A couple of weeks ago, I asked what we should call Portland’s transit and real-estate development mafia if not the light-rail mafia. Loyal opponent Dan S suggested the “greater choice mafia.” This, of course, reflects the repeated claim of smart-growth planners that all they are doing is offering people more housing and transportation choices.
Bull. If someone wants to live in high-density housing, they can find it. Most Americans don’t, so there isn’t as much high-density housing as low density. But it is there. Planners want to turn it around — to get more people living in high densities than in low. That’s not offering people a choice — it is taking away America’s preferred type of housing from a large share of American families.
If someone wants to take public transportation, they can find it. Most Americans don’t, so public transportation doesn’t go as many places as highways. Planners want spending to be the reverse — where 80 percent of travel is by car, they want to spend 80 percent of our transportation dollars on public transit. That’s not offering people a choice — it is taking away (or at least making more costly) America’s preferred method of mobility from a large share of American travelers.
Taking a rocket ship to work is a choice. So is a hot-air balloon. Living in a underground cavern is a choice. So is living in an undersea city. Why aren’t planners giving us these choices? They would be ridiculously expensive, but then, so is light rail.
This quality of the organ denotes that the medicine has done wonders. viagra cialis generico Are you having trouble obtaining a hard on? Vitality? From certain ailments that stop you getting closer as you can get help from the inventions of medical science which involve- Kamagra, Lovegra, aurogra, icks.org purchase levitra, levitra, purchase levitra etc. to add more fun to the experience and make your task easier. The training classes are provided by expert, experienced instructors who show you safe driving techniques and they are taught perfect methods of parallel parking. generic cialis price And since this Organic Superfood also contains a lot of good components inside it which makes it better and one of the components which help the man to face a good and sufficient supply of order viagra Learn More blood to the penis. More realistically, living on a 40-acre hobby farm and commuting to work in a city on uncongested roads is a choice. But planners want to deny such choices to people. In Oregon, if you own 40 acres, it is almost certainly against zoning rules for you to build a house on it. And uncongested commuting in a single-occupancy vehicle? Forget it. If you aren’t willing to take rail transit, you don’t deserve uncongested roads.
The worst part about the choice claim is that those who make it not only want to take your choices away, they want to make you pay for their choices. A light-rail line costs $50 to $170 million per mile — money that its users won’t ever be expected to pay? So what. It gives people a choice. High-density housing requires huge subsidies such as tax-increment financing? So what. There is a pent-up demand for such housing (though those who supposedly demand it won’t have to pay the cost).
Portlanders had a choice. They voted “no” on the south and north light-rail lines. Yet Portland is building them anyway. Some choice.
The choice argument is rhetoric. Worse, it is Newspeak: saying exactly the opposite of what the planners mean. Planners are experts at Newspeak. When they talk about how bad congestion will be in the future unless we do something about it, what they mean is how bad congestion will be in the future if we let them decide what to do about it. When they say “traffic calming,” they mean “congestion building.”
Just one more reason to abolish the planning profession. Thank you, Dan, for bringing up this issue.
JK: You left out the most obvious example of the planner’s choice lie:
Planners claim that light rail increases choices, but they always cut off the bus line so it does not compete with rail.
Of course they also claim:
* High Density will reduce traffic congestion. It doesn’t, it increases congestion.
* High Density will reduce cost. It actually increases costs.
* High Density will give us affordable housing. High density increases housing costs.
* High Density will let you walk to the store to get a quart of milk. So what?
* Mass transit saves energy. It dosen’t.
* Mass transit reduces pollution. Not really!.
* Mass transit saves money. It is much more expansive than driving.
* If we become more like Europe, people will drive less. Europe drives almost as much as we do.
* Automobiles are massive subsidised. (They aren’t, transit is.)
* Light rail causes development. No the tax abatements and special treatments cause development.
* Light rail is safer than cars. Light rail kills at over twice the rate of cars.
* A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway. Actually it carries as many people as about 1/4-1/3 lane or freeway.
Thanks
JK
This, of course, reflects the repeated claim of smart-growth planners that all they are doing is offering people more housing and transportation choices.
Bull. If someone wants to live in high-density housing, they can find it. Most Americans don’t, so there isn’t as much high-density housing as low density.
No.
I’ve pre-refuted this post already, at least a handful of times.
As I’ve repeatedly said before, before zoning code changes, oftentimes in a place, the code allowed the choice of only large-lot single-fam and large-lot single-fam.
