A & A HOUSING

May 2, 2009

—

What one has been reading about Affordable and Accessible Housing for the last five years at Bacons Rebellion is confirmed by WaPo.

Some clarifications:

1. Aggregating data by municipal jurisdiction is deceiving. “Upper Montgomery County” (Radius = 25 Miles) is more comparable to Eastern Loudoun County (Radius = 25 Miles) than it is to “Lower Montgomery County” (Radius = 5).

2. Municipal borders to not identify organic components of human settlement pattern – Fairfax County contains all or most of 9 Beta Communities.

3. “Average” prices are poor measures of real conditions with widely varying parameters over large areas – Fairfax County is 244,000 acres.

4. WaPo uses the word “core” but the WaPo “core” is 13 times smaller in area than the Core of the National Capital SubRegion (area inside the Clear Edge) as defined by Regional Metrics.

With these reservations, see the map in WaPo’s 2 May 2009 Real Estate section on home values.

Appraisals for refinancing (not foreclosures) of even well located dwellings in the Radius = 40 to Radius = 50 Miles Radius Band suggest values are down 50 percent from late 2006.

That brings them to about where historic trends would put shelter values but for the Agency fueled housing bubble and HyperIndividualism – the erosion of the balance between private rights and community responsibilities.

There must be Balance of J / H / S / R / A at the Community scale if there is to be Affordable and Accessible Housing to support a economic, social and physical sustainability.

Trickle Down and ‘drive-til-you-qualify’ was never an intelligent choice for providing shelter but now that humans (led by the US of A’s citizens) have burned through much of the Natural Capital accumulated over the last 2 Billion years it is time for Fundamental Transformation or Collapse.

EMR

Share this article

(comments below)

Comments

106 responses to “A & A HOUSING”

Douglas

May 2, 2009

Ed, thank you for making the links between affordable homes and the need to change our dysfunctional land use patterns. Must say I’m disappointed in how this publication has degenerated into standard conservative orthodoxy since the departure of Jim Bacon, but I’m glad you’re still making the arguments for sustainable and market-based land use — as opposed to our current land use welfare state.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 3, 2009

You want to see a hack of a video on Transit Oriented Development?

http://vimeo.com/4360553

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 3, 2009

Arnold Imaging should get an oscar for best horror movie.

It’s an ANIMATION folks, without a shred of reality.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 3, 2009

Actually, I take it back. Ther e are two bits of reality in the last scene. You can clearly see that one of the animated trolleys is mostly unoccupied, and dead center in the last scene is a giant sign for——-

Western Auto.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 3, 2009

closer to home and real:

http://arlington.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=1206

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 3, 2009

I liked the technical quality of the animation. It also looked a lot like what happened along the metro stops on Wilson Blvd in Arlington over the years. A lot.

Finally, the trams are very similar to the trains now being used in both Denver and Silicon Valley. They seem to be having the desired effect in those locales as well.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 3, 2009

Great video on Arlington! I lived there in the early 1980s and the video is very accurate. Pretty much a battle between a county and the neglectful state government in Richmond. Arlington worked with the federal government, worked with the metropolitan council of governments but ignored Richmond. Very smart. This whole story is a great advertisement for limiting Dillon’s Rule. Terry McAuliffe says not all good ideas come from Richmond. I wonder if any good ideas come from Richmond.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 3, 2009

Also, my latest take on the governor’s race is on my web site. Since that race is not covered by BR I feel it’s OK to post about a related matter and link to that post. Click on “Groveton” at the start of this post (blue) to get to the blog.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 3, 2009

on my way to read….

yes… given the current state of BR…. your BLOG may well become an alternative … or supplement – whatever….

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 3, 2009

Douglas:

I am sure Professor Risse appreciates your note on settlement pattern and shelter.

I am not sure the problem is “standard conservative orthodoxy” so much as it is unwillingness to face the fact that “Business-As-Usual” in ALL its forms is DEAD.

Most of the ‘regulars’ who post at this site – for reasons not yet clear – are invested in what Dr. Risse calls “The 12.5 Percent Lifestyle” vis a vis settlement pattern.

12.5 percent is not a majority of the population and the market demonstrates that scattered dwellings which are remote from jobs, services and goods is not popular.

The rationalization of the shelter market demonstrates that fact as Dr. Risse’s post documents.

What is frightening is the long term impact of continued denial – by individuals and by their governments.

The scattered housing lifestyle has never been affordable by a majority of the citizens.

With rising total energy costs it is now not affordable for more than 30 percent of the households. That number will shrink year by year with the continued burn of Natural Capital.

When the full costs are fairly allocated – and that movement will be driven by the market – the number will be less than 5 percent.

It will not be possible to maintain democracies with market economies if only a tiny majority can afford Affordable and Accessible shelter.

Fundamental transformation in inevitable. The only question is will it come from a collapse of society as we know it or from rational actions.

As far as I can recall neither Bacon or Risse have said that the 12.5 Percenters should give up their dysfunctional settlement pattern. They have suggested that 12.5 Percenters should pay their fair share.

