An article in the Financial Times points out that about $10 trillion worth of wealth in the United States is phony, created by restrictive land-use laws that have pushed up the price of housing. Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall, so most people won’t see it, but the author, Robin Harding, makes several good points.
First, these planning laws contribute to income inequality by making people who already own homes richer while making those who don’t poorer. Harding misses the nuance that, in cities like Portland that have subsidized multifamily housing, renters aren’t as ripped off as they are in the Bay Area, where NIMBY planning has limited all kinds of housing. But it remains true, even in Portland, that the land-use restrictions contribute to an income divide.
It looks they mitigate examples of concerns around finding money a premium device that operates on Windows 10 S from the switching program, even so the ticket price versus the OS is really a paradox for all those. “Cumulatively, the announcements were clearly intended at strengthening Microsoft’s portfolio of vardenafil price education-facing products. If you masturbate oftentimes, say these sources, or have sex that results in ejaculation too levitra cost of sales frequently, you can seriously reduce your testosterone level, especially if it is a learned behavior, you do it day-to-day for many months or years. Neurological Physical Therapy As it is intuited by its name, it refers to the therapy of support to the neurological restoration, that davidfraymusic.com buy tadalafil in australia is to say, to a patient with neurological dysfunctions like the stroke, the Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s, the infantile cerebral palsy, the different types of sexual disorders. In addition to the problems of deterioration, rectifications are often needed due to changing building standards (e.g. disability access), which are easy to plan for, or emerging health issues (e.g. asbestos, lead paint, CCA), which buy generic cialis will only be revealed in a thorough building audit. “Wealth of this kind is far more destructive than the alleged sins of the top 1 per cent,” says Harding. “It is wealth created not by improving our living standards but by making them worse.” Thanks to planning restrictions, the average size of home in Britain today is not only less than half the size of an American home, it is far smaller than the average before passage of the Town & Country Planning Act of 1947. This is the law that so many planners want to emulate in America.
Those who want to reduce income inequality by taxing the rich, concludes Harding, should take another tack. “If we want to make society fairer and more equal, just let people build.”
hmmm, british homes are smaller now then they were in WW2?
L0L something tells me the flats are bigger now though…
anyways “If we want to make society fairer and more equal, just let people build.” is quite a pretty quote… but somehow it glosses over that the British WERE doing that for many hundreds of years previously (and thats when the term “slum” was invented and when books the “The Road to Wigan Pier” were written)
or I mean, just look at income inequality in 1947 england vs. today… and I’m also curious if ALL urban housing value appreciation is “phony,” or only if it occurs in a liberal area?
gattboy, another planner thug who likes to look reality in the eye, and lie.
We should just take all government planners out to a trench and shoot them.
Those who want to reduce income inequality by taxing the rich, concludes Harding, should take another tack. “If we want to make society fairer and more equal, just let people build.”
Randal, this is what them Planners in the western cities are saying. In Seattle, it is exactly what they are saying. SFO? Exactly what they are saying – as you know, because you researched it for the Google bus issue.
DS
No, they aren’t saying that. Planners lie, and lying planners are liars. As someone who actually lives in the Seattle area, I know how area planners are fervently plotting to pump up density.
Well, Metrosucky wants to rhetorically kill “planners” like the S.S. did to Jews. Hmmmnnn…
I’m much simpler. Let’t take all chickenshit anonymous Internet trolls, line them up and punch them continuously in the face until they die of blood loss and trauma–you know, like Tommy the volcanic thug would do to their heads in Goodfellas.
Seriously, Randal, isn’t it time to ban Metrosucks for such unacceptable comments?
And contrary to allegedly “pro-market” commentators here and elsewhere, Dan is correct. In the Bay Area we’re trying to undo many decades of down-zoning (which Randal never mentions, much to his discredit), which is as much responsible for high housing prices as restrictive topography.
But for our efforts, those of us who advocate freeing up the real estate market to allow construction of the additional housing the market is demanding through easing zoning restrictions and allowing more mixed use and transit-oriented development, are accused of “social engineering,” trying to “urbanize” the suburbs (Marin County), and complicity with “Agenda 21” (sic) by the most paranoid Tea Partiers/Birch Society hand-me-downs.
