The Antiplanner

Return from the North

15th March 2010

Return from the North

I visited a government-subsidized ice-sculpture park and rode a government-subsidized train. Sometimes, it seems like everything in Alaska is government-subsidized.

This sculpture from the Ice Park in Fairbanks is supposed to be a grizzly bear wielding a beaver like a chainsaw to cut down a tree which an angler has climbed. Maybe the bear just wants the fish. Or maybe he wants a subsidy to fish.

I also spoke in several different forums. You can download one of my presentations in PDF or PowerPoint formats. This presentation focuses on the relationship between urban planning and the housing prices. I may post some of my other presentations later in the week.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 15th, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Regional planning, Travels. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 25 responses to “Return from the North”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

1 On March 15th, 2010, JimKarlock said:
Too bad most city planners, greens and politicians are complete illiterates on economics.

Thanks
JK

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 1:34 am
2 On March 15th, 2010, the highwayman said:
JK: Too bad most city planners, greens and politicians are complete illiterates on economics.

THWM: Yet some how Jim you keep over looking that fine piece of socialism in front of you home called a street!

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 2:15 am
3 On March 15th, 2010, Dan said:
I enjoyed my time up there & could live there if the daylight thing was better, and I enjoyed almost as much the seeming paradox of the Strong, Rugged Individualist changing the subject about the manna from Uncle Ted spread thick across the land. The Barracuda’s ugly sprawl being a fine example.

DS

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 3:11 am
4 On March 15th, 2010, Dan said:
This presentation focuses on the relationship between urban planning and the housing prices.

All the theorists of cogent presentations spinning in their grave after just one look at this “presentation” notwithstanding, here’s an interesting press release from last week:

Stanford Report, March 10, 2010
Stanford research shows Silicon Valley land conservation didn’t hurt housing development

Developers in the San Francisco Bay Area have often blamed land conservation initiatives for limiting the region’s housing supply and driving up real estate prices. But new research suggests land conservation has had a relatively small impact on development.

BY AIMEE MILES

It’s no secret that the San Francisco Bay Area, where the median house price is $350,000, is home to expensive real estate. Developers have often blamed conservationists for the high costs by arguing that making land off-limits for new construction shrinks the area’s housing supply and drives up prices.

But Stanford researchers say that argument holds little water. Only 51,000 more homes would have been built in the southern Bay Area’s Silicon Valley if land had not been set aside by nonprofit groups and the government, they say.

In a study conducted by the university’s Bill Lane Center for the American West, executive director Jon Christensen, sociology graduate student Carrie Denning and landscape ecologist Robert McDonald analyzed whether land conservation efforts in Silicon Valley – which has about 116,000 acres of protected parks, forests, waterfronts and wildlife refuges – have hurt housing development.

Their findings, published online in the journal Biological Conservation, suggest that land protection may not have much of an impact on the number of housing units available in the region. That’s because most of the protected land isn’t suitable for development, they say.

“The conserved lands that were saved in the Bay Area tended to be higher elevations in the foothills and along the Bay, and they weren’t necessarily prime for urban development,” said Denning, the project’s lead researcher.

She said the findings are “very significant given the contemporary debate about conserving land in the Bay Area.”

“Conservation is just one factor of many that influences housing,” she said.

Silicon Valley: Conserve or develop?

Since the 1960s, local conservation groups have campaigned to preserve bayfront property and native biodiversity by buying tracts of land. Their efforts, coupled with new zoning regulations aimed at curbing congestion, made sure that large portions of land in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are off-limits to real estate and commercial developers.

Critics say the conservation stymied development and led to reduced housing stock and higher local land prices. And that has spurred the growth of sprawling communities in surrounding areas, they say.

Their arguments have been backed by several academic studies conducted within the past few years arguing that Silicon Valley – an area of scenic foothills, bayfront vistas and diverse ecological microcosms – has fallen victim to its own robust tradition of conservation.

But the new Stanford study challenges those findings.

…

DS

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 6:42 am
5 On March 15th, 2010, Scott said:
In the South Bay, conservationist controlled land is only a portion of all land withheld from construction. The UGB & other zoning & huge impact fees, restrict much other land.

