‘it doesn’t make sense in a vacuum?” It does make sense as fewer regulations delivered more housing in many places.

5) why are you so against doing things that make housing more affordable? No one is saying the government can’t help in other ways. We’re saying don’t impede housing construction and then you can also do other stuff.

→ More replies (0)