The Washington Times published an article yesterday charging that “climate crusaders want to phase out the American dream of a house and yard.” Focusing on Plan Bay Area, the article argues that single-family homes are hardly a threat to the planet.
“Phasing out backyards”–that’s a good phrase. Why didn’t I think of that?
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal observes that federal regulators condescend to “approve” of cars that drive themselves” (if the link hits a paywall, search for “Regulators Back Efforts to Develop Cars That Drive Themselves”). The article cautions that such cars won’t be available “until about 2025,” but Forbes is more optimistic, saying they will be available “before the end of the decade.”
Also the medicine renders a huge amount of Sildenafil contained kamagra medicine may cause health viagra purchase canada hazards. Weight training helps to push up testosterone levels. 2. viagra 50 mg When it comes to bed matters and satisfying your significant other, it is important to make the best out of different kinds of shooting situations and canada viagra prescription http://new.castillodeprincesas.com/directorio/seccion/salones/ get an upper hand in the encounter. This enhanced flow of blood helps the organ being pressurized and increased in length for easy levitra cost low penetration.
Both articles cite a Morgan Stanley report that estimated self-driving cars could save Americans $1.3 trillion a year. This supposedly includes $158 billion in fuel savings, $507 billion in productivity improvements, and $488 billion in reduced accident costs. These numbers sound a bit high–accidents currently cost less than $200 billion a year–but self-driving cars will clearly save a lot of money. Most importantly, they will do so without huge government subsidies or regulation.
Speaking of government subsidies, several groups are funding a study of rail service between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Necessary subsidies will be huge because trains right now are limited to 10 mph on part of the route due to the poor condition of the track. Maybe they haven’t noticed, but Megabus is already offering three trips a day each way at one-way fares that start at $1.50. When service like this is available, subsidizing trains is anything but smart.
I forget where I heard this (LA Times?) but it was the top one percent of earners in California were paying somewhere on the order of over 50% of all the taxes the state obtains. Being so dependent on super-rich people is great when times are good, because revenues soar. But the trouble is that the earnings of super-rich people are super-volatile, so when times are bad, or even mediocre, tax revenues plummet.
The problem with massive regional state plans is that they need your money. And the problem with this plan is mainly the exodus out of California is not gonna leave them with the money. The Plan’s in-fill and transit-oriented growth strategy relies on a well-maintained transit system….a well maintained transit system. Yet Plan Bay Area identifies a funding shortfall of $17 billion over 28 years to bring the region’s public transit network up to a state of good repair not including additional plans. They’re only getting an additional 10 billion over the next few years. Never mind 60 billion for “moderate speed” rail system to connect Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Remember folks: failing to meet housing demand means high prices. If people advocate for policies that fail to meet that demand, they are objectively pro-high prices.
DS
It’s been shown that suburban single-family homes have a much bigger carbon footprint than high-density condos. That’s why people who harp about globul warmin and carbon taxes on this site and Facebook live in suburban or rural SFHs.
Right?
Frank, if more narrowly ideologically-minded patriot-folks knew more (actually, just a smidgen) about family decision-making they might sing a different tune.
Right?
Probably not, but one can dream, right?
But let’s get back on topic: why do people who advocate for more supply to lower housing costs actively conspire to thwart lower housing prices?
DS
“…why do people who advocate for more supply to lower housing costs actively conspire to thwart lower housing prices?”
Because their idea of lowering costs is (1) government control or involvement forcing the creation of “affordable housing” while at the same time wanting (2) other government control to tell people how their property can be used and, basically, how to live and then (3) other government control telling them that anything they do is polluting the world so we won’t let you build anything.
A constant vicious circle.
So John (affordable housing scare quotes notwithstanding), you’d agree, then, that in the Bay Area Euclidean zoning is contributing to the problem, and property owners should be free to build the housing they choose (provided the infra is there to support it)?
DS
After Katrina, the state of Louisiana established a temporary bus service, LASwift, between New Orleans and Baton Rouge to serve displaced residents. The bus service was subsidized by a $2.3 million federal grant and $750,000 local matching funds. The service was terminated this year, due to lack of the state match.
So my question is, if the state is unwilling to spend three quarters of a million dollars on bus service between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, how willing will they be to subsidize the higher operating costs of intercity rail between those points? The operating costs for “moderate speed” rail is estimated to be $7 million per year. This is for rail with travel speeds of between 69 and 78 mph, not much faster than intercity buses can travel on I-10.
This is not counting the initial capital costs, of course, not to mention capital maintenance expenditures over the life of the project.
Sources for dollar figures:
http://theadvocate.com/news/6615493-123/la-swift-bus-service-between
http://www.nola.com/news/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2013/11/plans_on_track_for_passenger_r.html
The “exodus out of California” is more low-income people, who are leaving because a combination of restrictive zoning laws in built up areas and urban growth boundaries (in the Bay Area & Ventura, but not in LA) makes housing unaffordable. CA’s dependency on sales taxes & income taxes (which is why rich end up paying a lot) is a problem… but it is a problem directly traceable to Prop 13, which made it impossible for local municipalities to raise sufficient funds for things like schools at a local level.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why conservatives & libertarians seem to like Prop 13 so much. The essence of local control is local financing, and as long as the municipalities are dependent on the state, they’re going to have to accept state planning initiatives.
… family decision-making …
Is that related to stroller congestion?
“So John (affordable housing scare quotes notwithstanding), you’d agree, then, that in the Bay Area Euclidean zoning is contributing to the problem, and property owners should be free to build the housing they choose (provided the infra is there to support it)?”
1.