More on Why Long-Range Planning Fails

Commenter Dan says that my previous post on problems with long-range planning used “outdated examples,” so let’s look at a current example of long-range planning. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) published its Metro Vision 2030, a long-range land-use plan for the Denver metro area, in 2005. That makes it a twenty-five year plan.

Metro Vision 2030 notes that the major challenges facing the metro area include:

  • “Severe traffic congestion that can impede economic development”
  • “Air quality, water supply and quality”
  • “The burden on taxpayers of paying for new facilities and services”
  • “The preservation of adequate parks and open space.” (p. 1)

Remember to online cialis remove the battery prior to dehumidifying, as the battery will drain faster this way. There are so many disorders that are affecting people and making them so tensed about it which also includes Tadalafil (my pharmacy shop generic cialis), Vardenafil (cialis, Staxyn ODT) and Avanfil (Stendra). Being Transparent as Equals – Remember again that the purpose of transparency isn’t price for generic viagra to humiliate your spouse or to keep him on a shorter lease in order to punish him. You need to make lifestyle changes, practice exercises greyandgrey.com cheapest tadalafil india and consume healthy diet. In response to these problems, DRCOG’s vision for the region is:

In 2030, the Denver region will be a dynamic mixture of distinct pedestrian-friendly urban and suburban communities within a limited area. It will be distinguished by a transportation system that includes sidewalks, bike paths, bus service, rail transit and roads; plentiful parks and open space; and clean air and water.” (p. 5)

The Metro Vision plan calls for:

  • An urban-growth boundary aimed at increasing the region’s population density by 10 percent;
  • Smaller lot sizes and more multi-family housing;
  • Development of about 70 high-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented centers;
  • A rapid-transit system, bike paths, and roads. (pp. 6, 14, 37).

How does this plan reduce congestion, air pollution, infrastructure costs, and preserve open space? The simple answer is that it does not. In fact, it will significantly increase congestion, air pollution, and the burden on taxpayers. Its effects on open space are also questionable.

Contrary to what some planners believe, increasing density increases rather than reduces congestion. Planners like to believe that people will drive less if everything is closer together, but the truth is that an X percent increase in density results in less than an X percent decline in per capita driving. Even the latest in rapid transit and pedestrian-friendly design cannot help. DRCOG predicts elsewhere that its plan will increase congestion (measured in hours of delay) by 73 percent by 2025.

With added congestion comes more air pollution because cars pollute more in stop-and-go traffic. Page 73 of the Metro Vision shows air pollution declining, but this is because of reductions in tailpipe emissions. If DRCOG’s actually relieved congestion, instead of made it worse, pollution would decline even more.

The associated Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan calls for spending $5.8 billion on regional road improvements (at least part of which will be privately funded) and $4.2 billion on rapid transit (all of which will be taxpayer subsidized). In other words, 42 percent of the region’s transportation capital funds will go for transit, even though DRCOG predicts that by 2025 transit will carry less than 3 percent of passenger travel (see p. 24). Contrary to wishful thinking, blowing a lot of money on transit will not reduce congestion.

The Metro Vision plan imposes other costs on taxpayers. Many of the 70 high-density, mixed-use areas will require subsidies in the form of tax-increment financing (TIF). Some planners claim TIF is not a subsidy, but the new development it funds imposes costs on fire, police, and other urban services without providing any revenues to cover those costs. One Denver-area fire district cited the cost of TIF as a reason why it had to increase taxes on everyone else in the district.

In addtion, far from saving money, infill development often costs taxpayers more than greenfield development. That’s because it is less expensive to extend urban services to new developments than it is to rip up streets in order to replace water, sewer, and other lines with larger capacity lines to serve denser development.

What about open space? Leave aside the question of whether open space really should be an issue in a state that is 97 percent open space, it is not clear that the open space the plan saves is as valuable as the open space it destroys. Planners consider large yards to be destructive of open space, yet Americans regard large yards as some of the open spaces that they enjoy the most. Taking people’s yards away by mandating compact development effectively reduces the amount of open space people use on a daily basis.

Metro Vision 2030 imposes another hidden cost on residents: unaffordable housing. The emphasis on multifamily and compact development means there will be plenty of these types of housing, but the housing that most people want — single-family homes with a yard they can use for gardens, play, and entertainment — is already priced out of sight in parts of the Denver area. Coldwell Banker says that a house that costs $155,000 in Houston would cost $357,000 in Denver and $536,000 in Boulder. DRCOG’s Metro Vision plan will only make this worse.