The 12.5 Percenters understand just enough to know that they, individually, might be able to afford their fair share but the vast majority could not and so the inflated value of their scattered dwellings will plummet.

12.5 Percenters have taken it upon themselves to attack any potential move to level the playing field. You will notice the 12.5 Percenters did not bother to address the Affordable and Accessible Housing issue but jumped onto a different train.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 3, 2009

Anon 11:38 –

I assume that Douglas was referring to the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine rather than the blog. Certainly the e-zine has changed since Jim Bacon left. As for the affordable housing question – I suggest you actually watch LarryG’s video about Arlington County. Affordable housing is discussed at several points including a fairly clear idea of how Arlington pushes developers to help fund the affordable housing. In addition, the entire video is about higher density through transit oriented development which (I thought) was part of the plan with regard to functional human settlement patterns. Of course, LarryG’s video about Arlington is practical and works in reality. So, as usual, the functional settlement pattern cabal blows it off. Is there anything that any of you have ever seen from anywhere that you think is a step in a right direction?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 3, 2009

The big missing piece is jobs. Unless the pattern that there is very little job security reverses itself and we find more people able to again work 10 – 15 – 20 years at the same company, the idea that people can live near their place of work is somewhat silly, IMO. I’m not arguing that 60-mile commutes to have a big house makes sense. But the Kansas City idea is pure fantasy. People cannot afford to move for every job, and the next job may well require a significant auto trip even for those who live by transit.

Arlington County does do a good job of demanding and obtaining affordable housing – workforce housing proffers as part of rezoning. Fairfax County does not. The staff is taking a harder line on Tysons, however. And it has the landowners (many of which readily comply in Arlington) screaming. They want either to create an affordable housing ghetto in Tysons, far from rail, or, better yet, monetize the obligation (at some absurdly low figure) and have the affordable/workforce housing off-site. Stay tuned!

TMT

Log in to Reply
E M Risse

May 3, 2009

Groveton:

Clarification, please: You called the Kansas City simulation “a hack of a video” and then praised it in a later post.

Except for problems of scale, Vocabulary and Conceptual Framework, it is not bad. Sure one could spend hours editing and improving it but why did you select this video out of thousands of similar efforts for ridicule? Or is ‘hack’ and ‘good’ word in your Lexicon? Or did you mean a “heck” of a video?

Larry:

Thank you for adding the to the Arlington story. Wilfred Owen, an Arlington resident and Brookings transportation researcher who EMR quotes often was one of a half dozen ‘leaders’ who made the Arlington story turn out as well as it has.

For a well documented (and in-scale) rendition of how some of the ideas in the KC Video, and some of the good results in Arlington could be applied throughout the National Capital SubRegion, Google “Blueprint for a Better Region” and then go to the web on that topic. From that site one can download a number of versions of a PowerPoint (with or without sound, etc.) that documents how the METRO system could be an armature for functional settlement patterns.

Douglas:

Keep up the good work…

Anon 11:38:

You forgot that the biggest funders of the Scatteration-is-Good Myth are those who own land they want to convert to Urban land uses in inappropriate locations and Enterprises that want to profit from those acting on the Myth without paying the full cost.

Groveton Again:

The current governors race is a disgrace. There are no REAL choices. Four party hacks gaming the system. Where is your Antipartisan candidate? If none appears it is time for a ‘none of the above’ boycott of Party Politics As Usual. (They gave a party and no one showed up.)

Groveton Yet Again:

As EMR reads it, Anon 11:38 was not talking about the Arlington Story. He was referring to the attack on shared-vehicle station area related settlement patterns. From your 7:37 post, it looks like you and he agree.

EMR

Log in to Reply
E M Risse

May 3, 2009

TooManyTaxes:

“The big missing piece is jobs.”

Right on! And the big problem with “The Arlington Story” is that on a county-wide basis there were 5 Jobs for every Household the last time EMR checked (When preparing “Shaping the Future” certificate program – that was the case when we were helping make “Blueprint for a Better Region” as well.)

Neither Greater South Arlington nor Greater North Arlington comes close to a J / H / S / R / A Balance. Arlington County is doing far better than any other municipality in the New Urban Region, but Balance is far off.

(Arlington leaders claim they NEED the imBalance to pay the cost of the “public services” the resident “work force” demands. This imBalance helps mask the fact that contemporary society costs far more that ANYONE is now paying.)

“Unless the pattern that there is very little job security reverses itself and we find more people able to again work 10 – 15 – 20 years at the same company, the idea that people can live near their place of work is somewhat silly, IMO.”

Excuse me, that “pattern” is changing as we discuss. In the future folks will be happy to keep a job close to where they live – rather than jumping to one that pays a little more somewhere else.

Employers will be happy to have nearby workers so they do not have to pay the direct and indirect costs of long distance trips to work.

These two realities will be one result of the MUCH higher costs of mobility.