BTW, the huge demand here is NOT for single family housing at the fringes of the Bay Area…but of course, if you were really informed on this topic, you’d know this already (it is endlessly fascinating how people who don’t live in this region readily pontificate on the topic).
msetty, to do what you propose, you’d have to actually have some balls, and not be a wuss. And to have balls and not be a wuss, you’d need to live the lifestyle you support, which is being in some tiny apartment in a mixed use building. Not living outside the city on a ranch.
And if the general public had hanged or shot a bunch of government planners after they f’d up so royally and so persistently throughout history, who knows, we might have skipped a couple wars, the Holocaust you allude to, many disastrous government projects, and who knows what else.
We must never forget that the great killing fields of war, the Holocaust, all those atrocities, were dreamed up by government planners and their buddies, not by private citizens minding their own business.
But then again, you’re the biggest user of projection around. And guess what, if you dislike this blog, and its commentators so much, no one forces you to read, or post here. No one would miss you if you tripped over your Pinocchio nose and fell into the Bay.
“and allowing more mixed use and transit-oriented development,”
By “allowing”, you mean funneling subsidies to those supposedly in high demand but in great need of public money to succeed projects, correct?
Next time I’m in Seattle, Metrosucky, do you want to meet at a boxing gym?
Wuss.
Buzz Aldrin on what to do to assholes like Metrosucky, the wussy Internet troll too chickenshit to reveal who he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k.
Alas, Metrosucky is probably no Bart Sibrel, the asshole who at least had enough ballsy foolishness to stalk his prey (astronauts) in person. I doubt we’ll get any such satisfaction from Metrosucky, whatever his real identity.
The Antiplanner wrote (emphasis added):
“Wealth of this kind is far more destructive than the alleged sins of the top 1 per cent,” says Harding. “It is wealth created not by improving our living standards but by making them worse.” Thanks to planning restrictions, the average size of home in Britain today is not only less than half the size of an American home, it is far smaller than the average before passage of the Town & Country Planning Act of 1947. This is the law that so many planners want to emulate in America.
No disagreement with the above. But it’s important to note that Parliament passed the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, not planners.
Those who want to reduce income inequality by taxing the rich, concludes Harding, should take another tack. “If we want to make society fairer and more equal, just let people build.”
No disagreement there.
MSetty wrote:
And contrary to allegedly “pro-market” commentators here and elsewhere, Dan is correct. In the Bay Area we’re trying to undo many decades of down-zoning (which Randal never mentions, much to his discredit), which is as much responsible for high housing prices as restrictive topography.
Ever heard Randal speak about urban growth boundaries? I have. Especially the one around Portland Metro’s “service area.” Suggest, for example, that you read this from 2001.
What are UGBs? A de-facto downzoning of the lands beyond the UGB.
CPZ, “urban growth boundaries” in the Bay Area are mostly irrelevant to the argument. The biggest constraint here is topographical, not UGBs as such. UGBs are mostly used in the North Bay, but the North Bay has only about 1/6 of the Bay Area’s total population, and most of the towns where UGBs exist, such as Petaluma and Napa, are out of the easy commute zone to San Francisco and Silicon Valley.
And I can’t take any suggestion seriously that proposes that “affordable” housing be constructed in the very hilly areas that ring most of the urban development here, e.g., such as the Santa Cruz Mountains or in the Diablo Range. For one thing, the per unit development costs in such very hilly areas is prohibitive except for very high end housing.
Here is a link to a map that clearly shows Bay Area topography, http://www.aquaterra.com/projects/descriptions/baycopper.php.
It is also important to note that most of the dry, flat land in the Bay Area has already been developed, often at very low densities. And much of the “flat land,” particularly in the North Bay and South Bay, consists of low-lying existing or former wetlands, which are also very expensive to develop and subject to soil liquefaction during earthquakes–the latter factor probably not initially occuring many non-Californians.
I have a couple of points. First, I’d encourage metrosucks to stop making personal attacks on the various defenders of government planning . I realize how maddening they can be, but our side of the debate is served best by engaging them on the issues and allowing them to be as immature as they please on their own.
