Gordon Brown, the U.K. prime minister, is preparing to order local governments to expand the amount of land available for development so as to alleviate that nation’s high housing prices. Although the media presents this as a conflict between “the environment” and affordable housing, it is in fact a conflict between an elite’s desire to preserve rural open space vs. a working-class desire for decent housing.
Wendell Cox’s survey of housing prices found that the U.K. had some of the least-affordable housing in the English-speaking world. Unlike Canada and the U.S., which both have some unaffordable areas and others that are affordable, virtually all of the U.K. is unaffordable.
Urban-growth boundaries can trace their origin to Queen Elizabeth I, who in 1580 ordered her people to “desist and forbear” any new construction within three miles of the gates of London. The U.K.’s Town & Country Planning Act of 1947, probably qualifies as the world’s first modern smart-growth law.
These solutions levitra canada price are participatory because you are directly involved. Some even said that when men are suffering from andropause, online cialis purchase http://deeprootsmag.org/2013/09/24/awesome-images-from-hubble-new-insights-into-coma-galaxies/ they become more motherly than fatherly. Technology viagra for sale cheap is actually advancing in a very quick period of time.3) Quick ending of ED issues:The medicine helps in causing and sustaining erection throughout the sexual awakening sequence together with a more strong orgasm. Is levitra sale there enough need out there for an iPhone case targeted particularly at globe travelers? That continues to be to be a dampening factor on what was an eagerly awaited launch. Click to download Matthew Taylor’s report on rural housing affordability in the U.K.
A 2006 report by an economist with the Bank of England properly blamed the U.K.’s high housing prices on this and similar restrictive laws, which led Tony Blair to talk about expanding the land available for housing. But it took a July 2008 report by member of Parliament Matthew Taylor to lead Brown (Blair’s replacement) to take action. Taylor’s view is that unaffordable housing is threatening rural economies and that relaxing land-use controls will help revitalize those economies.
Interestingly, Brown is head of the Labour Party, which is roughly equivalent to the U.S. Democratic Party, while Taylor is a member of the Liberal Party, which would be roughly equivalent to Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Party if it still existed. The fact that both of these left-leaning parties have decided to put housing affordability ahead of “the environment” shows just how out of control U.K. housing prices have become. Yet, as Cox’s survey shows, prices in coastal California and Hawaii are less affordable than even the least-affordable cities in the U.K.
It is also interesting that the U.K. is expanding housing at a time when housing prices are falling and some people are calling for government to rescue the economy by propping up those prices. The problem is that restrictive land-use planning not only makes housing less affordable, it makes prices more volatile. As two British economists showed in 2005, “By ignoring the role of supply in determining house prices,planners have created a system that has led not only to higher house prices but also a highly volatile housing market.”
“Every demand swing will translate directly into a big price swing,” the economists add. “Therefore, the overall volatility of the house market is largely due to the planning system, but a highly volatile housing market with all the insecurity this creates is probably the last thing that either buyers or sellers would like to see.”
Since prices are already falling, there may be no better time for the government to relax its controls. Americans are not mesmerized by the rhetoric of planning can only hope that this sensible idea makes its way to the U.S.
“Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst…” Henry David Thoreau 1859
Fortunately, most (if not all?) urban growth boundaries in the United States are required to have a 20-year supply of land, so that there is by definition no land shortage inside them.
D4P said: Fortunately, most (if not all?) urban growth boundaries in the United States are required to have a 20-year supply of land, so that there is by definition no land shortage inside them.
JK: Oregon has a 20 year law . Why is there a sharp difference in land prices at Portland’s UGB (the Portland Wall)? (ONE million per acre inside UGB in some places before the recent crash.)
Answer: because an artificial shortage is created by government planners. The 20 year supply is being ignored, and planners, generally, ignore economics. Probably because it shows most of their plans hurt people.
Thanks
JK
The U.K.’s Town & Country Planning Act of 1947, probably qualifies as the world’s first modern smart-growth law.
A smart growth law would have limited density outside of the UGB while allowing for it within. Having been to London many times, I can promise you that allowable density within cities ain’t that much higher.
Maybe the Prime Minister just wants to protect the mental health of his citizens.