Another trend will be when someone gets laid off, they will start an Enterprise of their own because they do not want to, cannot afford to, move.

That job creation is far better than some big Enterprise hiring a few more staffers. For that reason any “subsidy” for job creation will shift from Big Enterprises to small Enterprises. More stability, more resiliency, more community.

In addition, a shared-vehicle system allows one to choose a jobs near several stations. That is why the “Blueprint” Balance across the entire SubRegional METRO System is so important.

The days of enjoying the fruits of cheap energy are GONE – IMHO.

“I’m not arguing that 60-mile commutes to have a big house makes sense.”

Good!

“But the Kansas City idea is pure fantasy.”

Sorry, as Groveton points out that is exactly what is happening in the Regions and SubRegions where citizens want to live and work. It is even happening in Dallas and Houston.

“People cannot afford to move for every job, and the next job may well require a significant auto trip even for those who live by transit.”

Not if they cannot afford the Large, Private Vehicle or the energy to run it in the post Great Recession context.

“Arlington County does do a good job of demanding and obtaining affordable housing – workforce housing proffers as part of rezoning. Fairfax County does not. The staff is taking a harder line on Tysons, however. And it has the landowners (many of which readily comply in Arlington) screaming. They want either to create an affordable housing ghetto in Tysons, far from rail, or, better yet, monetize the obligation (at some absurdly low figure) and have the affordable/workforce housing off-site. Stay tuned!”

Stay tuned indeed! It will be interesting to see if Citizens, Agencies, Enterprises and Institutions can fashion a functional settlement pattern and sustainable trajectory or if Business-As-Usual will subsidized for one last lap around the track on the back of the Tiger.

Chavez, Putin and the Crown Princes of Oildumb hope the two party duopoly politicians try to sell that one last lap.

EMR

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 3, 2009

I agree – the jobs question is the major fly in the functional settlement pattern ointment.

Arlington “works” because of the largess of the very Government that EMR blames for being incapable of fundamental change – a major conflict IMHO.

One only needs to visit the hundreds of stereotypical “small town” America to see what happens when the major employer leaves town and the jobs go somewhere else.

What kind of jobs would Arlington have – if they were not Federal or contractor Federal jobs?

What would they actually produce that would give jobs to all those folks living dense in their transit-oriented “pods”?

Would Arlington become another Cleveland or Detroit or Danville or Norton without all those Federal jobs?

And think about this.. what if Hampton Roads/Tidewater were not a major port for the Navy – once again.. jobs from taxpayers.

And it DOES Matter …even WHERE those jobs are – as we saw demonstrated when the Feds wanted to BRAC their agencies… all holy heck broke lose from the settlement pattern folks… citing … a lack of METRO at the proposed locations that would add jobs along with the fact that many employees would not move closer to the new work locations – but instead drive (since mass transit does not have the scope and scale needed).

Want to see mayhem in Arlington?

Have 2 of the several Fed agencies move their jobs elsewhere.

Want to see mayhem in HR/TW?

Have the navy move MOST of their carriers to Mayport, Florida.

What this points out is just how fragile and vulnerable even functional settlement patterns are … and totally dependent on the jobs…

if the jobs go away.. you’ve got a wonderful settlement pattern .. with a 40% vacancy rate.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 3, 2009

In truth, I meant to write “heck” instead of “hack”. However, to a technology geek – hack is a positive term anyway. As in, “I saw this great hack in Python at Koders.Com”. I liked the technical quality of the KC video. The Arlington video was less technically sophisticated but told a better story. As for jobs – definitely always an issue. Look at Detroit.

As for the “jobs from taxpayers schtick” – I just don’t get it. I guess the sailors on the carriers in Tidewater or the sergeants at Quantico don’t earn their gigantic paychecks because they checks come from the government via the taxpayer. What would happen if the largest employer in town left for another town? Well, that would be bad for the town. And if big employers not only leave the towns but leave the state that’s bad for the state. I guess it’s a good thing that Tim Kaine runs the DNC, Virginia voted for Obama. Maybe Virginia should hedge its bets one more time with McAuliffe.

I would also submit that most people on a government pension and everybody drawing Social Security and everybody getting medical insurance under Medicare are getting their paychecks from taxpayers.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 3, 2009

People who barely have jobs, ie people in Detroit who still have jobs are paying the “excessive” guaranteed salaries and pensions of administrators at Langley (CIA) or Pentagon/Crystral city (the Pentagon).

I was under the impression government jobs were for people couldn’t find real jobs. (gov’t engineers are kind of an exception though)

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

““Business-As-Usual” in ALL its forms is DEAD.”

Whatever replaces it, will become business as usual.

It will still depend on profits.

And it will still require that short term profits take precedences over profits that might happen someday.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“The scattered housing lifestyle has never been affordable by a majority of the citizens. “

This is simply not true. It is the urban lifestyle that is a recent phenomenon.

When the real crash comes it will be the urban residents that face the biggest disasters.