The # of units said to be avoided, because of the conservationists, 51,000, is a sizable amount, at about 8% of all housing units in Santa Clara County. That amount, alone, can cause a considerable imbalance in supply & demand. The urbanized area in the South Bay has hardly, if at all, expanded for over 2 decades, mainly because of zoning. That’s a huge pressure on supply. Prices even rose after the dot.com bust, which was unusual.

Those Stanford researchers are not even educated in the fields necessary–not statistics, not economics–but in sociology. That’s like a botanist trying to figure out why Toyotas don’t stop. The researchers also had a pre-determined conclusion, like many AGW alarmists.

Demand to live in the Bay Area & CA has even been going down. The net domestic migration for each has been negative since 2000, larger than even natural growth (births – deaths). Population growth has been positive because of immigration.

Hman, it’s inaccurate to think that any level of government [beyond anarchy] would be considered socialism.

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 8:33 am
6 On March 15th, 2010, Andy said:
Dan’s incoherent postings here undermine his credibility in criticizing other people’s presentations.

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 8:33 am
7 On March 15th, 2010, lgrattan said:
Dan,
Regarding Stanford Study, March 10, 2010
“Stanford research shows Silicon Valley land conservation didn’t hurt housing development”

It forms and leads many other groups that get involved in all forms of growth management, reducing supply of land for homes, increasing home prices. Urban Growth Boundary, Coyote Valley, 7,000 acres adjacent to San Jose, off limits. Proposal to require lot size of 120 acre per home in County areas, regulations, Smart Growth etc. etc.

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 10:48 am
8 On March 15th, 2010, Dan said:
l:

So the Stanford study ” forms and leads many other groups that get involved in all forms of growth management”, or the unnamed Silicon Valley land conservation people “forms and leads many other groups that get involved in all forms of growth management”?

And again, I ask for the nth time, what is the total amount of buildable land in the Bay Area, how many DUs does that translate to, and what is the reduction in median home cost as a result? Please factor in the lowering of QOL and equilibrium rents from the loss of open space.

Again, I wait for these figgers.

DS

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 11:38 am
9 On March 15th, 2010, Scott said:
The Bay Area is about 7,000 sq.mi.
The urbanized portion is about 1,300 sq.mi.
There is at least another 1,000 sq.mi of easily buildable land (flat or low slope).
Many hillsides are available too.

The vacancy rate in the Bay Area is about 3-4%. The national rate is 12%.
There is a big connection with lower vacancy rates & higher prices; it’s simple supply & demand.
If housing was built on only about 50 sq.mi., that would double the housing for sale. That could easily drop prices $100,000, at least. Prices already dropped $200,000 from the peak in 2007.

There are many misconceptions about how people value open space.
Look at Manhattan. That destroys any argument, with its density of 65,000/sq.mi.
Open space is mostly “beyond reach”–not adjacent, not viewed & rarely visited.
If people really valued to see open space, rooftops would be used much more–for apts & for houses.
So this QofL is bogus.
Are prices much higher in Montana or in 80%+ of counties where is there is plenty of space? No!
It’s a normal pattern for land prices to decrease, the farther away from the core.
Surprise, Sherlock! More open space there. More reality that destroys this open space farce.

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
10 On March 15th, 2010, blacquejacqueshellac said:
The usual suspects lurking about I see, commenting as nastily as possible, still, so let the jeering continue.

THM: Yes, yes, we know you think roads are over subsidized, – and that Yngvi is a louse. Perhaps there is a platform in Hyde park where your comments would be more appreciated.

DS: You continue to reason in a hostile manner, no doubt to impose your reverse onus on the rest of us. You ask “what is the total amount of buildable land in the Bay Area…” to demonstrate that there is lots of land and prices are not affected. Most of us think this proposition is nuts, especially those of us who actually buy and sell and develop land, but hey, ho, everyone has an opinion.

However, why do you get to ask this question? Why should I as a landowner [Not really of course, I would not buy land in the heart of communist Amerika [I use the k on purpose, to twit the lefties amongst us, long comfortable with claiming America is fascist, which it hasn't been, but soon will be if Pelosi-Reid get their way] for anything on earth, but for the purpose of argument.]

Where was I? Oh yes, why should I as a landowner have to answer for the 1st or the nth time any questions about fuck all or fuck nothing? You’re the one claiming that stealing my rights by taxation and regulation is a good thing, you prove it, you answer my questions, over and over and every day. After all, things change with time.