“How the city hurts your brain … And what you can do about it”
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/04/how_the_city_hurts_your_brain/
Antiplanner wrote:
“The U.K.’s Town & Country Planning Act of 1947, probably qualifies as the world’s first modern smart-growth law.”
Nope. It was a successful attempt to prevent ribbon development, where properties were built one deep along the roads. This causes blight to rural areas, without creating many new homes.
It’s worth recapping that the UK and USA are very different. The USA has so much land that it can be divided into leisure land, wilderness land, and productive land. In the UK, it’s all rolled into one, due to a lack of land. This affects the view that people have about land in the UK – many of us don’t like urban sprawl or genetically modified crops for these reasons.
Antiplanner wrote:
“Taylor’s view is that unaffordable housing is threatening rural economies and that relaxing land-use controls will help revitalize those economies.”
Mr. Taylor and M. Antiplanner are wrong. The problem is that the planning controls are too lax. Wealthy people buy up homes in pretty villages, and the house prices rise, pricing young people out of the market, a market in which salaries are usually very low. Just building more executive homes – which is what the house-builders want to do – isn’t going to fix anything – it will just attract more second-home buyers. Second-home buyers bring money into the local economy when they buy the house, but otherwise trash everything. No village shop can afford to remain open in the hope that a second-home occupant will come by. Equally, the community dies, because most people aren’t in most of the time. Over Christmas, these villages are almost completely empty – killing the very village community feel which is what they bought into in the first place.
I’m sympathetic to building more affordable homes, where control is retained by the local government. The traditional council house is no use, since council tenants can buy up, and sell on, their homes, causing a historical sharp reduction in this provision.
In certain local authorities, the number of second homes has been sharply curtailed. This has been only for the best.
Antiplanner wrote:
“The fact that both of these left-leaning parties have decided to put housing affordability ahead of “the environment†shows just how out of control U.K. housing prices have become.”
I would suggest that in the UK (and the USA?) there is a better correlation between houses prices and interest rates; and between house prices and the so-called ‘dotcom revolution’. When the bottom fell of the stock market, aided and abetted by the Labour Party’s raid on pension funds, housing was seen as the next investment opportunity.
The main problem the UK has (as do many European countries and the USA) is too much and too fast immigration. The demand is unsustainable and overwhelming in more ways than just land and housing.
JK: Oregon has a 20 year law . Why is there a sharp difference in land prices at Portland’s UGB (the Portland Wall)? (ONE million per acre inside UGB in some places before the recent crash.)
Answer: because an artificial shortage is created by government planners. The 20 year supply is being ignored, and planners, generally, ignore economics. Probably because it shows most of their plans hurt people.
THWM: Though Mr. Karlock you are guilty of doing some the exact same stuff too. http://www.electkarlock.com/
highwayman said: THWM: Though Mr. Karlock you are guilty of doing some the exact same stuff too.
JK: More ad hominians from the planner. Don’t you have any rational arguments?
Thanks
JK
Huh. At the top of Mr. Karlock’s website (http://www.electkarlock.com/), he shows a photo of a farm in Portland and asks “Is this the Last Farm in Portland?” and then tells us “It is zoned for dense housing.”
Is Mr. Karlock really concerned about losing farmland?
Lorianne:
there is another level to your argumentation – most/all the support systems at the source of the immigration are tapped out – social, economic, environmental – thus those that can migrate, do.
That is: there are too many people for the environmental and social support systems (these two make economies).
DS
JK: More ad hominians from the planner. Don’t you have any rational arguments?
THWM: I’m not a planner. Mr.Karlock, you running for office makes you way more of planner! http://www.electkarlock.com/
D4P Says:
Huh. At the top of Mr. Karlock’s website (http://www.electkarlock.com/), he shows a photo of a farm in Portland and asks “Is this the Last Farm in Portland?†and then tells us “It is zoned for dense housing.â€Â
Is Mr. Karlock really concerned about losing farmland?
THWM: Of course he’s not, that would mean other land use regulations.
Then he goes on to promote other market interference aspects.
Such as complaining about rising energy prices, instead of saying people should adapt and tighten their belts.
The gentrification one is funny too, does Mr.Karlock want price controls?
Mr. Karlock says “And quit zoning farms for housing!”
