Washington state property rights advocates have taken inspiration from Florida’s repeal of its 1985 growth-management mandate (counties in Florida are now allowed but not required to practice growth management). Since Washington’s 1991 law was modeled on the Florida law, it is possible that the Northwest state could follow Florida’s example.
The Senate Governmental Operations Committee is holding a work session on this question, and my written testimony emphasizes that the costs of the greatly exceed its benefits, especially since most of the benefits are imaginary. On Monday, Dan said it might be more useful if I were to talk about the tunnel under Seattle, but that’s not the subject of the hearing.
That tunnel is expected to cost $4.25 billion, and it may be a boondoggle, but this is actually peanuts compared with the cost growth management has imposed on housing. In 2012, about 8,000 new homes were built in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Those homes probably cost at least $200,000 more apiece than they would have without growth management, a total cost of about $1.6 billion. Of course, even more homes were being built each year before 2008, so the total cost over several years could quickly reach $10 billion.
Of course, that’s only new homes: there are about ten existing home sales for each new home built, and those were overpriced as well. Add this to the costs in the rest of the state, then add the costs to developers of commercial, retail, and industrial areas, and the total swamps any transportation waste. Most of the added costs of existing homes represents transfers from people who are generally lower income (home buyers) to people whose incomes are generally higher (home sellers), but much of the added cost of new homes is simply a deadweight loss to society.
It is the best online cialis continue reading for more now herbal treatment for weak ejaculation. The incapability to practice sex always put a major question in front of men who are suffering from erectile dysfunction. order levitra online Ingredients of Lawax capsule: Ashwagandha, Kaunch, Shatavari, Safed Musli, Vidarikand, Sidhha Makardhwaj, Semul Musli and Akarkara. mastercard tadalafil Stress is also termed as the reason for a person to take medical advice before taking the drug especially if they have any signs of side effects of cheapest sildenafil this drug.
The claim that Seattle is more desirable a place to live than, say, Houston ignores the fact that residents of the Pacific Northwest have some of the highest rates of antidepressant usage in the country. The Antiplanner would like to say people are depressed because of oppression by urban planners, but it is more likely because the region’s cloud cover leads to lengthy seasonal affective disorders. Residents of humid Houston can go into an air conditioned building or jump into a swimming pool; sunlight-deprived residents of Seattle are not going to get their solar fixes by going to tanning salons.
King County’s urban-growth boundary fills less than a quarter of the county.
The claim that Seattle, unlike places like Houston, doesn’t have any places to grow reveals an ignorance of geography: King County’s urban-growth boundary encompasses 461 square miles, less than a quarter of the county as a whole. While some of the county is federally owned, there is plenty of private land that could be developed. The population density of the urbanized portion of the county is about 3,550 people per square mile; allowing people to sprawl to 3,000 people per square mile (a density below which housing tends to be affordable) would require development of less than 5 percent of the county.
Excess housing costs are not the only problem with growth management. But they are the easiest to measure and are a good indicator of other problems, such as excess costs in commercial and other developments. They are also the best reason to repeal growth-management laws, especially now before the next bubble gets going.
spell check, reread, paging an editor… …. ie. “swiming poor” “tanning solons” etc.
Those homes probably cost at least $200,000 more apiece than they would have without growth management, a total cost of about $1.6 billion.
Evidence please.
DS
“…Seattle-Tacoma area. Those homes probably cost at least $200,000 more apiece than they would have without growth management…”
I have a good friend that bought a house in Tacoma about 3 years ago for $207k (3 bed 2 bath SF detached, nice yard). He’s gonna be pissed when I tell home it’s really only a $7,000 house.
“They are also the best reason to repeal growth-management laws, especially now before the next bubble gets going.”
The next bubble is already here:
Housing market could be facing another bubble: Shiller – CNBC.com
Just look at the Case-Shiller Index. It’s not quite to where it was at the height of the last real estate debacle, but it’s close indicating the bubble has been partially reinflated. An annual jump in the median home of 13% in Seattle also indicates bubble-like conditions:
“Prices in September for Seattle-area single-family homes were up 13.2 percent over the past 12 months, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city home-price index. That was the highest increase since the bubble years of 2005 and 2006.”
Once the Fed really starts to taper and interest rates rise, the phony recovery will be exposed, and the house of cards, stacked on unsustainable debt, will come falling down. That has nothing to due with growth boundaries.
Nice one bennett.
“Those homes probably cost at least $200,000 more apiece than they would have without growth management”
How much less did each home cost because of cheap credit based on the federal funds rate of 0.25%?
Frank posted some good links. I too am worried about another bubble. My family just moved to South Austin a little over a year ago. Our neighborhood is up 30% since we bought. My neighbors are psyched. I’m terrified.