Second, there is plenty of developable land in the Bay Area. There are many hills. Being hills they are very easy to see. However, there is also a lot flatter more easily developed property. Somebody will probably deny this. I’m not going to get involved in a internet shouting match with them but I’d encourage anybody who is curious about this to consult a map.
there is plenty of developable land in the Bay Area. There are many hills. Being hills they are very easy to see. However, there is also a lot flatter more easily developed property. Somebody will probably deny this.
Totes.
Chapter 1,385 in my series “Still looking for numbers for dwelling units to make prices plummet in the Bay Area” asks the same question as in the 1384 previous chapters: “where is this developable land, how many dwelling units does that translate to, and how much will it reduce housing costs?” I know there is a conservative think-tank out there that should have done this work already.
DS
seems to me that going after UGBs, when they don’t really exist in the largest “true” metro areas… serves the same purpose as going after new LRT lines in smaller, relatively moderate cities. If theres proof that density and transit don’t work, it should be MORE prevalent in the highly developed liberal CHI/NYC/SFO cohort and not the other way around… but this site seems to spend a lot of time wailing against the walkability of Minneapolis and San Antonio and Portland instead, all decidedly middling urban areas from a planning perspective
The Antiplanner seems to have no problem with residents protesting against building (see here: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=8537) as long as they are protesting against dense housing. These are the same people, as msetty points out, that ensure that housing is expensive in the Bay Area. Incumbent homeowners like things the way they are and protest any plans to increase density. What shall we do with their refusal to accept the market’s demand for dense housing, to “just let people build”?
Another odd thing about this post is this same sentence: “If we want to make society fairer and more equal, just let people build.” Why would a libertarian care about making society fairer and more equal? Isn’t liberty the goal, which implies not interfering in individual wealth accumulation? It’s the same question I wonder when the Antiplanner tells us “If planners really cared about poor people..” Why would someone who espouses libertarianism care if people are poor? If they don’t care, why should we take their advice about reducing inequality?
Jeez Metro, they won’t suffer nearly enough if that’s all we do. I say tattoo them pink all over, seize their assets, make them swim in a septic pit for a month before the tattoos heal, send them naked to a “planned” winter work camp in the northern Yukon. Then severely punish them.
Builder wrote:
I have a couple of points. First, I’d encourage metrosucks to stop making personal attacks on the various defenders of government planning . I realize how maddening they can be, but our side of the debate is served best by engaging them on the issues and allowing them to be as immature as they please on their own.
Spot-on.
I strongly concur.
msetty wrote:
CPZ, “urban growth boundaries” in the Bay Area are mostly irrelevant to the argument. The biggest constraint here is topographical, not UGBs as such. UGBs are mostly used in the North Bay, but the North Bay has only about 1/6 of the Bay Area’s total population, and most of the towns where UGBs exist, such as Petaluma and Napa, are out of the easy commute zone to San Francisco and Silicon Valley.
I have visited the Bay Area a few times, though not especially recently. I also know about the deservedly bad reputation that most of that part of California has when it comes to housing unaffordability.
But I was, of course, more speaking about urban growth boundaries (frequently implemented under other names, such as “agricultural preservation” or “open space conservation” or “viewshed protection”) in the East, where I have seen the damage they do up close and personal. When developable land is downzoned to 1 dwelling unit per anywhere from 50 acres to 200 acres, that still amounts to downzoning, even if it is presented with a different name.
When developable land is downzoned to 1 dwelling unit per anywhere from 50 acres to 200 acres, that still amounts to downzoning, even if it is presented with a different name.
Again, Chapter 1,386 in my series “Still looking for numbers for dwelling units to make prices plummet in the Bay Area” asks the same question as in the 1385 previous chapters: “where is this developable land, how many dwelling units does that translate to, and how much will it reduce housing costs?”
I know there is a conservative think-tank out there that should have done this work already, because the UGBs are making housing unaffordable because there’s all this land sitting there, see.
DS
Well, Metrosucky wants to rhetorically kill “planners” like the S.S. did to Jews. Hmmmnnn…
I’m much simpler. Let’t take all chickenshit anonymous Internet trolls, line them up and punch them continuously in the face until they die of blood loss and trauma–you know, like Tommy the volcanic thug would do to their heads in Goodfellas.
