The Antiplanner has a rule: anytime someone mentions how wonderful a transit-oriented development is or will be, just Google the name of that development with the words “tax-increment financing.” So, when Atlantic Cities writer Rebecca Burns breathlessly praises the Atlanta BeltLine as a “magical TOD,” I immediately looked it up.
It turns out the development is expected to eventually receive a modest $1.7 billion in tax-increment financed (TIF) subsidies. Total subsidies will be even more: of the $337 million in subsidies to date, only $120 million are from TIF. That’s not magic; that’s crony capitalism. If you want magic, go to Disneyland, which only cost $17 million (not billion) to build in 1955, which is less than $150 million in today’s dollars. (Disney World cost about $331 million in 1973 which, converted to today’s dollars, is in the ballpark of $1.7 billion–but it was virtually all privately financed.)
Regular readers know that the Antiplanner is not fond of TIF. Though public officials like to portray it as “free money,” in fact it takes money from schools, fire, and other property-tax-supported services. At best, TIF doesn’t stimulate development of an urban area; it only influences where that development will take place and what it will look like. If the development would have taken place anyway–perhaps in another location and at lower densities–then the taxes earned by the development would have gone to schools, etc. if there had been no TIF. At worst, TIF actually slows the growth of an urban area by increasing the tax burden or reducing the quality of urban services.
Of course, the gushy Atlantic Cities article never mentioned these subsidies. But a few left-of-center writers are learning some interesting lessons by taking a hard look at the data. A month ago, another Atlantic Cities article looked at commuting data and concluded that light rail was “not worth the investment,” at least in Buffalo, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Jose. Since the Portland and San Diego light-rail systems, at least, are usually heralded as great successes, it is refreshing to see someone else discover they are not.
Consequently, it helps you sustain erection for longer duration during buy tadalafil from india sexual activity. It can be cialis 40 mg used by all. super cialis Mental or psychosomatic testing:- The test is cleared and the student gets the license and the steering wheel in hand. Erectile issues are a treatable condition and people can take simple remedies to cure the problem of poor erection and poor penile erection will in turn increase your stress as you are not able to satisfy the sexual need of himself and his partner. levitra online canada More recently, Slate looks at a recently released Census Bureau paper on walking on bicycle commuting and concludes, “Bicycle commuting rates rocket from 0.5 percent to 0.6 percent in only 32 Years.” Sarcasm doesn’t always show up on paper, but this is an exception.
Even the Atlantic admits, “most Americans don’t really like walking.” The article looks at cities where biking and walking are popular, though (unlike page 6 of the Census Bureau paper) it fails to note that such cities tend to be “college towns” (or, as in the case of Portland, cities that have attracted large numbers of young people to their centers through a combination of microbrew pubs and subsidized high-density housing). The Atlantic also offers no comment on the last graph in the article that shows that far more people work at home than walk or bicycle to work.
Many still prefer fantasy over reality. Loyal Antiplanner reader MSetty was kind enough to point me to a new book, Dead End, whose author, Benjamin Ross, criticizes the Antiplanner and friends for “defend[ing] suburban land tenure” despite the fact that the suburbs are supposedly the result of government regulation and subsidies.
“Suburbia has little to do with the free markets that libertarians claim to believe in,” says Ross. “Covenants, zoning, subsidies, and exclusions created it and keep it alive.” For people like this, the Antiplanner offers a challenge: Join me in supporting the repeal of all government land-use regulation and subsidies to all forms of transportation. Then let the chips fall where they may. Will this result in more urban sprawl? Or will it lead to transit-oriented developments and densification?
I don’t really care what results; I just think that whatever it is will more closely reflect what people really want. But I suspect a majority of sprawl opponents fear that most people really do prefer driving and sprawl over transit and density, and so won’t be willing to take me up on this challenge. If I’m wrong, I invite Ross to contact me so we can begin our campaign.
The Antiplanner should push his arguments against TIF projects harder by phrasing an argument in terms of “this project is taking X million dollars from the schools and police over the next 20 years to subsidize this project.” Most cities would vote down any bond that would take money away from schools and fire and police.
It would help those opposing the projects locally if the Antiplanner wrote out a concise understandable explanation laying out why TIF takes money from schools and police.
suspect a majority of sprawl opponents fear that most people really do prefer driving and sprawl over transit and density, and so won’t be willing to take me up on this challenge.