Yes, I see signs of bubbly as well. It is useful to know that ~23% of US houses are underwater at this time, which is creating part of this demand. Homebuilders have also been sitting idle for a long time and want to churn some cash to get out from underneath their assets that have sat there.
In the big picture, historically these people always encouraged bubbles to form because it is a money-making proposition. That is why we keep them under control so they don’t wreck things with their bubble creation. You will know economies are back under control when bubbles cease to form (or form only rarely). Until then, we will continue to see wealth transfer, and bubbles are very effective at doing this.
DS
BTW, just to reinforce the disingenuous point that the GMA is the cause for the high Ricardian rents and not equilibrium, equilibrium rents are right in line with the rest of the country. As has been pointed out numerous times here, demand is a greater driver of home pricing than other factors, ceteris paribus.
DS
The Antiplanner fed the troll, so he deserves what he gets from the A-1 California School of Trucking and Urban Planning.
You don’t need to go to the “A-1 California School of Trucking and Urban Planning” to understand the basic concept that housing prices would be higher in areas where demand is higher. But here is a story from Seattle about how homeowners are practicing their own personal Growth Management Act to keep housing prices high by preventing supply in the city of Seattle from matching demand: http://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/dpd-hearing-speakers-oppose-five-story-building-in-dense-neighborhoods-january-2014 .
NIMBY sentiment I am sure has a lot more to do with high housing prices wherever they are high than a lax Growth Management Act which allows for a very low average density of 3,550 people per square mile.
Transit boy is correct, and here’s more evidence of his assertion: Residents fight proposed townhome development at Seattle Children’s Home site. Poor Queen Anne residents who have seen their craftsman house values soar to over $1m *might* have their view obstructed and will have to deal with working class neighbors. Boo-effing-hoo.
Density is great for Seattle residents, as long as it happens elsewhere.
So Seattle is built out. We knew that years ago. Nowhere to go in city limits. ~Half of Seattle’s dwelling units are SFD (people living the American Dream) in this built-out space.
The GMA allows building in surrounding counties and construction is happening to local plans. There is no quota or restrictions for, say, a maximum number of units to be built to restrict supply in the GMA. That’s not happening. WA State allows building.
Can’t imagine what the problem might be, unless the existing zoning should be building more DU/ac. But that would lower the number of SFD, which isn’t the American Dream. What could the problem be? Specifics would help.
DS
What would help is you avoiding jargon acronyms to make yourself feel smarter.
Lots of space in the city to develop, but some is blocked by NIMBYISM by protective SFH owners. Anyway, with the city protecting entire avenues of Queen Anne craftsman houses, what’s a developer to do?
Frank, don’t have a sad because I use everyday TLAs around people who pretend to know about the issue at hand, and therefore should be familiar with them.
Instead, consider that people paid to have electeds hear Randal’s argument above, which is shot through with more holes than a road sign outside of Teanaway. Bringing up NIMBYism – which was invoked to preserve the American Dream – shines a light through some of those holes.
Density is needed to increase supply. More density than the American Dream can provide. If we preserve the American Dream in that place, there is inadequate supply. We clearly can move outward, as there is no restriction on development by the GMA, which allows cities to develop (and Vision 2040 specifically calls for more growth centers and housing increases). Now if Puget Sound could only find some money somewhere to solve that traffic problem…I wonder if a few $Bn could clear a couple bottlenecks…
Say…if you shine that light behind the road sign in just the right way, it kinda looks like the constellation Aquarius…
DS
Acronyms are the group identity symbol of Planners. They even seek out and use non-Planner acronyms just to get off with. Sad, but true.
Frank said: “Density is great for Seattle residents, as long as it happens elsewhere.”
I love it. I’ve always said that Austin is the most progressive city in America, as long as the progress isn’t in my neighborhood.
I didn’t know Meth was an antidepressant. I tend to think it’s a little presumptuous to assume Seattle is so depressing because it rains so often. By that logic Scottish people must be depressed cause it rains every freaking day people drink a lot.
Apparently the endorphin rush from meth is greater than that of heroine or a good orgasm. Also, quite counter intuitively, methamphetamine is used to treat ADD/ADHD. As for Seattle depression, I’m going to point the finger at the Seattle based angst ridden grunge music from the 90’s. Music to blow your brains out to.
It’s not the rain. It’s the clouds and lack of sun. It’s cloudy 201 days a year and partly cloudy 93 days. We get the least amount if daylight of any major city in the lower 48. To quote Cobain, weather changes moods. And the weather is awful. So is the traffic.
I agree with Frank – the rain you get used to. The gray and ‘sun breaks’? I had to have a full-spectrum light over my bed when I lived there. I don’t know how the natives do it.
DS