Mr. Karlock appears to support limiting farmers’ freedom by having government prevent farmers from selling their farms to residential developers.
Why is Mr. Karlock concerned about losing farmland? Does he disagree with the Antiplanner’s claim that losing farmland is a “phony problem”? I’ve never heard Mr. Karlock express such disagreement. On the contrary, I’ve only seen Mr. Karlock support the Antiplanner at virtually every opportunity.
D4P said: Why is Mr. Karlock concerned about losing farmland? Does he disagree with the Antiplanner’s claim that losing farmland is a “phony problem� I’ve never heard Mr. Karlock express such disagreement.
JK: I don’t suppose you noticed the hypocrisy of planners building a wall around cities (UGB) to protect farmland, then zoning farms for high density housing?
Naw, the planning mentality never notices such hypocrisy – it is their way of life.
Thanks
JK
I don’t suppose you noticed the hypocrisy of planners building a wall around cities (UGB) to protect farmland, then zoning farms for high density housing?
No, that doesn’t seem consistent with definitions of “hypocrisy” that I am familiar with.
If you want to argue that it’s “inconsistent”, then we can talk. If the farm in question is contiguous with other urban development (or areas expected to develop) such that there would likely be land use conflicts in the future (e.g. new residents not liking the farm noise/smell/etc.), then it might make sense that the farmland in question would be more suitable for residential use. Other farmland longer distances from urban development is less likely to experience such conflicts, making it (other things being equal) more suitable for farm use. I don’t claim to know where the farm in question is located, though I’d be surprised if it were in a rural location surrounded by other farms.
If the owner of the farm in question wanted to have his/her land zoned for residential use, but the government wouldn’t approve the change, I have no doubt that you (and other antiplanners) would launch into violent name-calling attacks against the government decision-makers for limiting freedom, imposing ideas on others, responding to phony problems (such as the loss of farmland), etc. etc. etc. Why do you care that the land is zoned for residential? What is problematic about that for you?
BTW: I wish the Antiplanner would participate more in the discussions. He tends to be more civil than most of his minions, which makes for a more pleasant forum.
D4P said: No, that doesn’t seem consistent with definitions of “hypocrisy†that I am familiar with.
If you want to argue that it’s “inconsistentâ€Â, then we can talk. If the farm in question is contiguous with . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
JK: Your lack of rational thought is glaring here.
Thanks
JK
JimKarlock Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
D4P said: No, that doesn’t seem consistent with definitions of “hypocrisy†that I am familiar with.
If you want to argue that it’s “inconsistentâ€Â, then we can talk. If the farm in question is contiguous with . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
JK: Your lack of rational thought is glaring here.
THWM: Urban planning is double edge sword, Mr.Karlock you are trying to push an agenda as well though you don’t want to say that you are.
“JK: I don’t suppose you noticed the hypocrisy of planners building a wall around cities (UGB) to protect farmland, then zoning farms for high density housing?
Naw, the planning mentality never notices such hypocrisy – it is their way of life.”
—
Low density housing eats up more farmland than high density land uses. It’s simply an issue regarding space. Spread housing and services out and you require more land, especially for roads. You can’t turn a profit on highly fragmented farmland (it can also be a locally unwanted land-use (LULU)) unless you rethink the whole agricultural systems.
So all of a sudden you get rid of high density (I agree that some of it looks terrible, but so does a lot of low-density housing) housing in the form of low density buildings and farmland is automatically preserved?
This does not make any sense whatsoever.
Low density housing eats up more farmland than high density land uses. It’s simply an issue regarding space.
ws
In Oregon we live on 2% of the land. Look out WS we only have 98% open space, that can’t be enough.
In Oregon we live on 2% of the land. Look out WS we only have 98% open space, that can’t be enough.
Does this make you wonder why Mr. Karlock is concerned about losing a single farm to housing…?
D4P Says:
In Oregon we live on 2% of the land. Look out WS we only have 98% open space, that can’t be enough.
Does this make you wonder why Mr. Karlock is concerned about losing a single farm to housing…?
THWM: It’s a relativity question, that most of the people who call them selves libertarians on this blog just can’t care to understand.
Building streetcar lines in Portland OR makes sense.
Building streetcar lines in Blitzen OR does not make sense.