Of course, every survey shows this is incorrect and the majority folks are looking for something other than sprawl. But I suppose most planners are all for the elimination of Euclidean zoning. We can look at those places now and see what is occurring. No need to make bets.
DS
The Thoreau Institute is a corporation located in Camp Sherman, Oregon. Charitable donations to this organization are tax deductible. The organization IRS foundation code is a 170(b)(1)(a)(vi) organization, which indicates it receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public.
Dan’s comment is ironic. He claims “every study” supports his view and then includes a link to a single New York Times column. Doesn’t seem very fact based to me.
I believe that New York suburbs are short of young people. I’d like to know how many of these young people have moved to urban centers versus how many have moved to lower cost of living areas where they actually can make lives for themselves and their families.
then includes a link to a single New York Times column. Doesn’t seem very fact based to me.
Uh-huh. That’s called ‘giving a different angle to reinforce preference theme’. I’ve linked to several such surveys over the years on this board that support my assertion, usually in response to a specious/facile ‘revealed preference’ assertion.
d like to know how many of these young people have moved to urban centers versus how many have moved to lower cost of living areas where they actually can make lives for themselves and their families.
The NYT gives you the contact info of the reporter by clicking on their name. I bet the author could answer this question for you.
HTH.
DS
Join me in supporting the repeal of all government land-use regulation and subsidies to all forms of transportation.
Verrrrrrrrrrrry few people support repeal of all government LU regulation. As Koch found out when he took his campaign to the states and was roundly defeated – as soon as you explained to voters what ‘no land use regulation’ meant – taking no more than 15 seconds – they were against the ballot measures.
But we should also be against subsidies to all forms of land-use as well – mining claims, development sweeteners, streamlined permitting with weak checklists and no oversight-monitoring, taking of land for pipelines not yet approved…
Much room for eliminating corporate subsidies.
DS
“every survey shows this is incorrect”
There are only two expressions of opinion or preference in the entire universe that have any real meaning:
1. An actual vote in an actual election.
2. An actual voluntary expenditure in an actual market.
Everything else is piffle, fraud, rhodomontade, wishful thinking and general nonsense. People will say almost any goddam thing. What they will do, is another, and much more secret, thing.
Builder, that’s Dan’s modus operandi. He also claims to have a master’s degree. And he also uses Urban Spoon—and terms like stroller congestion—as evidence that there are many children in places like Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood.
The Antiplanner should push his arguments against TIF projects harder by phrasing an argument in terms of “this project is taking X million dollars from the schools and police over the next 20 years to subsidize this project.
Yes, because government schools and police are soooooo efficient and use money soooooo wisely. /sarc
There are only two expressions of opinion or preference in the entire universe that have any real meaning:
1. An actual vote in an actual election.
2. An actual voluntary expenditure in an actual market.
Exactly! If markets weren’t dominated by single-use zoning, agents would be able to choose according to their preferences. But they can’t. Hence, stated preference surveys. That is: if all types of development were equally available, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
And don’t mind Frank, Fred_Z, he’s occupying some other plane.
Best,
D
My comment was to Builder, not Fred_Z.
Perhaps you’ve had one too many merlots tonight.
Maybe you should stop mind me.
HTH
Best,
F
Here in Wisconsin, we also have problems with wishful thinking driving our infrastructure investment.
One the one hand, we have a Republican dominated government stifling transit at every turn, alarmed at a 78% subsidy for a Milwaukee streetcar or an 80% subsidy for commuter rail while the local streets around it are subsidized at 83% with no objection. Opponents of these transit projects latched on to some early and very high estimates for costs, and when they found out the costs are lower this week, accuse the Mayor of Milwaukee of waiting until the state forced his hand to find a cheaper alternative.
On the other hand, we have a Republican dominated government borrowing billions and diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from general purpose revenue into highways in order to “send a signal” to businesses when the data shows that just like the Antiplanner says about TIF, all most highway investment does is shift where development occurs, with a net loss compared to leaving the money in the private sector. These supposedly “needed” highway projects are generally based on traffic projections that go out 50 years into the future that show the number of cars increasing and causing safety and congestion, but these forecasts fail to take into account the fact that Wisconsin’s workforce is likely to remain constant during that time and that self-driving car technology will allow a doubling of capacity for the highways that already exist.