If you cannot or will not do it, then buzz off. The left repeatedly asserts as fact a dubious proposition and then demands that we on the right disprove it. Nonsense. You prove it, repeatedly.

I have a piece of land in BC, nearly as commie a place as California. When I subdivided it many years ago I was required to covenant to preserve any ‘Aboriginal Artifacts’ I found. If I ever find something possibly Indian, I will throw it into the lake. Were I to report any such finds I would no doubt be dispossessed by the local DSes, for my own good and the good of the people. The land is burdened with various other onerous regulations, also all for my own good and the good of the people.

Oddly enough my property in BC is worth much less than equivalent land in Montana a mere 20 miles away, on the same lake, same eco-system, same micro-climate, same view, same everything except politics, adjacent to same highway, 93, which even has the same number in the USA and Canada.

The Montana land is much easier, regulation-wise, to develop.

Whoda thunk it, eh, land that’s easy to develop worth more than land hard to develop, eh? [Note the 'eh's establishing my Canucki bona fides] Damme that’s a weird outcome. Perhaps I shall petition the BC government for even more onerous regulations to further enhance the value of my land. That subdivision can be done in mere two years instead of five is an outrage that must be brought to Her Majesty’s attention. We require more laws. Commerce doth run too fast.

That’s enough leftie baiting. I shall go out and ride my motor-bike to soothe my soul and save the planet.

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
11 On March 15th, 2010, Dan said:
Right, no answer is available so the hand-flapping and Gish Galloping commence. Right on schedule.

Surely some advocacy group – surely one funded by Wingnut Welfare – has done these calculations to prooove that the holy market is better’n th’ plannurz.

So where is this thing-tank analysis? Surely one is out there!

What is the number range of underbuilt DUs and what would their fantastic impact on median home prices be? I’ve asked this here often enough, surely someone can cough a think-tank “analysis” by now! We don’t even need to calculate reduced welfare and QOL due to the loss of amenity and thus lower equilibrium rents – just the narrow analysis of new median home value!!!!!!

DS

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
12 On March 15th, 2010, Spokker said:
A private firm would have sculpted a higher quality ice sculpture and for less cost too.

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
13 On March 15th, 2010, Andy said:
So let’s all pretend to be Dan for a few days and ask him to do research for us about his theories. I’ll start with: Dan, provide all the data about any city in the world that was not already wealthy (like Detroit in its heyday), which then enacted strict new age zoning and urban growth boundaries, and then became a posh rich city with lots of latte stands?

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
14 On March 15th, 2010, Scott said:
Dan, as usual, you had no content.

You have abstained from quoting/referencing/linking to Edward Glaeser, Joseph Gyorko & Paul Krugman, who all know supply & demand, and know how zoning & regs constrict supply & raise prices. It’s not clear why you think they support your view. That shows your inability to comprehend some items. You must have focused on one sentence, taking it out of context & out the overall meaning.
Hey, lefties do that often, so you’re not alone.

Find some stuff by Robert Bruegmann & Peter Gordon

posted on March 15th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
15 On March 16th, 2010, Dan said:
So no one can back their implicit claim. Again. And Breugmann IIRC autographed his book for me.

DS

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 7:18 am
16 On March 16th, 2010, Andy said:
Dan can’t back up his claim that he is not an idiot. Again.

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 7:32 am
17 On March 16th, 2010, Scott said:
Dan says, therefore it is.
Dan avoids facts, reality, reasoning, etc.
Dan asserts & labels without any backing.
Dan calls bullshit on things he doesn’t understand.
Dan admits that he has trouble recalling even his own experiences.

Dan’s strategy: Ask any of 5 Ws or H.
Then, avoid answer, insult, type vague generalities (often unrelated), consult Thesaurus, cite irrelevant facts, obfuscate & go to tangents.

So, what’s the reason for sustained high prices in a few urban areas?
Demand alone is not why. The 5+ fastest growing large UAs do not have considerably higher housing prices.

People often look to exceptions.
Somehow, not realizing that there has not been a claim that “this” is the only reason for higher prices.
Phoenix & Las Vegas are back to their traditional prices.
They did have temporary price rises due to supply restrictions.

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 10:14 am
18 On March 16th, 2010, Dan said:
If anyone gets past the ideologue spamming and hand-flapping, there is a claim that growth management in the Bay Area is, like, um, bad and if it were to just go away, house prices would be, like, um, rosy.