Now, when we read about a new subdivision that bills itself ‘New Urbanist’ or whatever, we also find that the article notes that the development is selling like hotcakes and soon the prices are going way up.
Why does this happen, we ask? Supply and demand! The magical Market! Demographic changes are happening, and far less than half of households have kids; these households are the ones the Murrican Dream sales pitch works for. If you don’t have kids, there’s a good chance you don’t want to mow the big lawn any more.
There is , simply, a pent-up demand for the type of neighborhood that is selling like hotcakes.
Don’t let the Murrican Dream sales pitch fool you** – there’s a fraction of the population that wants a NU or TND development, as I’ve shown here repeatedly. They haven’t been able to realize that want until lately. And as I linked to recently (IIRC), satisfaction in a typical ‘burb neighborhood is lower after time too.
Hence the news stories about all the folks moving back to the city, where the amenities are. But you folks know all this, as this is one of my more common comments here.
The difference this time is I’m not looking up all the links and putting them in here, as I’ve done this already.
Randal hopes you’ve forgotten I’ve pre-refuted this post already.
DS
** Well, you can let it fool you if that’s what you want in order to maintain whatever you need to maintain.
I agree with Dan on this one except for the coercive way (minimum density requirements, snouthouse and other garage limitations and prohibitions, hostile planning commissions that think there is only one way to skin a cat) this seems to maifest itself on the ground.
It seems to me the high demand for the developments Dan speaks of is a result of price. The higher the land price the more likely the developer to go with higher density in order to make the homes more affordable. And of course high land prices are a result of supply constrictions.
Price is the biggest driver of high density sales, not buyer preference. The American dream (rather than the insulting Murrican) is still one of a large lot with room for a garden, a pool, or whatever. Ask your local real estate agent and see if that doesn’t help sell a house. It’s what people prefer.
The way I did it non-coercively when in WA (and I’m about to be able to do here) johng, is that I incentivized garage setbacks behind the porch/front door, density targets (chiefly by interspersing a % of smaller lot sizes for the affordable houses), etc.
That is: if you give me non-snouthouses and decent design and connected street networks and x, y, z, I’ll give you more lots and a, b, c. Here I’ll be incentivizing for E-W oriented long axes for houses, wider treelawns for snow storage and property value enhancement, xeric landscaping and solar access easements.
Planning Commissions are charged to uphold the goals and values of the community. It is a hard job for volunteers. Their quality is mixed, but my PC in WA was tremendous, wouldn’t have thought that there was one way to skin a cat, & would have negotiated for what the community wanted; as there was someone who worked in the development community on board, that voice would have been heard in the process, in addition to our listening to stakeholder voices during the app. process. Also, often PCs aren’t trained in NIMBYism and can cave to the loud voice if they don’t know how to contextualize the volume.
DS
Price is the biggest driver of high density sales, not buyer preference. The American dream…is still one of a large lot with room for a garden, a pool, or whatever.
No.
Not for everybody. Only for a fraction of the population. You should ask the Realtors who are selling property in the cities or selling SG properties.**
The demographics of the young, the empty-nesters, the child-free, the single are moving to the city, as is evidenced throughout the country in the articles we read every day about the repopulation of cities by the demographics I named. By folk in search of amenities, culture, and fleeing yard and pool work and the monotony of the ‘burbs – the longer one stays in a typical ‘burb, the more unsatisfied on is with the neighborhood.
DS
***
I stated that if someone wants to live in a high-density development there are plenty of such developments available. Dan disagrees, saying zoning doesn’t allow such development.
Whether such developments are available is a different question from what zoning allows. In every major urban area I’ve visited, there are plenty of high-density apartments available, both in the inner cities and at least some of the suburbs. They may not all have mixed uses, but rents are usually very affordable (or at least more affordable than buying a single-family home), suggesting there is no shortage. For what it is worth, I have personally lived in such developments in four different states.
The idea that zoning prohibits dense development is a myth except in places like California that have encouraged ballot-box zoning. What may be more true is that, given very affordable low-density housing, the demand for high densities just isn’t great enough for developers to spend much time catering to that market — especially when older developments are available and pretty much saturate the demand.
The issue isn’t about apartments, it’s about SFD or SFA. This is clear for all to see except you, apparently, Randal.
And the NAR has seen fit to educate its Realtors on how to sell TND/NU/dense development, so who knows what wish fulfillment you are projecting, Randal.
