This year is the fiftieth anniversery of the Town & Country Act, which the British Parliament passed in 1947. The law set aside most rural land in Britain as “greenbelts” or otherwise off limits to development and built new homes in the form of high rises throughout the war-damaged country. The Town & Country Act also inspired similar laws in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and several U.S. states.
Thanks to the law, Britain today has some of the least affordable housing in the world. For example, London realtors recently converted a 320-square-foot public toilet into a tiny house and sold it for $195,000, and converted a 6’x9′ storage closet into an apartment and rent it for $1,400 a month.
Townhouses in London typically sell for $600,000 or more.
Flickr photo by Sacred Destinations.
free samples levitra Dapoxetine is provided as 30mg and 60mg tablets. A proper love making session is said cheapest price for cialis find out these guys to be successful in internet marketing history. It is recommended by leading doctors throughout the world. no prescription tadalafil Its natural ingredients include such herbs and plants as Ashwagandha, Kesar, Shilajit, Laung, Pipal, and the likes that have medicinal values, and are in use since time immemorial men have seen trying to perform various things viagra generico mastercard about it, to give their organ greater stability.
A new movement has arisen to revisit the Town & Country Act and allow construction of 5 million new homes. Two weeks ago, a group called Audacity held a conference titled All Planned Out? Conference speakers (including Wendell Cox, a known antiplanner) questioned whether “planners can reconcile government policies with where and how people actually want to live.”
Meanwhile, Price Out is an associated “campaign for affordable housing prices.” Its web site informs us that “Houses are not like shares. When share prices rise it means we as a society are richer. When house prices rise on the other hand, society is no richer. We have the same houses and the same people to live in them.”
Priced Out has a “how much richer are you?” calculator for home owners. You enter when you bought your house, how much you paid for it, and where (in Britain) it is located and it informs you that “Your current home has made you £0.00 richer.” You may think the increase in your home value has made you richer, but you can realize that increase is to “sell it and move into cheaper accomodation. In reality most people move up the ladder and choose to stay in their family home through old age.”
The Antiplanner wishes Audacity and Priced Out well in their efforts to rid the United Kingdom of government planning and planners.
The planners seldom talk of one, almost certain, effect of higher house prices: higher property taxes and the resultant windfall for the local government to spend to buy votes.
Thanks
JK
“Thanks to the law, Britain today has some of the least affordable housing in the world”
Gee, I guess people must really want to live there or something.
I’m sure the tourists will flock to the new countryside in increasing numbers as it fills up with beautiful brown roofs, replacing all that ugly green rolling farmland and open space.
Yeah, good luck with that.
DS
Here’s what I don’t get. When the Antiplanner accuses “planning” of making housing unafforable, is his point simply that restricting the supply of a good increases its price? I’m new here, but I’ve yet to see his argument extend beyond that elementary concept from economics.
To stop at “restricting the supply increases the price” seems to miss the point. For one thing, it ignores the various benefits that might result from restricting development. So, my questions are these:
1. Does the Antiplanner deny the existence of such benefits? or,
2. Does the Antiplanner believe that these benefits are outweighed by the costs? or,
3. Does the Antiplanner take an ideological position that government intervention (e.g. to restrict development) is inherently wrong, regardless of costs and benefits?
If #1, wow.
If #2, I’ve yet to see this argument made around here.
If #3, I may disagree, but at least I can respect the position.
D4P
1. The Antiplanner argues that the benefits of housing restrictions are slight and could be obtained in far less costly ways.
2. The Antiplanner believes those benefits are far outweighed by the costs, especially since most of the benefits are imaginary anyway (like the “benefit” of living in an urban area that has a clear demarkation between urban and rural).
3. The Antiplanner does not argue that government intervention is always wrong but that it is so often wrong that it should rarely if ever be used.
You’re also forgetting that the “benefits” of housing restrictions often go to the rich rather than to the poor. Is the argument that sky-high housing prices are a good thing? How bizarre.