No one can show this, though. No one can show X more dwelling units gives Y less median home price, even with increased environmental burden to pay for, or lower QOL, greater engineering cost for seismic etc.

No one. Can. Show. This. The hand-flapping as seen above is the standard thread content.

HTH.

DS

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
19 On March 16th, 2010, Scott said:
Not sure what “ideologue spamming and hand-flapping” is.

It’s commonly known that supply & prices are inversely related.
To spell it out in simple terms: more supply leads to lower prices.
Think of an auction & bidding the more people who want certain products, in limited supply, the higher prices go.
For those who are unable to grasp that concept, you should probably read some basic econ.

Dan, you seem to have a hard time reading. On one of O’Toole’s 1/2 page intros, you even asked for an elevator pitch. Do you take an elevator for one floor?

In the Bay Area, the vacancy rate is low about 1/3 of the national average. Imagine if there were 3 times as many houses, available for sale. Buyers would have more negotiation room & sellers would be more competitive; lower prices would result.

Dan, many people have shown this demand & supply concept, in regards to housing.
It’s a universal concept. You seem to want local analysis. Well, it’s like gravity. Being a mile up is insignificant too.

Basically, Dan, what your are implying is that there is no such thing as a “scale” with demand & supply, & that changes for either can change price.
Look at oil & how those prices changes. That too, is probably too deep for you.

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
20 On March 16th, 2010, Dan said:
Housing prices are much more complex than supply and demand. Which is the implicit point throughout this thread. And my point in many places here. Those who pander to those who think only supply and demand rule housing prices know that it is more than supply and demand and seek to dupe those who think supply and demand is the simple answer. Housing prices are much more complex than supply and demand. Which is the implicit point throughout this thread. And my point in many places here.

DS

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
21 On March 16th, 2010, Scott said:
Dan, Repeat one more time, without even saying anything.
You are acting like they are separate items.
Supply & demand affects anything that is exchanged.
Hint: scarcity leads to higher price.

Do you like to gain knowledge? More info on econ will help.
Also http://fee.org/ http://mises.org/
Some articles have examples, which you will benefit from, to better comprehend.

Supply & demand varies in complexity, depending upon the product. You seem to be thinking of a simple commodity. Don’t get mixed up with my mention of oil.

Housing has dozens of features. You seem to be mixing up “the amount of supply” and “what people demand”.
Actually, people’s standards, for what they want, go down with limited supply, partly because they have to settle, there are fewer options, & there is little competition among sellers.

Even though the “creation” of housing supply is complex, it can be simplified to “availability”, which can also be seen in vacancy rates. There are also related measurements, such as turnover, days on market, etc.

It’s not that complex if there are 3% of total urban area housing units for sale or if 12% are.
That is a simple concept, but can be hard to understand.

Since 2000, most large UAs, in middle America, grew more than SF–Oakland–San Jose, but all have lower housing prices & higher vacancy rates & fewer housing restrictions & lower density & less congestion.

posted on March 16th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
22 On March 17th, 2010, Dan said:
Ignoring the Gish galloping, does anyone know what is the total amount of buildable land in the Bay Area, how many DUs does that translate to, and what is the reduction in median home cost as a result? Please factor in the lowering of QOL and equilibrium rents from the loss of open space.

As in all the other threads where I bring this up and the usual suspects furiously try to distract, I continue to wait patiently for these figgers.

DS

posted on March 17th, 2010 at 6:50 am
23 On March 17th, 2010, Scott said:
That’s been explained.
I give up on trying to provide you with more knowledge.
Continue to keep your biases & blinders on.
It’s very complicated on many factors that create housing supply low.
You try to simplify it, ignoring many items & refusing to learn.

It’s ridiculous to think that supply & demand does not matter for some products.

posted on March 17th, 2010 at 8:49 am
24 On March 21st, 2010, the highwayman said:
Scott you don’t give a shit and we know you don’t give a shit so STFU!

posted on March 21st, 2010 at 1:54 pm
25 On March 21st, 2010, Scott said:
hyman,
Again you have no meaning no basis.
Analysis doesn’t even necessarily show concern. That refutes your comment, but I doubt you understand.

posted on March 21st, 2010 at 2:27 pm