How many times have you seen an evacuation planfor a rural area? it is the urban areas that need evacuation plans, and where do they evacuate to?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“12.5 percent is not a majority of the population “

The majority of the population does not ruel the world. Without prper checks and balances, majority rule is just mob rule. In America we have learned the hard way that government has an obligation to protect the interests of minorities.

Even if they happen to be rich minorities.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“It will not be possible to maintain democracies with market economies if only a tiny majority can afford Affordable and Accessible shelter. “

I take it that you mean that urban areas are most acessible. By Dr. Risses own argument these places are also the less affordable and most expensive.

Most people make some kind of trade-off between affordable and accessible, cost of travel included.

So, what exactly is your point here?

That government should subsidize urban areas so that people can afford to live there?

That we shoud not petend to have market economies if we are subsidizing massive urban areasa?

That we should throw in the towel on democracy?

That the combination of market economy and Democracy is doomed? Or that only a tiny majority will be able to afford to live in affordable and accessible areas?

Does that mean the major majority will be able to afford to live in areas that are not accessible or affordable?

If that is the case, then I vote for the major maority instead of the minor majority every time.

Surely there must be something to be said for market democracy in there somewhere.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Fundamental transformation in inevitable.”

Probably. But most likely it will take place incrementally.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“They have suggested that 12.5 Percenters should pay their fair share.”

As defined by Bacon and Risse.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“so the inflated value of their scattered dwellings will plummet.”

Funny, The people currently hired to do the re-assessments in Fauquier county have recently said just the opposite.

In fact, I ust got my tax bills. My property consists of two parcels: a small one with a minor house interior to the main lot with the major house and the rest of the farm. They both have the same land use.

The minor lot and the minor house pay more than a third of the taxes as the major house an major lot, because the value of the smaller lot is MUCH higher than the value of the land associated with the major lot.

This is in spite of the SAME location and the SAME land use.

All I can conclude is that scattered dwellings are worth more.

But, what do I know: I just pay the bills.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“You will notice the 12.5 Percenters did not bother to address the Affordable and Accessible Housing issue but jumped onto a different train.”

Nonsense. If I culd identify a place that was more affordable and accessible than where I live, then I would move there.

So far, I have not found one. In fact, based on what I contribute to the community, I think this one should be a lot LESS expensive than it is.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“including a fairly clear idea of how Arlington pushes developers to help fund the affordable housing.”

Well, yes, it always appears to be a lot more affordable if someone else is paying for it.

Bottom line though, it costs the same. It is only a question of who is paying the bill.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“the entire video is about higher density through transit oriented development”

Higher density is a required subsidy to transit. Do we really think it is economical to create a Tokyo or Hong Kong just to make transit pay its own way?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“The days of enjoying the fruits of cheap energy are GONE – IMHO.”

Our GDP and our personal earnings are based on energy.

If that is what you believe, then kiss your income goodbye. You can make a lot more money digging ditches with a backhoe and a thousand gallons of diesel than you can with a lifetime pushing a shovel and doing the same job.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

Video clips:

“I saw them tear down the old homes and replace them with a lot of town homes.”

View of the highway taken froma metro train with the cars passing the train.”

“Change takes time nad it is sometimes painful.”

“We moved to Arlington from the District”

“In the ’50s downtown stores moved to Arlington”

“We wanted to get rid of the lumber yards, auto repair, and other businesses to create a major commercial busines area.”

“We were very aware that all the cars from Loudoun and Fairfax would have to come through Arlington.”

“Arlington would not have METRO if it were not for route 66.”

“The cheapest way to build mass transit is to build it down the median strip of an [alreaedy built] highway.”

“Arlington fought for as many METRO stops as possible.”

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“People cannot afford to move for every job, and the next job may well require a significant auto trip even for those who live by transit.”

“Not if they cannot afford the Large, Private Vehicle or the energy to run it in the post Great Recession context.”

So thry should be stuck with the jobs they have next to transit.

That makes a hell of a bad argumemt for transit supporting more accessibility, wouldn’t yu say?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Blueprint for a Better Region”

Give me a break.

“Blueprint” is sheer propaganda. It is a listning of vague priorities, not a true blueprint.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Unless the pattern that there is very little job security reverses itself and we find more people able to again work 10 – 15 – 20 years at the same company,”

Why would I want to do that if I can make more money by changing jobs? I spent 20 years at one comany and then chnaged jobs six times in six years and more than doubled my salary. (I got out of the “green ” business) I should have traded stability for income a lot sooner: even though it meant driving more.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“In the future folks will be happy to keep a job close to where they live – rather than jumping to one that pays a little more somewhere else. “

Int he future, people will be happy to be stuck? Are you stark raving mad?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“if the jobs go away.. you’ve got a wonderful settlement pattern .. with a 40% vacancy rate.”

Bingo. Smartest thing Larry ever said.