In short, DRCOG’s plan calls for making most if not all of the major problems it identifies — congestion, air pollution, tax burdens, and open space — worse, not better. It will also impose high housing costs on the region. DRCOG is committing billions of dollars to subsidies for rapid transit, high-density housing, and infrastruction for infill. It is adding billions of dollars to the cost of housing.

Why does this happen? Because there is no scientific basis for regional planning. Instead (to quote a paper cited by Dan in response to a previous post), DRCOG relied on “visioning, scenario-building, and persuasive storytelling”.

In what sense can this planning be called “rational”? DRCOG is not planning for what people want — people don’t want congestion and high housing prices. It is not planning for any particular future needs — Colorado is not going to run out of open space any century soon. This planning is merely some people trying to impose their preferences on other people. That is not rational planning. It is authoritarian government. It is exactly what Americans are supposed to be against.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

25 Responses to More on Why Long-Range Planning Fails

  1. aynrandgirl says:

    The planners, or at least their bosses, have another reason to want what DRCOG produces: taxes. Specifically, policies which produce explosive gains in housing prices also produce explosive gains in property tax revenues, which can then be spent to explosively increase the size and scope of municipal government. Even if congestion isn’t their specific goal, like it is in Portland, the opportunity for bureaucrats to feather their nests with more staff and bigger budgets can’t be ignored as an incentive for their support of such policies.

    We’re seeing it here in Florida, where anti-growth land use policies promulgated by the save-the-swamps environmentalists are killing housing affordability, not just because your mortgage is big, but because the property taxes have become outrageous. Also, since Florida has a Proposition 13 style property tax scheme, but only for homeowners, most of the tax increases hit rental housing which is not subject to the property tax cap, ironically hurting those least able to pay.

  2. Dan says:

    Contrary to what some planners believe, increasing density increases rather than reduces congestion.

    Population growth increases congestion.

    Dense neighborhoods, as I’ve pointed out here before, have residents that produce fewer nonwork trips, as the nearby amenities preclude auto travel.

    In short, DRCOG’s plan calls for making most if not all of the major problems it identifies — congestion, air pollution, tax burdens, and open space [emphasis added]

    Now I know this is a comedy post. Open space as a problem. Good ‘un.

    All those people who demand open space – they’re burdens to society. All that added property value – problem. All that relaxation effect of greenness – horrible. Here’s a clue for the small %age who believe this stuff: open space is part of the built environment. It isn’t a problem, despite the whining of the occasional ideologue who looks for a reason why sprawl is a problem.

    DS

  3. johngalt says:

    Dan, I may have missed something here. Randall notes that the increased density and heavy spending on transit increases congestion MORE than it would otherwise (assuming population growth is constant). NOT that population doesn’t increase congestion.

    Also, Randall did not say that open space is a problem… He quoted Metro Vision 2030 that notes that the major challenges facing the metro area include:

    “The preservation of adequate parks and open space.” (p. 1)

    He also noted that the most important open space to most people is a back yard. I might add that many people also like to see a lot of open space between houses (side yards) and between houses and streets (front yards). All of that “greenness” is what people crave, not some wilderness area miles from where they live and work.

  4. Dan says:

    John,

    you likely missed it because I was obtuse or the comment lacked clarity.

    Randal made a claim, unattributed, with no evidence, that densification increases congestion.

    I provided empirical evidence to the contrary.

    wrt open space, I quoted Randal directly. Nonetheless, it is a commom complaint in, say, the Bay Area that if there were less open space, there would be more houses and thus less demand.

    Secondly, I’m not talking about National Forest Land on the east side of Mt Hood as open space, I’m talking about active and passive green space within city boundaries, adjacent to developments. Hedonic valuation of public goods open space amenities shows us that property values adjacent to open space are higher and drop off with distance. Folk must want this nearby public open space, as they are willing to pay for it.

    DS

  5. JimKarlock says:

    Dan said: Randal made a claim, unattributed, with no evidence, that densification increases congestion.

    I provided empirical evidence to the contrary.

    JK: No you didn’t. Your reference (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Frank%20and%20Pivo.pdf – Fig 2&3) demonstrates a huge increase in total driving as density increases. Its just that the report left off a line showing total driving, a proxy for congestion (amazing how all of these professionals just happen to not address the issue of total driving). To see the missing line, see:

    http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

    Get back to me if you still think that density does not cause congestion. (That is not a claim that density is the ONLY cause of congestion, just that it is a MAJOR cause.)

