Wendell Cox, one of the Antiplanner’s faithful allies, argues in a new paper that “smart growth exacerbated the international financial crisis.” Of course, the Antiplanner has said this at least since last December (and The Best-Laid Plans predicts such an outcome), while some of the Antiplanner’s loyal opposition remains skeptical.
Skeptics probably won’t be persuaded by Cox, simply because his arguments are similar to those previously made here. “Excessive land-use regulation,” says Cox, led to artificial housing scarcities. This drove up prices and led people who would otherwise have been able to afford a mortgage at prime rates to turn to subprime loans. Of course, the loosening of the credit market contributed, but without smart growth, we would currently have a “subprime mortgage problem” rather than a full-blown international economic crisis.
This medicine contains ‘sildenafil citrate’ as its main ingredient and is available in the strength of 100mg. levitra without prescription But before you do anything, make sure you have slovak-republic.org viagra wholesale india consulted a physician, or other healthcare provider, and the medication is suitable for you. Flagyl should be stored at viagra 100mg sildenafil room temperature and keep it away from heat, moisture, and light. This information levitra properien can be given exactly by the doctor only.
Cox supports these points with data showing that housing prices went up the most in regions with growth-management planning, but faster than inflation in some regions without such planning. This is supported by independent estimates of overpriced housing (see appendix B): the most overpriced housing is in places like Oregon, Washington, California, and Florida, which have been practicing some form of smart growth or growth management since before 2000. In contrast, the least overpriced homes are in Texas, North Carolina, Louisiana, and other states and regions that have avoided such policies.
Do sub-primes account for a higher proportion of mortgages in places like Oregon, Washington, California, and Florida? Do those states also have a higher proportion of mortgagees defaulting? That would more directly prove Wendel’s argument.
Saying that Smart Growth causes high housing costs
is like saying
Water causes wetness
1. Other things that cause houses to cost more than they otherwise would include:
– Indoor plumbing
– Electricity
– Walls
– Windows
Hopefully homebuilders will start leaving these out so homes will be more affordable.
2. When Antiplanners think that government regulations have decreased property values, they argue that government should compensate property owners.
Here’s a case where Antiplanners think that government regulations have increased property values, yet those very same Antiplanners are not arguing that property owners should give money to the government.
Why the inconsistency…?
Looks like some people took bizzaro economics where it’s taught that shrinking supply without changing demand does not affect prices.
Looks like someone equates “restrictions on the supply of land” with “restrictions on the supply of housing.”
Those aren’t synonymous.
Also: where does “demand” factor in the analyses provided by the Antiplanner and friends? Seems to me that most “growth management” states are also among the faster growing states, while “non growth management states” are among the slower growing. How do the Antiplanner and friends account for increased demand for housing stemming from population growth?
California, which has mostly very high housing costs is growing very slowly, especially in the areas that have the high costs. Texas, that is largely affordable, is growing much faster.
That California might be growing slowly now says nothing about what happened before. Here’s what seems to happen:
1. Relatively affordable places attract growth (i.e. increased demand)
2. Housing prices go up as a result of increased demand
3. Communities/states that have experienced a lot of rapid growth (and associated costs such as congestion, loss of open space, pollution, etc. etc. etc.) respond by either restricting growth or choosing some kind of “Smarth Growth” option
4. Start over at Step 1
Antiplanners then swoop down and compare Step 3 communities with Step 1 communities, observe a positive correlation between growth management and housing prices, and (like good little Junk Scientists) conclude that correlation implies causality.
How do you get from step 3 to step 1? What chain of events leads to lower housing costs once growth controls are in place?
Also, how have Atlanta and Houston managed years of strong growth while housing remained affordable?
Randal’s claims are false. Bogus. Hooey.
Randal cannot tease out the factors that increase housing prices.
Randal cannot show how much regulation raised prices as a fraction of total increase – amenity seeking, equilibrium rents [job quality, environment, amenities, services, etc].
How do I know this?
Randal has never responded to my request to provide empirical evidence for how much regulation raised prices as a fraction of total increase.
Never.
Instead, he links to opinion pieces.
Randal’s claims are false. Smart Growth did not cause the mortgage meltdown.
Randal cannot provide empirical evidence for this – all he can provide is conjecture.
Randal’s claims are false. Bogus. Hooey.
DS
How do you get from step 3 to step 1?
Step 1 occurs in other places, that had previously been “undiscovered”.
how have Atlanta and Houston managed years of strong growth while housing remained affordable
By presumably not caring about avoiding the costs of growth or protecting the things that growth threatens.