WE DON’T NEED HUGE INFRASTRUCTURE, MASSIVE MASS TRANSIT, OR CLAUSTROPHOBIC DENSITY, JUST SO WE CAN SUPPORT A JOB DENSITY THAT IS “TOO BIG TOFAIL”.

Have we learned NOTHING?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Arlington County is doing far better than any other municipality in the New Urban Region, but Balance is far off. “

Considering what Arlington cost and how long it took, I guess most of the country can rest easy.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“contemporary society costs far more that ANYONE is now paying.)”

So you are in fvor of higher taxes?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Another trend will be when someone gets laid off, they will start an Enterprise of their own because they do not want to, cannot afford to, move. “

Or we could make houses much cheaper, and buying/selling much cheaper. Like say, onthe order of buying/selling a car.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“the MUCH higher costs of mobility.”

I keep pretty close track of my travel expenses. They are MUCH lower now than they were thirty years ago. this is pretty well documented across the society.

We are going to have a lot more mass transit, based on projects in the works. Are you saying that travel costs will STILL be higher?

You think that has to do with the actual costs of auto transit or the total costs of auto transit plus auto transit which is also paying for mass transit?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 4, 2009

re: taxpayer-provided jobs and functional settlement patterns.

My point – of all the sundry and various employers that a locality (such as Arlington or HR/TW might have – the jobs that are Federal are often the most enduring and most stable – even if not the best paying.

A settlement pattern based on jobs being provided by a multitude of Federal Agencies is virtually bulletproof – as compared to say… jobs provided by companies like AOL or Chrysler, etc, et al.

So… trumpeting Arlington… NoVa.. or even HR/TW for functional settlement patternology is a much safer endeavor than say singing the praises of a Detroit or Danville, Va functional settlement pattern.

The reality is that other than Taxpayer-jobs, many, if not most are not necessarily enduring over the lifespan of a given settlement pattern.

Now.. having said this.. and having noted the ongoing demise of hundreds of small towns across American.. I will admit that as far as I can tell.. not a single metropolis has “failed”.. though we have some promising candidates in the rust belt.

Jobs are everything.

Without them.. nattering on and on about more functional settlement patternology is as useful as killing mosquitoes while in the jaws of an alligator.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

May 4, 2009

Off topic – I need a favor. I am experimenting with linking base data to my blog. I have embedded a link in the latest entry on GrovetonsVirginia to a Google spreadsheet with voter turnout data from the 2006 Democratic primary in Virginia. I can get access to the speadsheet via the blog but (then again) I created the spreadsheet and it’s stored under my Google account. However, if I did it right, anybody should be able to see the base data but nobody should be able to alter that data.

Any chance I can get one of you guys to give it a try?

The link to the blog is:

http://grovetonsvirginia.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/deeds-heeds-2006/

The link is at the end of the section entitled data centered blogging. If I can start getting this to work I’ll expand it to include charts, graphs and (someday) queries. I’ll also publish a “how to guide” for other bloggers to use.

Don’t worry if you change the spreadsheet – I have a copy saved under a different name.

Thanks in advance.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Well, yes, it always appears to be a lot more affordable if someone else is paying for it.

“Bottom line though, it costs the same. It is only a question of who is paying the bill.”

From an economic perspective, I agree. But keep in mind that the developers have no right to the added density. They cannot be forced to pay or donate if they are willing to build to right. They are seeking to obtain some additional building rights and also argue that added density permits balanced mixed use communities, which by definition includes lower paid workers.

It strikes me as merely being required to put one’s money where one’s mouth has been.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“But keep in mind that the developers have no right to the added density. “

But in the Arlington case it is the county that WANTS more density, in order to justify the investment in METRO.

The fact remains that Arlington is getting some “Affordable” husing by making other housing less affordable. It’s a scam.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

Groveton,

I can view the data but not change it.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“The fact remains that Arlington is getting some “Affordable” husing by making other housing less affordable.”

By posting this sort of foolishness you are implying those who read this Blog are too dumb to understand your real motives.

Go mow you hay.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

Foolishness is mowing hay when it is pouring down rain.

“The fact remains that Arlington is getting some “Affordable” husing by making other housing less affordable.”

My only motive is to understand the truth as I have been trained to discover it: through scientific method and mental acuity. You have apparently been trained to discover the truth through vaguely menacing ad hominem attacks.

But, I’m open to new knowledge: perhaps you can explain this to me.

I’m a builder/developer in Arlington. I can get permission to build fifty units provided I sell ten of them at 20% below market value. Otherwise, no units get built.

1) Provided I agree, where does the money come from, to sell those units below market value?

2) If I don’t agree (Either I can’t afford it or I figure I cannot add the cost to the other units) how does that make housing any more affordable in Arlington?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“Given the current housing crisis, there is wide support for measures to make it easier for homeowners to modify their mortgages. That is understandable. Nobody likes seeing the wave of foreclosures. Plus, mortgage modifications may help stabilize home values.

But in the rush to do something, Congress is showing a regrettable willingness to adopt constitutionally suspect legislation that runs roughshod over the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without just compensation.”