    Thanks

    JK

  6. JimKarlock says:

    Dan said: I provided empirical evidence to the contrary.

    JK: No you didn’t. Your reference (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gpivo/Frank%20and%20Pivo.pdf – Fig 2&3) demonstrates a huge increase in total driving as density increases. Its just that the report left off a line showing total driving, a proxy for congestion (amazing how all of these professionals just happen to not address the issue of total driving). To see the missing line, see:

    http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

    Get back to me if you still think that density does not cause congestion. (That is not a claim that density is the ONLY cause of congestion, just that it is a MAJOR cause.)

    Thanks

    JK

  7. JimKarlock says:

    Dan said: I’m talking about active and passive green space within city boundaries, adjacent to developments.
    JK: What the hell is “active open space” (as opposed to “passive open space”)

    Dan said: Folk must want this nearby public open space, as they are willing to pay for it.
    JK: maybe, but more want open space in their backyard.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. Dan says:

    What the [hhhhheck] is “active [and passive] open space”

    active = parks, trail. Passive = drainage swales, riparian corridor.

    maybe, but more want open space in their backyard.

    Of course many people want backyards, the majority of those with families. This does not it any way rebut the fact that open space programs are increasing in frequency, scope, and implementation, and that this past election year 134 open space conservation initiatives were passed for a total value of $29B.

    DS

  9. Dan says:

    Jim:

    I have a reply to your 8 in Randal’s queue.

    No you didn’t. Your reference…

    You and I must be reading different papers. You may want to read the text on 51 to understand why your conclusion that a huge increase in total driving [occurs] as density increases , esp as the authors talk about thresholds (employment and residential), and the res thresholds are relatively low.

    Your self-ref to the Density & congestion page is interesting, esp as there has been more than a decade of research since the one ref you cited to back your claim (some would characterize that as cherry-picking, but I’ll refrain from that today as I’m feeling cheery and I’ve already accused you of this). For example, somehow you missed a lit review conducted before you made that page that contradicts your assertion.

    I hate my Uni sub and when it works it doesn’t have this journal, so I can’t cite tables, Rs or Ts, unfortunately, but you’ll note that the abstract implies that the empirical evidence finds that if you have someone who really likes driving, density won’t stop that. That is: trip frequency is dependent upon socioeconomic characteristics and secondarily the built environment, whereas trip lengths are the reverse – primarily the built environment and secondarily socioeconomic characteristics. This makes sense as amenity provision in dense built environments is greater, meaning you don’t have to go as far to get what you want (you can walk if you choose).

    DS

  10. johngalt says:

    Dan said:

    “Folk must want this nearby public open space, as they are willing to pay for it.”

    Do they really Dan? A house next to the open space is worth more than one that is not. That makes sense but is a house on a 3500 sq ft lot next to 40,000 sq ft of open space worth more than a house on an acre lot? It seems to me that people prefer open space to no open space and thier own open space over common open space.

    If people value open space like you are proposing why do they rarely buy that vacant land near their home and instead just try to keep it from being developed?

  11. Dan says:

    Well, this is a nice Shiraz, but nonetheless I’m commenting despite my policy:

    If people value open space like you are proposing why do they rarely buy that vacant land near their home and instead just try to keep it from being developed?

    The bane of free markets: free riders.

    It is hard for folk to knock on doors and propose to the neighbor to throw in with others to buy a vacant lot.

    (Aside: the provision of open space in real life, on the ground, is usually done on green fields, by developers, not single vacant lots in the city).

    Why can’t neighbors get together? How often do you trust folk at your door? Gummint has the legitimacy in the transaction. This is also why Private Property Rights to pertekt the virnmint will never work: negotiating amongst 35 neighbors is hard to do and few have the skills to pull it off and everyone knows it but the property rightists. Anyway,

    [Are] they really [willing to pay for open space] Dan?

    Yes, see my 8 above which likely wasn’t posted at the time you commented.

    DS

  12. JimKarlock says:

    Dan: Your self-ref to the Density & congestion page is interesting, esp as there has been more than a decade of research since the one ref you cited to back your claim (some would characterize that as cherry-picking, but I’ll refrain from that today as I’m feeling cheery and I’ve already accused you of this).
    JK: Tell it to the Sierra club – I got that from their link two days ago.

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Dan says:

    Tell it to the Sierra club – I got that from their link two days ago.