Houston managed years of strong growth while housing remained affordable?
Houston may not have de facto zoning, but it has many things in many areas that are close: setbacks, block size restrictions, etc. – IOW, development restrictions.
These, of course, limit supply.
DS
I see the “loyal opposition” is in full combat mode to battle basic economic facts with poor logic and baffling B.S. tactics.
As previously pointed out any restriction on supply will have an effect on price. That doesn’t mean it is the only thing to have an effect but it does have one. To ignore or bypass this fundamental issue in the debate is irresponsible. But my experience with planners is they lack responsibility and accountability for their mistakes. I might add they make a lot of them.
Restrictions on land supply drive up prices through a number of mechanisms but what really hurts us is the way higher land prices are amplified through the house built upon the land. Simply put, you are not going to build a 1500 square foot, $180,000 structure on a lot that cost $175,000. Instead you will build a 2500 square foot $360,000 structure on that land. It worked fine when buyers could get a sub prime mortgage and buy it but now how will they sell those things?
The housing market will have natural swings but government intervention through growth mandates and restrictions will only make those swings more pronounced and detrimental to the whole economy. Thanks planners for a job well done. When will you be taking responsibility for what you have done?
As previously pointed out any restriction on supply will have an effect on price
Not true.
1. If demand for a good is perfectly elastic, changes in price will have no effect on price.
2. There is a difference between the supply of land and the supply of housing. Yet, Antiplanners appear to use these concepts interchangeably.
The housing market will have natural swings but government intervention through growth mandates and restrictions will only make those swings more pronounced and detrimental to the whole economy
Aren’t Antiplanners finding that housing markets in “growth managed” states are MORE stable, not less?
hanks planners for a job well done. When will you be taking responsibility for what you have done?
Given that you appear to believe that homes in growth-managed areas hold their value more than homes in non-growth-managed areas, please explain why you believe this indicates a mistake on the part of planners and/or something for which they should “take responsibility”.
As previously pointed out any restriction on supply will have an effect on price.
Evidence, please, that Smart Growth has restricted supply.
Before and after numbers is a good start. Type of new development relative to demand is a better path to go down.
Better – and what Randal can’t provide – is a breakdown of the different growth management regimes and their before-and-after breakdowns. Relative to demand. Teased out from equilibrium rents (before and after).
Is this some elitist demand for a thesis? Some overly burdensome burden of proof?
Not at all. This is a basic requisite for backing the claim – showing how it is so.
Vague phrasie-phrases about supply and demand are wonderful, great, tremendous. But in order for them to be true, one has to show an actual effect. Trot out something testable/empirical/non-opinion about how this is so.
Let’s see it. Evidence for assertions.
Can’t provide evidence but want to complain about something not on topic? Take it to another thread.
The Dan topic is evidence for assertions that SG did x, y, z. Please stick to it.
DS
If there were a true housing shortage in ANY of the areas where high housing prices were occurring, such as the Bay Area and other areas with long history of supply restrictions long before “Smart Growth” came along, the RENTS in such areas would also have gone up. In fact, now that the housing bubble has burst, rents ARE going up faster than they were before presumably because of all the people who can no longer buy houses through liar and other sorts of sub-prime loans, and now are staying in the rental market.
For the record, many of these areas, particularly Coastal California, have long had exclusionary downzoning and other restrictions long before “Smart Growth” and “New Urbanism” came along, the sort of restrictions that don’t seem to bother Randal much because such restrictions are extremely popular in the neighborhoods affected, since property values are higher and such measures keep “them” (whoever they are) out. In California, much of this began in the 1940’s and 1950’s, for example the Monterey Peninsula (my hometown) where the Carmel and Pebble Beach areas have long been exclusive and very pricey–and which spread to the rest of that area beginning in the 1980’s.
D4P and DS, hope to meet you at the ADC conference in Houston 16-18 May. We can have a beer and I can tell you my experiences in Silicon Valley/San Jose of trying to provide housing for the Grand Kids. My associate for 25 years was the Planning Director of San Jose in 1974 and instituted the Urban Growth Boundary, with the understanding it would be expanded so land costs inside and outside would be similar. It has never been expanded.
I have had a Planning Coach.
Wow, if that was not a Junk Science article, then I do not know what is. That article proves about as much as the incessant supply-demand yattering. I’ve taken some economics courses too – yay for me! Now AP, lets stop critizing junk science if you are going to continue to source junk scientists yourself.
So, can anybody (presumably the planners) explain why prices are so high in spite of an (as you claim) unlimited supply?