Wall Street Journal

————————

Our Hypothetical builder developer builds his units, and now he owns them. Where does the county get off telling him what he can sell them for? Isn’t that a “taking” of his property?

Suppose he sells those ten units at below market value, then what? What is to prevent the owners from re-selling them and taking the builders profit? What if they still can’t afford the place and go bankrupt. The bank takes over and sells them at market value and THEY get the builders profit. Or, the below market owners are successful enough to keep the places and THEy get to enjoy the builders profit.

One way or another the builder is going to factor all of this into his cost of doing business. Taht will be the cost of Arlington county running roughshod over the Fifth Amendment

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

Well for starters, housing is not priced on how much it costs to build, it is priced on how much it will sell for.

A simple comparison of same size, same features housing in Arilington’s RB Corridor vis units in the I-95 Corridor will document that you should be out mowing hay where you may have a better understanding of what you are doing.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“well for starters, housing is not priced on how much it costs to build, it is priced on how much it will sell for.”

I don’t see how that answers my question. Where does the builders money come from if he is required to sell ten units at below market valaue? All you have done is change the subject.

A builder calculates how much it will cost him to complete a project, including risk factors and government give aways. Then he adds his necessary profit on top of that to come up wth an estimated price. If that price is below what he believes it will sell for, then he can afford to begin the project.

It seems to me that you are half right: if the price to sell is higher than the cost to build then it will be built. But if the price to sell is LOWER than he cost to build then it won’t be built.

In that case new construction cannot create more affordable housing, bcause it won’t happen. On the other hand when new housing is sold at the going rate, tht doesn;t make housing more affordable either: by definition affordability is the same if the price is the same.

What Detroit and Pittsburgh teach us is that if you want to make housing more affordable, just take away the jobs. Which is why, coincidentally, that houses become more affordable as you drive to qualify.

For those with attention deficit disorder, I’ll ask again, “Where does the builder’s money come from if he is required to sell ten units at below market valaue?”

Bonus points if you can answer without a personal attack.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

How does comparison of same size, same features housing document that I should be out mowing hay?

Let’s not confuse what housing is worth with what people can afford. My family owns properties in several different inner and outer suburban areas. Collectively , I think we understand price and value.

But lets call a spade a spade here. “Affordable Housing” is no olnger considered to be a good thing. “Affordable Housing” has become a pejorative for housing that is made available for people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses generally available on the open market.

Charity housing, in other words. And where does the money for charity housing come from? (Hint, it isn’t the builders pocket.)

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“It is shown that for most Swedish cities, welfare has increased from 1986 to 1998 due to improved air quality but the positive e¤ect is partly o¤set by the deteriorated accessibility in some areas. The results also indicate that the values people place on urban accessibility and air quality vary considerably across regions……

The numbers indicate that residents in the province of Jämtland value air quality higher than other provinces while those living in Norrbotten place a higher value on accessibility. Air quality has improved most in Kronoberg but deteriorated most in Uppsala. Accessibility improves most in Vastra-Gotaland province while it deteriorates most in Stockholm.”

—————————–

The market determined what values to put on environmental considerations and accessibility. Now, wasn’t Stockholm one of thos places that instituted congestion pricing?

When you talk about “affordable housing” you need to specify exactly what it is that you are buying. Those fabulous horse estates in upper Fauquier county cost a lot more than any home in Arlington, but they are not avaialbe at any price in Arlington, either. If they did exist in Arlington, they would be even MORE expensive, right?

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 4, 2009

I think the affordable housing issue is worth a separate EMR-generated entry.

I can see both sides of the issue but as a matter of law, any community can and does have a substantial say in what “kind” of development they will allow.

They are also free to offer incentives for the kind of development that they deem a need in the community.

This is exactly how redevelopment gets done….

And no developer is forced to take the deal.

If 3 developers walk away, and the 4th agrees to build “affordable” housing.. then why is that not good?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“They are also free to offer incentives for the kind of development that they deem a need in the community.”

Where is the “incentive” in saying you have to provide ten percent of the units at 20% below market value?

Is the “incentive” either that, or go someplace else?

To me, an “incentive” suggests that you pay someoen to do what you want done. Not that you punish them for NOT doing what you want done.

Somewhere we have fallen off the apple cart here.

There is an important distinction. Because if we agree to pay for what we want done we are a lot less likely to make impossible or confiscatory demands. We will only pay for what is really worthwhile.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

“And no developer is forced to take the deal.”

No, of course not, you just take the deal, or else.

———————————-

“If 3 developers walk away, and the 4th agrees to build “affordable” housing.. then why is that not good?”

Who owns the property?

If the developer owns it, he’ll have to sell at a lower price, etc. etc. until someone can afford to “take the deal”

If he dowsn’t won the property he will be working on a contingency contract to buy the property. (This is the usual case). Without s suitable deal he will walk away.

The owner will have to take another deal at a lower price, etc. etc. Until some builder can make a profit.