Build up, not out. Then everyone’s happy. Antiplanner-types have their affordable housing concerns addressed (in that the supply of housing increases, and thus the prices go down), and planner-types are happy because growth is compact, rural areas are preserved, etc.
Except that most people do not wish to live in high density developments. Building up may make the planners happy, but it makes the residents forced to live in the high rises unhappy. The freedom to live as one chooses means nothing to most planners.
“Except that most people do not wish to live in high density developments.”
Oh. So, if Antiplanner-types oppose high-density developments, is it then fair to accuse them of opposing affordable housing?
First, I don’t think “Antiplanner-types” oppose high-density developments. They only oppose forcing or subsidizing the construction of high density developments that people don’t want to live in.
Second, if one wants affordable housing, one should build the type of housing people want and are willing to pay for. Doing anything else only misdirects resources and worsens the situation. While people want a variety of housing types, the type of housing there is the largest shortage of is single family detached homes. This shortage is largely caused by regulations since there is ample space and resources to construct this housing.
3. should be fleshed out such that: is open space done by force or by will of the people?
DS
“building up” costs about 4 times what “building out” costs, madating the more expensive route reduces supply and decreases affordablity
Except that most people do not wish to live in high density developments. Building up may make the planners happy, but it makes the residents forced to live in the high rises unhappy.
This is not true.
It neglects changing demographics and actual wants on the ground (pg 4).
DS
““building up†costs about 4 times what “building out†costs”
Presumably, you’re holding something constant across the two scenarios. What is it? Number of units? Square footage? Etc.?
On May 31st, 2007, Dan said:
Except that most people do not wish to live in high density developments. Building up may make the planners happy, but it makes the residents forced to live in the high rises unhappy.
This is not true.
It neglects changing demographics and actual wants on the ground (pg 4).
DS
It may be that an aging population will affect the housing types wanted. At for actual wants, I think what people want to buy is the best guage of that. In any case, the market will respond to what home buyers want, if allowed to. There is no need for restrictive regulations and subsidies to cause this.
There is no need for restrictive regulations and subsidies to cause this.
I fully agree.
And I’m glad you read the link to see that surveys show that lots of folks want a choice in housing rather than what they get today.
Hence, relaxing large-lot SFR zoning and allowing dense, mixed-use developments with mixed lot sizes and walkability for the market to choose from, rather than having to “choose” from the lovely palate of McSurburb or a car-dependent McSuburb or a large-lot SFR.
DS
I agree Dan, in a zoning/planning free city the land owner could choose what to build and if he is right or wrong then he will reap the benefit or cost.
Moscow is a zoning-free city, johng, much more so** than the Houston so many pretend to admire but choose not to live in that utopia. Moscovites don’t like it very much and I had the chance to travel there to work and help them overcome this problem, but alas, I couldn’t make it happen. A buddy of mine took his bike and rode to Mongolia, making my regret even worse. Nonetheless,
It is of course overlooked by certain ideologies that the costs of making mistakes are not only borne by the landowner, and the ideology neglects the neighbor’s right to not be harmed. Remedies to such harms in such a planning-free scheme, of course, would tie up the courts provided the harms are recognized in common law (torts, contracts) or by statute for crimes (pollution of wells). Harms such as loss of quality of life are likely not remediable by tort law, and thus it is likely Ricardian rents will fall as Tiebout sorting occurs, as folks out-migrate to more desirable areas where their property values have protection, and thus investments and plans can be made with greater certainty.
Because, of course, planning is a universal human process performed by businesses, militaries, families, governments, individuals, organizations, clubs, and groups. Ideologues’ wish for something to go away that everyone does daily is both curious and comical. What will become of land investment if there is no longer certainty?
Taking away protections that everyone enjoys so a few can realize their fantasy isn’t a sane person’s notion of a winning idea.
DS
** Admittedly made more problematic due to the lack of private property in the past.