When I asked a WISDOT traffic forecasting chief for an accounting of their record of accuracy on traffic forecasts, this is the answer I got:
And yet, despite the obvious aversion our transportation planners have to providing hard facts, instead of reviewing the need for the supposed $680 million “shortfall” projected in the transportation budget, the Republican Governor is looking for ways to divert more money to highways.
Uh-huh. That’s called ‘giving a different angle to reinforce preference theme’. I’ve linked to several such surveys over the years on this board that support my assertion, usually in response to a specious/facile ‘revealed preference’ assertion.
And you did nothing to respond to a legitimate criticism. I asked several times to point to evidence of what people are actually doing, not what they say they might do. You calling that issue ‘specious’ or ‘facile’ does not constitute a response.
Exactly! If markets weren’t dominated by single-use zoning, agents would be able to choose according to their preferences. But they can’t. Hence, stated preference surveys. That is: if all types of development were equally available, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
So consumers no longer have preferences when zoning is present? That sounds plausible. Actually it doesn’t. Zoning is not the constraint that planners often make it out to be. It can be changed through administrative action and often is. I have cited evidence here previously demonstrating that zoning changes in response to land value changes. Not preference surveys, actual observations of behavior.
But planners’ hobby horse for zoning as the single, defining issue determining urban structure apparently does not extend to other land use regulations. Those ones are reasonable because they are promulgated by ‘smart’ people promoting ‘smart’ development. Uh huh.
One the one hand, we have a Republican dominated government stifling transit at every turn, alarmed at a 78% subsidy for a Milwaukee streetcar or an 80% subsidy for commuter rail while the local streets around it are subsidized at 83% with no objection.
Define ‘subsidy’.
I also seriously doubt that the city of Milwaukee is run by Republicans.
And when you refer to a 78% subsidy for the streetcar, are you referring only to its operating cost?
And if you think that the demand for travel is not going to increase, then why are you promoting a streetcar?
I asked several times to point to evidence of what people are actually doing, not what they say they might do. You calling that issue ‘specious’ or ‘facile’ does not constitute a response.
Are they choosing between equally-available choices of development? No? Then what they are actually doing is moving to what is available. The rest are bidding up prices on the most-desirable neighborhoods – as I’ve pointed out here many times.
Zoning is not the constraint that planners often make it out to be.
Interesting. What is your assertion as to the constraint limiting supply in so many areas?
DS
MJ, you claim that zoning isn’t a major constraint in many situations.
Well, actually it is, particularly in Coastal California in affluent, low density communities dominated by expensive single family houses that also happen to have lots of jobs, places like Palo Alto or Menlo Park or Pleasanton, just to name a few.
If you don’t think zoning is a major constraint on meeting demonstrated housing needs, for example, I suggest you get a very thick rhetorical coat of asbestos armor next time you want to rezone for housing that matches the needs of local workers, in those California communities and similar ones not only in California but also anywhere else in the U.S. You’ll need it!
The rest are bidding up prices on the most-desirable neighborhoods – as I’ve pointed out here many times.
Yes, THAT is why Portland has to throw so many subsidies at developers to convince them to build dense housing, and why some of those projects have remained unfinished or unoccupied to this date. Because buyers are pounding on developers’ doors demanding dense, 5 story mixed used buildings. Makes perfect sense now!!!!!!!
Well, actually it is, particularly in Coastal California in affluent, low density communities dominated by expensive single family houses that also happen to have lots of jobs, places like Palo Alto or Menlo Park or Pleasanton, just to name a few.
Many who live in the places you list also have high incomes. How do you know that it is zoning and not their incomes that generates this outcome?
If you don’t think zoning is a major constraint on meeting demonstrated housing needs, for example, I suggest you get a very thick rhetorical coat of asbestos armor next time you want to rezone for housing that matches the needs of local workers, in those California communities and similar ones not only in California but also anywhere else in the U.S. You’ll need it!
So….no evidence?
Are they choosing between equally-available choices of development? No? Then what they are actually doing is moving to what is available.
Different types of development are not equally available because they are not equally demanded. If there is more demand for the types of development you favor, then supply will eventually catch up.
The rest are bidding up prices on the most-desirable neighborhoods – as I’ve pointed out here many times.
And as I mentioned, higher prices are an incentive for not only more supply, but the changes in zoning that permit it.