We like to think that we are sticking t to the “big developers”, but we KNOW FOR A FACT that about half of the cost comes out of the pocket of the landowners, who may be local residents. Most likely, local residents who have already been DOWNZONED WITHOUT COMPENSATION several times.

It is easy to forget this when we say developers have NO RIGHT TO DEVELOP.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 4, 2009

and the 4th agrees to build “affordable” housing.. then why is that not good?

It is not good because it is still a fraud. That affordability is coming out of someones pocket who is not the general taxpayer. Or else he IS a general taxpayer and he is ALSO required to chip in for affodability that isn’t his own.

If the County wants affordable housing then they acan go buy it on a “free market” and sell it for whatever price they like.

And whatever price the taxpayers will stand for.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

I kind of agree with RH that affordable housing Arlington style is a big scam! This approach would be especially horrible for urban city that already have significant poverty, ie D.C or Richmond.

A much better approach would be to offer varying levels of luxury in the same building/complex. A good example of this in the city of Richmond would be the American Heritage Building. It caters to people with incomes as low as about over 30,000(rent=600) to people who make around 100,000(rent=2500) and over.
–Cheaper units are smaller and “minimal”
–Expensive units are larger, multistory and rather luxurious.

Is this approach a win-win for everyone?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

Ray,

I still struggle as to why exacting proffers from a landowner or developer in exchange for permission to build to a greater density than is permitted today is somehow wrong or unfair. A landowner only has the right to build to what is permitted by the current Comprehensive Plan & zoning ordinance. He/she/it has NO right whatsoever to build beyond today's limits.

Why should a new right to build to greater density be given for free? Of course, the developer will try to pass along the costs for the proffered roads, parks, schools, affordable housing, cash, or whatever to those who purchase or lease whatever is built. Or the developer might just pay less to the local landowner or maybe build in some other location.

But so what! Where is it written that landowners and developers should be held harmless from contributing to infrastructure costs?

TMT

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“I still struggle as to why exacting proffers from a landowner or developer in exchange for permission to build to a greater density than is permitted today is somehow wrong or unfair.”

And I have never, ever, said that it was unfair. What I say is two things: that downzoning without compensation is unfair. If upzoning rquires proffers,then downzoning requires compensation. There is a question here as to WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES we decided on the density that is “allowable” today.

For some reason, those that approve of proffers in exchange for upzoning, seem to disapprove of compensation for downzoning.

As a corollary, I would say that it is wrong to NOW require proffers for upzoning, on land that was PREVIOUSLY downzoned without compensation.

That is item one.

Item two is that compensation for upzoning should be restricted ONLY to those costs that are arguably related to required NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. What we see instead is that, just as EMR has claimed, NO ONE is cureently payig what our society actually costs.

We are using APF as a means of collecting from others for charges we should have incurred ourselves.

To the extent that this is NOT TRUE, I have no problem with proffers or development fees whatsoever.

————————-

Where I do have a problem is when we claim as a going in argument that residential development does not pay its own way, and then use THAT as an excuse for proffers AGAINST THE NEW FOLKS ONLY.

If residential developemnt does not pay, then EMR is correct: no one is paying their fair share, and in that case it is WRONG to try to collect excessively and ONLY from the new folks.

It is just like the home owners associations that charge one set of fees for existing members bu charge INITIATION fees for new members. Everyone gets the same infrastructure, but new members pay disproportionately.

Finally, depending on who you ask it is NOT TRUE that residential does not pay it own way. What IS TRUE is that when jobs are located primarily in one district the housing costs are associated with another.

Again, this is exactly as EMR says: we are aggregatng data according to the wrong criteria or boundaries. Or as I put it, Fairfax is exporting much of the housing costs associated with the jobs located inside Fairfax (and Arlington and DC) boundaries.

I don’t see why this is so hard to understand: fair is fair. We all have, or I hope we do, an innate sense of what is fair and what isn’t. We know what amounts to stealing and what doesn’t.

But for some reason we have allowed certain advocacies to warp our innate sensibilites. I, for one, don’t care whether you claim to be a “good” advocacy. If you propose something that I recognize as stealing, then you lose my support. No good cause is worth stealing for.

How do I recognize stealing? when you propose a policy (allegedly for the public good) that leaves someone, anyone, worse off. This si particularly easy to spot when we overtly demonize the other guys to “make them pay”.

I don’t even care if that someone is a “big developer” a “polluter” or somone interested in their own “short term gains”. Stealing is still stealing, even if it is for a “good cause”.

I won’t allow that wool to be pulled over my eyes, and this is a position that makes me unpopular.

———————–

So, we have some policies that control development. I don’t have a problem with that. Allegedly, we have these policies in order to promote the greater public benefit. If that is truly the case, then the public should have no objection to paying off anyone who loses out as a result of their policy.

Right now we have a new regulation that demands we have urban development areas. I have no problem with that idea except that I think some people will gain at other peoples expense. In my simple minded way, I call that stealing. If we can eliminate that aspect, then I have no problem with the policy.

