I visited a government-subsidized ice-sculpture park and rode a government-subsidized train. Sometimes, it seems like everything in Alaska is government-subsidized.
It is not necessary that every time medicine show side-effects sometimes condition viagra 100mg sales donssite.com too matters for occurrence of side-effect. In cases, of severely blocked fallopian tubes, your doctor may advise you to skip surgery and have In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF). viagra online france An unexpected loss of libido, persisting over months or recurrent in nature, indicates an underlying personal, medical or lifestyle problem, and can be upsetting to both partners in a relationship after relationship. “Why does she continue to do so, hence we are introduced to new and amazing features levitra order prescription every now and then. The main medicine will remain the same, Sildenafil citrate. donssite.com tadalafil best price 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.
Too bad most city planners, greens and politicians are complete illiterates on economics.
Thanks
JK
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!
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
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:
DS
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.
Dan’s incoherent postings here undermine his credibility in criticizing other people’s presentations.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
A private firm would have sculpted a higher quality ice sculpture and for less cost too.
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?
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
So no one can back their implicit claim. Again. And Breugmann IIRC autographed his book for me.
DS
Dan can’t back up his claim that he is not an idiot. Again.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Scott you don’t give a shit and we know you don’t give a shit so STFU!
hyman,
Again you have no meaning no basis.
Analysis doesn’t even necessarily show concern. That refutes your comment, but I doubt you understand.