Why does the same 2,500 sqf on a 7,000 sqf lot house cost 4 times more in San Jose than in Atlanta?
BTW, D4P, those are some real gems of economic thinking.
Smart growth doesn’t lead to higher prices. Here in the UK, we have tough planning controls (smart growth on steroids). The consequence is that the lot sizes are much smaller than in some parts of the USA. That’s all.
The price of a house, like anything else, is what the market will afford. It depends on salary levels, interest rates, montly outgoings, and a fluff factor which reflects the sentiment of the market (houses cost more, over the price trend, when the prices are going up and cost less than the trend when they are going down).
The sub-prime crisis was caused by greed and poor judgement. The banks got greedy, chasing clients who they wouldn’t have lent to in the past, creating deals with low startup costs but much higher rates later on. The clients showed poor judgement in taking on a high level of debt relative to their incomes. This was compounded by the way in which the debt was packaged up and sold on.
We have 2 kinds of growth boundaries. One is We have only so many properties with views, the bay area has the bay, Ocean properties have the Ocean and then on top of rivers mountains bays and oceans we have planners putting artificial boundaries around our cities.
Portland Oregon’s Urban growth boundary (UGB), in the last 20 years or so a buildable lot has grown from around $10,000 to $100,000 because we have paved over the inside of the UGB and we are running out of lots. 98% of Oregon is zoned exclusive farm and or timber. We are now seeing tear down of houses to put up apartments and row houses thanks to planners and the UGB. Which drives up the cost of properties and housing.
Thanks to smart growth policies
We are now seeing tear down of houses to put up apartments and row houses thanks to planners and the UGB. Which drives up the cost of properties and housing.
Explain. Seems to me you are saying that the number of houses is going up (i.e. small numbers of houses are being replaced by larger numbers of houses), which should constitute an increase in supply and (assuming a non perfectly elastic housing demand curve) a decrease in price.
BTW, D4P, those are some real gems of economic thinking
What do you disagree with…?
D4P said
Explain. Seems to me you are saying that the number of houses is going up .
—–
98% of Oregon is zoned exclusive farm and timber.
The price of the artificial UGB has driven up the land cost and created a shortage of vacate land.
We don’t have a sprawl problem and we wouldn’t have a shortage of land if it was not for planners and Urban growth boundaries (UGB’s).
Now if your going to buy a home it costs more and you have a better chance of not being able to pay off your loan thanks to Smart Growth policies and Planners.
The price of the artificial UGB has driven up the land cost and created a shortage of vacate land
Except that UGBs are legally required to contain a 20-year supply of land. Thus, there should be no shortages of land inside the UGBs. If there are shortages, that’s not a failure of UGBs per se, but rather something else (e.g. the political process, etc.).
We don’t have a sprawl problem
That’s kinda like saying “I don’t have any cavities, so I can stop brushing my teeth.”
We don’t have a sprawl problem
D4P said
That’s kinda like saying “I don’t have any cavities, so I can stop brushing my teeth.â€Â
—————
98% of Oregon is zoned exclusive farm and timber.
We only live on 2% of Oregon.
Oregon does not have a sprawl problem!
Francis King: “Smart growth doesn’t lead to higher prices. Here in the UK, we have tough planning controls (smart growth on steroids). The consequence is that the lot sizes are much smaller than in some parts of the USA. That’s all.â€Â
According to a joke, a guy says:
“What do I care how high the price of gas gets? I always put 50 bucks at the pump.â€Â
So,
“What do I care about anti-sprawl restrictions? We will spend $250,000 for our next house anyway.â€Â
BTW, I heard this joke in Europe because it sounds better in some non English languages.
What we call a market today is a farce, it has been so distorted for so long it’s a big mess, though this is also thanks to the A.P’s buddies in the highway lobby.
Does growth management inflate land prices? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It very much depends of the particular situation. Could we see a rigorous analysis that determines the correlation between the subprime mortgage defaults and growth management. Why do so many of the non growth managed areas have substantial subprime mortgage defaults?
Also, are there any differences in amenities or the desirability of a location. If we truly beleive in the market, then those should be reflected in house proces. Seperate house prices from what people are able to bear – i.e. incomes. Also what about the simple preference of willingness to pay for rent/mortgage payments? Are people willing to pay the same amount for a house in Houston as they are in Portlan?
Francis King : “Smart growth doesn’t lead to higher prices. Here in the UK, we have tough planning controls (smart growth on steroids). The consequence is that the lot sizes are much smaller than in some parts of the USA. That’s all.â€Â
And, unfortunately, that is not all…
Not only are lots smaller but most families in England are forced to live in multiple family housing (ie. appartments) and in spite of that, the average price of these dwellings is £6,000 per square meter, which in American units is $1,100 per square foot , a staggering amount compared to American prices.