Oh, and your The idea that zoning prohibits dense development is a myth except in places like California that have encouraged ballot-box zoning is a real whopper, as your favorite, Glaeser, complains about this very thing in Boston area every chance he gets.
Let me know if you need any help getting up to speed on this issue, Randal. Right now your car is stuck in the garage.
HTH,
DS
In my neighborhood, developers recently tore down a house on a large lot and built nine houses there – side by side, packed in like sardines. Oddly, they didn’t enhance the road. What does this mean? Increased traffic congestion. This is happening all around southwest Portland: take out one house, build four, five, or more. Add a dozen cars here and a dozen cars there, without enhancing the roadway, and before you know it, you have traffic jams where none existed a few years ago. That ain’t progress, it’s “planning”.
Who benefits from light rail anyway? The city in the form of increased tax revenue as a result of the businesses that spring up along the lines, and the property owners, who see their property values double.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Of course citizens don’t count in planning processes. Everybody knows that don’t they? We are just here, they have to pay us lip service.
ps: I am not against light rail, just wasteful light rail.
If one can get past Loyal Opponent Dan’s sarcasm and condescension and actually read his comments rather than reflexively skipping them, his statements are almost ironically funny. As evidenced by the following:
“The way I did it non-coercively when in WA (and I’m about to be able to do here) johng, is that I incentivized garage setbacks behind the porch/front door, density targets (chiefly by interspersing a % of smaller lot sizes for the affordable houses), etc.
That is: if you give me non-snouthouses and decent design and connected street networks and x, y, z, I’ll give you more lots and a, b, c.”
I’m not exactly sure how this is non-coercive. “If you give me what I want and meet my conditions, I’ll play ball with you.” And I assume that Dan is a non-elected staff member that is not directly accountable to the public he purports to be serving.
Some more:
“Planning Commissions are charged to uphold the goals and values of the community. It is a hard job for volunteers. Their quality is mixed, but my PC in WA was tremendous, wouldn’t have thought that there was one way to skin a cat, & would have negotiated for what the community wanted; as there was someone who worked in the development community on board, that voice would have been heard in the process, in addition to our listening to stakeholder voices during the app. process. Also, often PCs aren’t trained in NIMBYism and can cave to the loud voice if they don’t know how to contextualize the volume.”
This statement raises the question: Is Loyal Opponent Dan upholding the goals and values of the community or *imposing* HIS goals and values on the community? After all, he freely admits he makes the developers wanting to build in his community dance to his tune. Has the community selected Dan to uphold their goals and values? If Dan, in his knowledge and wisdom, steers the community in a direction in which they do not want to go, how is he held accountable?
I’m also amused by the patronizing attitude he displays toward the planning commissions with which he has worked.
I get the feeling that the area where Dan is about to start getting a good taste of Dan’s “incentivizing”. I hope they like it as much as he thinks they should.
“If you give me what I want and meet my conditions, I’ll play ball with you.â€Â
No.
This is what the people who actually do these things for a living (rather than simply complaining) call a Developer Agreement. They are common.
They allow the elected body and the public to consider an exceptional proposal, over and above minimums that will never get built because of overly restrictive zoning regulations. It is not coercive at all, because the developer can choose to not participate and build to minimums, rather than more than minimums. And the public sees the agreement.
The rest of your argument fails because of these facts.
…the patronizing attitude he displays toward the planning commissions with which he has worked.
Your rhetorical tactic of mischaracterization needs much work. Suggestion: you should, in order to shape it up, try the basic requirement of providing an example where I have done so.
Oh, wait: you can’t, as I said
HTH.
DS
Dan:
What if someone wants to build snouthouses, with what they consider to be “decent design” (but you, perhaps, don’t) on curvilinear streets with cul de sacs – something that complies with the “overly restrictive zoning regulations”? What “incentivizing” do you do then?
Perhaps it is those “overly restrictive zoning regulations” that are causing the problems? But aren’t the local zoning regulations another representation of the goals and values of the community? Instead of circumventing their restrictions, why not simply *change* the zoning regulations if the community’s vision, goals, and values (not *yours, by the way) have made them obsolete? It seems that would eliminate the need for most Developer Agreements, because the exceptional proposals over and above the restrictive minimums would tend to go away.
Of course, it may be possible that your ability (or is it *power*) to “incentivize” would be reduced if the zoning regulations actually represented the community’s values and you were bound to implement (and not circumvent) them.
And accept my apologies for my error with respect to your patronizing attitudes towards planning commissions.
Randal, I think I have something stuck in your spam queue.
DS