    Your comical tap-dancing around and misrepresenting their evidence aside, I don’t know how this reply helps you at all.

    If you are trying to inform your readers, it is your responsibility to gather the information out there. If you are trying to supply your readers with only the…erm…information that supports your narrow ideological agenda, then keep up the good work.

    DS

  14. JimKarlock says:

    Dan said:
    Tell it to the Sierra club – I got that from their link two days ago.

    Your comical tap-dancing around and misrepresenting their evidence aside, I don’t know how this reply helps you at all.
    JK: You called that graph outdated, and I pointed out that it is still being used by big-time organizations.

    Dan said: If you are trying to inform your readers, it is your responsibility to gather the information out there. If you are trying to supply your readers with only the…erm…information that supports your narrow ideological agenda,
    JK: Of course that is what 6the planners do. Neven mention data that detracts from their faith.

    JK: BTW, I looked up your “Travel and the Built Environment” (Reid Ewing and Robert Cervero) Did you happen to notice Fig 7a? It is a more honest version of the graph you criticized on my web page. Just add a total number of trips line and you have the proof of increasing density increasing congestion using # of trips as a proxy for congestion.

    Again, you are spewing faith & religion.

    Thanks
    JK

  15. ksgathome says:

    Regarding this comment: “Dense neighborhoods, as I’ve pointed out here before, have residents that produce fewer nonwork trips, as the nearby amenities preclude auto travel.”

    Also, relating to the discussion of “open space” vs. large yards.

    As a wife, mother and grandmother, and as one who has been both homemaker and working wife, I can only
    believe that these planning policies are “anti-woman”. Are “non-work” trips the only ones that have value? Women are overwhelmingly the ones who do the shopping and the tranport of children to their activities. In addition, most women are the ones who usually prepare the meals and manage the household (cleaning,etc). It is outrageous to assume that women should somehow walk or bike to town (in all weather, too) to buy the groceries or the household supplies and carry them back on foot or bike while managing children. I assume a woman could do this if she got off work before dark
    and either shopped every day or maybe was a body-builder and could carry 10 bags of groceries home while holding the hands of her children. Congestion steals a woman’s time with her children, (OK, I guess locked in a car with
    cranky kids is being with them). It steals her time at home, it steals her relaxation time.
    Meanwhile, our government spend millions of dollars on bike lanes so a few hard-bodied men can ride
    bikes to work. What a trade-off.

    Regarding the open space issue: In today’s world of child molestors, drug dealers, etc. most mothers do not feel
    safe or responsible in allowing their children to play at the park unattended. Yet, with the increased
    number of working mothers (maybe to help pay for those expensive houses) mothers have less time to spend
    going to the park with their children. Today’s “planners” are forcing such small lots that there isn’t
    room for the children to play in their own backyards with their friends. This is resulting in more children
    being couch potatoes. In the past, mothers could watch their kids playing in the backyard while they fixed
    dinner or did other household jobs. They knew who their children were playing with, they could monitor
    behavior. So now density is affecting how families /mothers can manage their time and how parents can raise
    their children. This is especially of concern since there are so many single mothers who do not have any
    one to help them share the responsibilities of a household. In addition, there isn’t room for vegetable
    gardens which used to be a great way to save money, improve nutrition and train children in worthwhile
    work.

    I realize these comments are not “scientific” but they are from experience and observation. It has also
    been my observation that when “community planning” is done, it is very directed and, surprise!, it turns
    out exactly like the planners wanted, and it often sounds just like the plans formulated in some
    other city or state! amazing. Even the same terms are used.

    A term that comes to mind regarding “planners or planning” as it is now practiced, would be “change agents.”
    And that is a philosophy–not science.

  16. johngalt says:

    On January 21st, 2007, ksgathome said:

    “It has also been my observation that when “community planning” is done, it is very directed and, surprise!, it turns
    out exactly like the planners wanted, and it often sounds just like the plans formulated in some
    other city or state! amazing. Even the same terms are used.”

    That is called the Delphi Technique. Perhaps Randall will do a post on this techinque and the sinister firms that help teach it and implement it like Cogan Owens Cogan.
    http://www.coganowens.com/

  17. Dan says:

    It is outrageous to assume that women should somehow walk or bike to town (in all weather, too) to buy the groceries or the household supplies and carry them back on foot or bike while managing children. I assume a woman could do this if she got off work before dark
    and either shopped every day or maybe was a body-builder and could carry 10 bags of groceries home while holding the hands of her children. Congestion steals a woman’s time with her children, (OK, I guess locked in a car with
    cranky kids is being with them). It steals her time at home, it steals her relaxation time.
    Meanwhile, our government spend millions of dollars on bike lanes so a few hard-bodied men can ride
    bikes to work. What a trade-off.