And this is not just an isolated phenomenon like, say, Manhattan in the US (actually prices in central London are $2500 per square foot!!). This housing price inflation is true across Europe where flats (that is appartments) sell for over €3,000 per square meter which in American units is over $450 per square foot. Again, these are prices just for appartments, what Americans call “Condosâ€Â, the dwellings where European smart growth has stuffed its citizens. Prices for single family dwellings are at least double that.
So, smart-growth on steroids => prices on steroids.
I keep repeating this because I’m not quite sure that an American reader of this blog in, say, Texas can comprehend how much houses really cost in Europe.
The housing market is notably different in Europe compared to the US, where there are serious regulation-induced supply constraints only in a few areas, notably California and New York.
So, make no mistake dear Americans, this is where smart-growth / anti-sprawl is taking you. In a nutshell, appartments for $500 per square foot.
You can look to the regulation-induced supply constraints future right now; and it is Europe.
D4P said: The price of the artificial UGB has driven up the land cost and created a shortage of vacate land
Except that UGBs are legally required to contain a 20-year supply of land.
JK: One again, I see our planners are not informed on that which they speak of:
1. Metro decided to build UP instead of OUT.
2. The few areas they have added to the UGB have, in general, not been built because of other government actions.
D4P said: Thus, there should be no shortages of land inside the UGBs.
JK: There is no shortage of million dollar an acre buildable land. Buy a quarter acre of that land and $50,000 in system development fees and you can build your affordable home.
D4P said: If there are shortages, that’s not a failure of UGBs per se, but rather something else (e.g. the political process, etc.).
JK: Right on – it is the government’s complete disregard of basic rights of people to follow some stupid theory from the planning class.
Thanks
JK
Yet at the same time Mr.Karlock wants to use government for social engineering purposes. Such as Transport Policy. Four lanes good, two tracks bad.
highwayman said: Yet at the same time Mr.Karlock wants to use government for social engineering purposes. Such as Transport Policy.
jk: Wrong – it is the planners that are doing social engineering. I just want the government out of social engineering.
highwayman said: Four lanes good, two tracks bad.
JK::
Four lanes = transportation for everyone paid by users.
Two tracks = transportation for a few. Paid by others. No valid transpiration function. Brings lots of money to friends of politicians.
Thanks
JK
30 – Ettinger.
The prices in the UK are nowhere near that high. I used to live in Cheltenham, and sold a flat (apartment) a couple of years ago for £100,000. It was a lot more than 15m2! (more like 36m2). This is ~ £2500 per m2.
A family house costs twice this, e.g. Bath – my current house cost me £200,000.
This may be more than US prices, but they are typical for the UK as a whole at the moment. Some apartments may cost more, but then very few people pay those prices.
The prices ARE related to salary, more than sprawl/no-sprawl, since the prices have doubled in recent years, at the same time that interest rates have halved. We haven’t halved the number of properties or doubled their floor size, or anything like that.
Many of the complaints about house prices are caused by a new sense of entitlement. My first job was working in McDonalds, picking up trash, cleaning floors, and cleaning toilets. It gave me the money to rent my first place. Today, people want to buy a three bedroom house from the start.
Curious how the states which come closest to typical European population densities also come closest to European house prices. Apartments are extremely common in larger European towns and cities but they are a relative rarity in Britain. Most British housing is what Americans refer to as row houses. Medium density rather than high density. This type of housing became popular during the reign of Queen Victoria because it was an affordable way to house workers and the emerging middle classes. Yes, it was planned but not with the objectives to “reduce traffic” or “prevent sprawl” or encourace walking or using transit. Transit was still a novelty affodable only to the middle classes. The whole idea was to house your workers within walking distance of your factory at rents they could afford. It would be fair to say that European housing has simply evolved from medieavel towns and most Europeans are quite content unless they are forced to live in the post-WWII tower blocks.
So, can anybody (presumably the planners) explain why prices are so high in spite of an (as you claim) unlimited supply?
Why does the same 2,500 sqf on a 7,000 sqf lot house cost 4 times more in San Jose than in Atlanta?
Yes. The microeconomists do all the time. And the difference between SJC and ATL is the high-paying knowledge jobs, the climate, the agglomeration economies, the amenities, and the equilibrium rents arising from the high-paying knowledge jobs and great climate.
—–
And no one here has ever – ever – shown any evidence that x supply of housing changed by y amount due to z restrictions in q place. Ever. The recent UW paper didn’t show this, BTW.