Interesting. What is your assertion as to the constraint limiting supply in so many areas?
Policies that limit the supply of developable land, not ones that limit the type of development.
Zoning is a clear cause of high land costs in the San Francisco Bay area. The thing that make it the most clear is that the land is more valuable than the buildings (if a building is a single family house) on it in places such as Sunnyvale. Another thing that makes it clear is the great lengths all the peninsula cities went to get rid of requirements in Plan Bay Area that required them to absorb a fair share of the increase in population to the area. The highest and best use of land near Google and other places cannot be a 1-story ranch single family home.
While allowing hillside development on the San Francisco peninsula would likely bring down housing prices, such an effect would only last until rockslides, earthquakes, or wildfires would bring down such housing.
An interesting example of how the lack of zoning has enabled an increase in density in a single family neighborhood to the consternation of the neighbors is taken place in Houston. Check out the history of 1717 Bissonet http://www.buckfund.com/1717-bissonnet-landing.html
Different types of development are not equally available because they are not equally demanded. If there is more demand for the types of development you favor, then supply will eventually catch up.
Right. We’re far from being caught up, and in no way can we state revealed preferences indicate market preferences or demand. Demand for land-use arrangements is indicated in prices. Modern development held its prices through the bubble.
DS
“Modern development held its prices through the bubble.”
Source, please. Never mind. I’ll just get an Urban Spoon page and the term Stroller Congestion
Rhetorical question: In high-demand areas, has SFH “held its prices” better than “modern development”? As I look for a SFH in Magnolia, Queen Anne, Wallingford, Ravena, etc., etc., I see that SFHs have risen in four years from about $1600 a house to well over $2500 a house. In some neighborhoods, like Magnolia, I could have gotten a nice house for $2000 in 2010, and now there are virtually no houses under $3500.
Come on, Dan. Let’s be honest. Be honest about you predilection for suburban development and a yard and multiple bedrooms and a 2000+ square foot house. Well, I should say your mom-in-law’s predilection.
Because for the same price you could have a one-bedroom downtown Denver.
Do it! Leave your dream! Give up your non-contested seat on your special election district government seat and go downtown and live your f’n dream!
Do it!
and go downtown and live your f’n dream!
It’s not even his dream Frank, it’s his dream for the rest of us. As a wise, all-knowing planner, he doesn’t feel he should have to live by the rules he wishes the rest of us to labor under. Do as I say, not as I do, remember?
Most smart growth advocates do NOT live in the dense environment they espouse, and have no intention of ever doing so.
MJ stated: “But planners’ hobby horse for zoning as the single, defining issue determining urban structure apparently does not extend to other land use regulations. Those ones are reasonable because they are promulgated by ‘smart’ people promoting ‘smart’ development. Uh huh.”
This is a legitimate knock of the planning profession. There is no doubt in my mind that the planning solutions of yesterday contributed to the problems we face today. Similarly the planning solutions of today will contribute to the problems of tomorrow. Does that mean land use regulation should be abolished and land use decisions should be solely left to market forces?
I would argue no. I would also argue that most people, including most conservatives that publicly lament any form of government intervention, feel the same way. If what MJ says is essentially the crux of the Antiplanning argument, then this is the crux of the pro-planning argument. Most Americans actually want some sort of land use regulation and y’all have failed to convince them otherwise.
I’ll take the anti-planner’s offer to help on that campaign. I suspect that land use regulation in Los Angeles interferes much more often with redevelopment of existing SFR neighborhoods than development of new SFR neighborhoods.
“Antiplanner offers a challenge: Join me in supporting the repeal of all government land-use regulation and subsidies to all forms of transportation. Then let the chips fall where they may. Will this result in more urban sprawl? Or will it lead to transit-oriented developments and densification? ”
“Or?” Densification is a given. FYI, sprawl is desificacation.
I suspect that land use regulation in Los Angeles interferes much more often with redevelopment of existing SFR neighborhoods than development of new SFR neighborhoods.
Yes – developers want to put up condos or 3-4-5 story apartments-condos on a parcel, the neighbors don’t like the change, so the neighbors agitate for less density (restrictive zoning provisions). That’s how it works.; when we talk about “The Zoned Zone”, this is because – as the authors put it – the current residents don’t want their property values to decrease, their traffic to increase, etc.
DS