    I’m a hard-core bicyclist. I have over 12,000 miles in the last 5 years. I have no illusions about women riding on the road.

    But your argument is a red herring. Transit offers options. SOV travel only limits your options.

    Regarding the open space issue: In today’s world of child molestors, drug dealers, etc. most mothers do not feel
    safe or responsible in allowing their children to play at the park unattended. Yet, with the increased
    number of working mothers (maybe to help pay for those expensive houses) mothers have less time to spend
    going to the park with their children. Today’s “planners” are forcing such small lots that there isn’t
    room for the children to play in their own backyards with their friends.

    1. Why would the kids be at home during school hours with no one home.

    2. Today’s planners (note the lack of scare quotes) aren’t forcing small lots – the market is forcing small lots. Small lots allow affordable housing and create more dwelling units in the same area.

    DS

  18. johngalt says:

    “1. Why would the kids be at home during school hours with no one home.”

    I don’t understand what you are saying here Dan? There are fewer than 200 school days, that leaves about a third of the year where parents cant just hang out at home doing whatever while the kids play in the back yard.

    2. Today’s planners (note the lack of scare quotes) aren’t forcing small lots – the market is forcing small lots. Small lots allow affordable housing and create more dwelling units in the same area.

    So “minimum denisity” zoining and and the increased price of land due to UGB constraints have nothing to do with planners? In Portland, when you could buy flat suburban land for $40,000 per acre (early 1990’s) instead of $500,000-$1 million per acre and there were no “minimum density” zoning requirements, I recall many developments where developers met market demand with lot sizes that were much larger than the minimum size in the zone.

  19. Dan says:

    The overarching point is that the demographic used to make the point is not the majority. Most households in most MSAs do not have children, nor do most housholds have parent that are so stupid that they can’t manage to find the other spouse or someone to watch the kids.

    So “minimum denisity” zoining and and the increased price of land due to UGB constraints have nothing to do with planners

    They reflect market constraints. Perhaps you do not know that sf pricing for land and construction are very high. And as you know housing prices are multifactorial, not just whether there is a UGB. As I write this at lunch, I can’t take the time to find whether I’ve posted links here already that show single-factor reasons like UGB presence do not reflect all the reasons why prices are so high.

    In addition, who is to say housing will exist far outside a UGB? Who will provide public works infrastructure? How many people will put up with the commute?

    DS

  20. johngalt says:

    That doesn’t really make any sense to me Dan. Minimum density zoning reflects market constraints? In Portland, when Metro was working on the 2040 plan they realized that the market was demanding and the developers were supplying large lots in smaller lot zones. They passed a region-wide rule saying that one must develop at lease 80% of the maximum number of units on all residential property.

    Also, most residential property, particularly in the suburbs, is priced on a per unit basis, not on a per sq ft basis.

    UGB’s and “other zoning constraints” are all a large contributor to reduced supply which results in higher prices.

    Developers, land owners and buyers pay for public works infrastructure in large part. (developers put in roads and utilites and pay sdc charges to municipalities) Infill development, on the other hand often require large subsidies (like the $100,000 per unit in SOWA) because public works infrastructure is very expensive to extend or replace in the city. A trench through a pasture is pretty easy and cheap to dig in comparison to in a busy city street).

    How many will put up with the commute distance? The market will determine that, when no more people are willing then no more houses will sell.

  21. Dan says:

    johng:

    First, let me say that I used to practice in WA and I prefer their method over OR’s method. I will also say that the published retrospectives after passage of M37 almost universally recognized that top-down control contributed to environment of distrust that lead to the passage of M37 – which will, IMHO, dismantle all the work done and the resultant chaos will have wasted all that money spent on good land-use.

    Now, I’m an ecosystem guy and approach my practice this way, which is to say I think natural systems work best when top-down and bottom-up controls are allowed to do their thing. With respect to the urban ecosystem this means allowing democracy and markets to work along with government.

    Second, I have asked my comments editor to scrutinize my comments more closely and have docked her pay as a result of the previous comment. My previous comment was intended to shorthand a more complex answer and didn’t work very well.