Ever.
Nor have they ever shown – ever – that z restriction increased prices by y amount separate from amenity, knowledge job growth, etc.
So somebody pony up some numbers showing actual amounts and totals.
Anyone? Randal can’t do it. Show him up, someone.
We can talk about, also, why some small-minority ideologies must lump differing restrictions together, such as CA’s purposeful limiting of growth due to various limits, as opposed to other locales restricting growth for other reasons (rural MA for example).
DS
Ettinger: So, can anybody (presumably the planners) explain why prices are so high in spite of an (as you claim) unlimited supply?
Why does the same 2,500 sqf on a 7,000 sqf lot house cost 4 times more in San Jose than in Atlanta?
Dan: Yes. The microeconomists do all the time. And the difference between SJC and ATL is the high-paying knowledge jobs, the climate, the agglomeration economies, the amenities, and the equilibrium rents arising from the high-paying knowledge jobs and great climate.
Ettinger: The factors that you mentioned (high paying jobs, climate amenities etc.) are what increase demand. But increased demand alone is certainly not enough to increase prices. It must necessarily be coexistent with a restriction in supply.
Francis King: The prices ARE related to salary…
Ettinger: Again, I’m not an economist but I can figure out that this is true only in a restricted supply environment. In a restricted supply environment prices indeed rise to what people can afford. In a non restricted supply environemnt the price of a product is cost+small profit margin.
Eg. the price of a particular type of shoes is not higher in Silicon Valley compared to, say, Missisipi because salaries are higher. This is because there’s a virtually unlimited supply of shoes at cost + small profit margin.
The factors that you mentioned (high paying jobs, climate amenities etc.) are what increase demand. But increased demand alone is certainly not enough to increase prices. It must necessarily be coexistent with a restriction in supply.
Numbers please showing the restriction (we know NU-SG isn’t big enough to restrict supply, but show us anyway).
Plz differentiate between CA-type purposeful restriction due to resource constraints, MA-type property protection, and others. In order to make your point, find numbers that project pre- and post-growth management.
You’d think that since this is such a widely-used argument, there’d be plenty of analyses to back the argument. I’d like to see one.
DS
A regulated supply means:
– You either cannot live where you want to, or pay more to live there anyway,
– You buy less of what you want, or pay more to buy it anyway,
– You do not buy the dwelling type that you want, or pay more to buy it anyway.
Often a combination of all three above.
If regulation did not prohibit, encourage or discourage certain choices then there would be no need for it. What evidence is needed to demonstrate something so obvious?
Francis King: “The prices in the UK are nowhere near that high. I used to live in Cheltenham, and sold a flat (apartment) a couple of years ago for £100,000. It was a lot more than 15m2! (more like 36m2). This is ~ £2500 per m2.
A family house costs twice this, e.g. Bath – my current house cost me £200,000. “
———-
The prices I mentioned at £6,000 per square meter, are current prices for London suburbs. Central London goes for £15,000 per square meter ($2,800 per square foot!).
The prices that you mentioned are for the more sparsely populated Gloucestershire area and as you mentioned are prices of a few years ago. Prices in the UK have risen more than 20% in the last year alone.
E.g. Currently, “The average cost of Newcastle apartments currently sits at around £140,000, compared with London apartments at £300,000 – more than double.â€Â.
That is $280,000 and $600,000 respectively for apartments in Newcastle vs. London. Some of these appartments may be cute but they are not 2,500 sqf (230 square metre) American Dream houses.
But basically, even the, perhaps now obsolete, apartment price that you sold for a few years ago (£2,700 per square metre), is $500 per square foot, a staggering price by US standards. At that price, the average 2500 sqf American house would come to $1,280,000 !!. And that would still be just an apartment!
The fact that Europeans see these prices as reasonable indicates how clueless Americans are as to what’s expecting them under European style smart growth.
What evidence is needed to demonstrate something so obvious?
So you have nothing. Nor does anyone else here, so don’t feel alone.
See, your premise:
is incomplete. There is more to it. That is why I’m trying – in vain up to this point – to get people to give up some numbers.
See, having numbers would allow us to judge whether the assertion in the title of this post has actual evidence behind it.
Simply saying “isn’t it obvious” is third grade-level rhetoric.
It doesn’t cut it.
But that’s all anyone here has. No numbers. No evidence. No backing.
DS
Price differences are obvious enough to me that while you legislate with your pen, I vote with my feet.
…while I still make some portion of my income from the children of California NIMBYs whoose children are now growing up and want to buy houses.