Seriously, Randal, isn’t it time to ban Metrosucks for such unacceptable comments?
There he is, folks, your friendly neighborhood transportation planning consultant. Such a kind and reasonable fellow. A credit to his profession, if you will.
Chapter 1,385 in my series “Still looking for numbers for dwelling units to make prices plummet in the Bay Area” asks the same question as in the 1384 previous chapters: “where is this developable land, how many dwelling units does that translate to, and how much will it reduce housing costs?” I know there is a conservative think-tank out there that should have done this work already.
Somehow you made it through 1,384 chapters without bothering to collect the data, estimate the relevant supply and demand curves, and apply the relevant elasticities and quantities. No, that’s the job of conservative think tanks.
Somehow you made it through 1,384 chapters without bothering to collect the data, estimate the relevant supply and demand curves, and apply the relevant elasticities and quantities. No, that’s the job of conservative think tanks.
Exactly to my point. Everyone “knows” that there is a heckuva lotta land out there from the “restrictions” and “UGBs”, and if only the beleaguered developers could build it…something. So how much land? How many DUs? What is the effect on price (not to mention roads, air pollution, infra)? There must be a dozen papers figuring it out to pressure somebody to do something. I bookmarked this thread so I don’t have to explain it again and again.
DS
Builder said:
…First, I’d encourage metrosucks to stop making personal attacks on the various defenders of government planning . I realize how maddening they can be, but our side of the debate is served best by engaging them on the issues and allowing them to be as immature as they please on their own.
1. Yah think? 2. Are you kidding? If that king of immature basement dwellers Metrosucky said the sort of libelous punkass things he’s written here about Dan, Gilfoil, myself or anyone else in person, he’d deservedly get a knuckle sandwich and maybe a well-deserved beatdown, as Bart Sibrel did from Buzz Aldrin. But of course he’s no Bart Sibrel, preferring to hide in his mother’s basement and spew libelous bullshit as a dishonorable anonymous Internet troll.
Second, there is plenty of developable land in the Bay Area. There are many hills. Being hills they are very easy to see. However, there is also a lot flatter more easily developed property.
Yes, you’re right but the flat land is mostly dozens of miles away from the core of where the job growth is occurring most strongly, e.g., Silicon Valley, San Mateo County and San Francisco. There’s hundreds of square miles in Central and Eastern Solano County, but that’s 50-60 miles away from S.F.
Yah think? 2. Are you kidding? If that king of immature basement dwellers
msetty, let’s make something clear. You’re big into projection. It’s kind of like how you attack people for living in the suburbs, while you live in the country on a nice ranch. But typical of hypocritical smart growth supporters. (Oh yes I forgot, they, and you, all have Personal Reasons (TM) for being hypocrites. How convenient).
Anyway, when you screech that Rush Limbaugh did drugs, I just assume you do them, too. When you howl that anyone you don’t like lives in the basement, I think you live in your sister’s basement, or whoever the hell owns that ranch. When you scream about pounding someone into the ground, I assume you are a pathetic little twerp of a dweeb who couldn’t roundhouse a gerbil. These assumptions make perfect sense based on what we’ve learned about you.
Metrosucks, based on your over the top rhetoric about shooting people who are “government planners,” I’d say in 1933 Germany, under those circumstances chances are you would have been an unquestioning loyal fan of Adolph. Or was it just that you were trying to be “funny?”
If so, you have grossly overdrawn your Godwin’s Law quota for the next decade.
You think it is “funny” to want to “rhetorically” shoot people and toss them in ditches because of their profession and beliefs, but then you get offended when I want to “rhetorically punch you in the nose” for being such a swaggering asshole, like folk hero Buzz Aldrin. You certainly can dish it out, but you can’t take it, like all the other cowardly, dweeby little trolls hiding under rocks all over the Internet.
If it’s any consolation, I’ve had my fill. As I’ve said before, if you have something constructive to say, I may or may not respond in kind, depending on the topic. Otherwise from now on I’ll ignore you because most of the time you bring NOTHING to the debate except batshit crazy ad hominem attacks.