    Land rents have both endogenous and exogenous controls. Simple supply and demand economics – macro – does not adequately explain land rent increases. Looking at – and we’ve seen Kahn and Glaeser mentioned here and I’ve linked numerous times now to these models – micro factors we see that all over the US of A that where locations have moderate climate and jobs where educated folks go to seek amenities arising from non-rent seeking behavior and instead amenity-seeking behavior (PDX is one of them), there are similar rises in land rents. That is my multifactorial comment meaning. Meaning also that simplistic macro explanations are just that – simplistic and do not adequately explain rises in Ricardian rents. Constraints on supply [as in hard UGBs in OR] are also related to non-market goods such as ecosystem services provision and land provision for future generations. As I don’t feel like posting a novel today, I’ll keep it at that, but suffice it to say I prefer it when my job allows me to provision green infrastructure, esp for non-market psychosocial and ecosystem services benefits.

    Now, when you say Also, most residential property, particularly in the suburbs, is priced on a per unit basis, not on a per sq ft basis, on the development end when the cost-outs go to %margins, sf is used, whether to calculate what the final price will be to flip, or esp what the cost will be to develop a platted parcel as construction costs per unit are at the sf. The issue is not final consumer price; I tend to care less about that as I can’t control equilibrium rents or equilibrium rent-seekers (no matter what drivel is published in anti-planning screeds in whatever medium).

    Lastly, then I’ll shut up, when you say The market will determine that, when no more people are willing then no more houses will sell I also assert, using revealed preferences in the CA Bay Area to make a point, this is also a function of land rents and employment locational choice. As the Silicon Valley and increasingly East Bay jobs reflect (and empirical evidence shows), knowledge firms base locational choice on knowledge spillovers and amenity provision.

    This fact makes some Reason mag analyses incomplete when they hold up Houston as a great place. Very few knowledge firms will locate there, because it’s a cr*ppy place:

    These CA and other living wage firms make locational choices on there being other knowledge firms around for the knowledge spillovers. And the other choice is they locate in cities with nice climates with things to do. Why? Highly educated workers seek amenities and nice climates. PDX (except for all that cr*ppy grey in the Pac NW, which is why I left). So, landlords in amenity-rich locations raise equilibrium rents because they can. This raises Ricardian rents and other services’ and certain disposable-income products because provisioners can. Thus, land rents are not only a function of supply but of demand and equilibrium prices. If PDX had the cr*ppy climate and location of Houston, we wouldn’t be discussing this. Because PDX has an amenable climate and electeds directed planners to create spaces for decent knowledge jobs, amenity-seekers moved there (also the Californication from rent-seekers fleeing equilibrium-raisers in CA) raising demand. These amenity-seekers demand services and open space and quality of life.
    It’s the way of the world. High-income folk want the things that amenity-rich areas have, and they’ll bid up really high to get them.

    There are, sadly, in my experience, only two things to do: put up with it or move, because until there are wholesale changes in price signals in the market, you can’t change human nature.

    DS

  22. johngalt says:

    So you are saying that prices are high because the UGB and other zoing restraints make the place nicer and they are also higher because the UGB and other zoning restraints make land more scarce and expensive to develop?

  23. Dan says:

    So you are saying that prices are high because the UGB and other zoing restraints make the place nicer and they are also higher because the UGB and other zoning restraints make land more scarce and expensive to develop?

    I never said anything about ugb/zoning making the place nice; I said Constraints on supply [as in hard UGBs in OR] are also related to non-market goods such as ecosystem services provision and land provision for future generations. ; perhaps stating ‘related to protection of nonmarket goods…’ would have been clearer.

    In addition I used the terms ‘multifactorial’, ‘equilibrium’, ‘locational choice’, etc.

    UGB and other zoning restraints make land more scarce and expensive to develop

    And as I stated using ‘multifactorial’ and ‘simplistic’, it is simplistic to assert one or two factors contribute to Ricardian land rent increases.

    DS

  24. johngalt says:

    do you mind repeating that in english?

  25. Dan says:

    Sure johng:

    So you are saying that prices are high because the UGB and other zoing restraints make the place nicer and they are also higher because the UGB and other zoning restraints make land more scarce and expensive to develop?

    No. UGBs and zoning don’t create amenities. And scarcity is more complex (‘multifactorial’, ‘equilibrium’, ‘locational choice’).

    UGB and other zoning restraints make land more scarce and expensive to develop

    As I stated, it is simplistic to assert one or two factors contribute to land price increases.

    DS

Leave a Reply