Building streetcar lines in Portland OR makes sense.
Only for the profiteers. Streetcars are not for transportation, they are only an excuse to give taxpayer money to developers to build planners wet dreams.
Thanks
JK
I don’t know too much about US agricutlure but down here agriculture is a rapidly developing economic activity which requires ongoing investments of capital to remain competitive –
especially as our unsubsidised farmers have to compete with all those heavily subsidised farmers in the US and the EU.
Consequently many of our farmers subdivide and sell of their less productive assets (such as surplus farmland) to raise investment capital to invest back into their agricultural operations.
Consequently the subdivision of part of their land to raise capital clearly “supports agriculture”.
Also, farmers still need a labour force and as they young ones tend to move into cities they use these lots to attract a mature and reasonably skilled labour force such as the computer experts to operate their irrigation systems etc.
So how can anyone argue that this kind of development does not support agriculture?
Unless of course everyone assumes that providing capital is the government’s job. Surely no one is so stupid as to suggest the US is running out of arable land?
Imagine if there was a law saying that manufacturers could not sell off their older plant
to assist raising funds for their new plants. After all the US sold many of its older ion implanters to Korea and hence assisted the Koreans to get started buy assisted their own operations to buy the new Simox implantation technology.
If you can sell old machines to fund new machines to support the electronic sector why
not sell land to support the agricultural sector?
So urban planners give you wet dreams Mr.Karlock.
Well, we already know that Al Gore turns you on, yeah so why not.
I wonder if the word you are looking for (rather than hypocrisy) is Marx’s well established term “Contradictions”.
For example here is a “Smart Growth contradiction” – after all, shade trees do need space:
Study: Shade Trees Lower Bills, Emissions
Jan 06 – United Press International
Shade trees on the west and south sides of a house in California can reduce summertime electricity use and reduce carbon emissions, a study indicates.
The study conducted last year on 460 single-family homes in Sacramento, is the first large study using utility bill information to demonstrate that trees can reduce energy consumption, the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Forest Services said in a news release.
“Everyone knows that shade trees cool a house. No one is going to get a Nobel Prize for that conclusion,” says study co-author Geoffrey Donovan. “But this study gets at the details: Where should a tree be placed to get the most benefits? And how exactly do shade trees impact our carbon footprint?”
Donovan, a research forester with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station, co-authored the report with economist David Butry of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Their findings have been submitted to the journal Energy and Buildings.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Owen (27) this is exactly my GI work and I’ve been traveling the country talking about it, and have manuscripts out detailing how to do it.
There is no contradiction.
DS
DAn,
Down here the Smart Growth advocates insist that by living in high density dwellings we reduce our carbon footprint.
This study suggests that shade trees do so too.
The Australian Study “Consuming Australia” found that households living in low density housing on the urban periphery had the lowest carbon footprint while inner city households had the highest footprint.
This seems to me to be a “contradiction” between an ideological position and what research tells us to be the case. (Sorry –º what is a GI study?)
Owen,
The majority of the literature finds low-density HHs consume more energy for obvious reasons. I don’t see where that study says what you claim. It finds that the larger the household (# inhabitants) the more efficient. But maybe I missed it. On what page is this assertion?
DS
JK: Why does anyone (besides nuts like Al Gore) care about carbon anyway? Especially now that the solar cycles and PDO have flipped.
Thanks
JK
So, Karlock you don’t care about any thing.
So, Karlock you don’t care about any thing.
Unlike planners, I try to avoid caring about the irrelevant.
(The only reason to care about a crackpot postulate like global warming is because it has spilled over into public policy.)
Thanks
JK
Jim, you’re a crackpot your self!
the highwayman said: Jim, you’re a crackpot your self!
JK: Personal attacks are a sign you have run out of rationality. Typical planner.
Thanks
JK
JK: Personal attacks are a sign you have run out of rationality.
THWM: Jim, you are indeed crazy. Your fear of trains isn’t rational.
JK:Typical planner.
Jim for the umpteenth time I’m not an urban planner.
Jim for the umpteenth time I’m not an urban planner.
C’mon – you know he’s only got 3 or 4 replies total and they apply to everything.
DS
“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”
I can just feel the love 🙂