In order to properly figure out who the winners and losers are, we need a lot more [factual not anecdotal or hypothetical] information about who owns what, and what it is worth.

In Fauquier county I have a small lot and a large lot that are used for the exact same purpose. The land on the smaller lot is taxed at a higher rate, even though it is part and parcel of the larger lot. It is the same land use in the same location, so why is one worth more and taxed more? I do not grow any more hay per ace on the small lot than the large one, and I am not allowed to do much else with either lot.

The smaller lot has alreeady exercised a greater percentage of its “building rights”: the larger lot has more restrictions so it is worth less. The larger lot pays a lot more for the same services even if it is less per acre.

Either the small lot is paying its fair share and the larger lot is getting screwed, or vice versa. Either way, I’m the one being stolen from. And that doesn;t even consider the potential for “new” development irghts.

My [cynical] interpretation is that the powers that be prefer to have rich, large landowners, so they make sure thay get a huge discount. This might have something to do with the fact that one former “power that was” told me as much to my face.

That is the land use policy in Fauquier County. One result of that policy is that my hired farmhand canot afford to buy a home here. THAT is our affordable housing plan. I’d sell him a place myself, and help him build it, but I’m not allowed to because my land is “reserved for rich people”
at a discount to its actual value, even though it is paying more taxes than it should.

The excess tax cost is a pittance comapred to the discount in total value, whihc is why rich landowners think the excess tax paid is still a bargain.

You can see that much by comparing my two farm lots: the smaller being worth much more and pays more in taxes than the larger lot, on a per acre basis. But the larger lot pays more total taxes for the same services.

I’m not sure what kind of stealing is going on, but something stinks to high heaven.

Now, you and Larry seem to think that we as a community hav the right to claim that land owners have NO RIGHT to subdivide, unless we grant that right in exchange for something we want and are not willing to pay for.

We diguise this by saying we are “ONLY” asking them to pay for the full cost of their externalities. APF in other words.

Which brings me full circle to my own argument. We need a full accounting of ALL externalities before we can have this conversation. We need a better accounting of who owns what , before we go off making autrageous calims against what is inevitably someone else’s pocketbook.

Now, you want to make a true INCENTIVE, and pay for it yourself? Then you will have no argument from me.

But as soon as you start talking about negative incentives: charging them for allowing them to do what you DON’T want, then I start gettng suspicious. It is far too easy to invent something you don’t want, just so you can charge for “allowing” it.

None of us particularly likes growth or change or pollution, but all of those things ar pretty much inevitable. We have allowed the popular mode of thinking to lead us to beleive that we can get an infinite stream of money by charging the “bad guys” for what we don’t want.

We have fooled ourselves into thinking that all of this is “free,no cost”.

That phrase, uttered by Jim Bacon, has been the cause of my five year tirade here.

If you think for a split second that something is “free, no cost” it is because you have lost sight of who you are stealing from.

I don’t have any problem with proffers or development fees, but not one penny more than they actually cost. If it is one penny more, then it becomes stealing. One penny less and it is stealing in the other direction.

We like to think that developers are stealing from us, but we refuse to believe that the opposite is even possible. That seems to me a bias that is likely to lead to errors, especially if we think we have the right to do this by virtue of our majority.

If that happens we are all worse off and everyone has less affordable housing. The only winners are those with existing homes.

So here is the deal. If you thinkt that developers are costing you something, then put a price on it. Any developer who meets the price gets the go-ahead, no questions asked, and no arguments made. No hearings necessary.

Obviously, that isn’t the way we do things. And the reason is that we simply do not want change, development, crowding, or pollution. All the things EMR seems to think we are willing to pay MORE for.

We are hypocrites. If it was ONLY a matter of cost we would put a price on it and let it rip. But that isn’t the case and that is why we persist in the fantasy that developers have NO RIGHT to build, unless they pay us for that right – at whatever price we declare is fair this week or month. We are especially hypocrites if we think those costs should be paid o 100% Up front.

————————-

I don’t have any doubt the Tysons developers are taking the TMT’s of the world for a ride. but i also doubt that it is as bad as the TMT’s would have us believe.

We need more transparency, more kinds of property and more defensible and saleable property rights.

Then we could possibly find out who is right or who is coming out ahead “free, no cost”.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

–Cheaper units are smaller and “minimal”

The question is whether they are market value or below. If below, where is the money coming from?

If it comes from the developer or is uper scale tenants, then it is stealing. If ti comes from the government that makes the requirement, then it is social policy we have all agreed to pay for.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 5, 2009

re: “A much better approach would be to offer varying levels of luxury in the same building/complex. “

isn’t this just a variation of requiring a whole complex to have affordable housing though?

So instead of all of it.. just part of it… but the principle is the same – the local government decides what kind of housing it will allow to be built.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 5, 2009

re: what a person is entitled to do with their land

not about evil developers…

more about.. a parcel of land and what role that government plays in what can be built on that land as “by-right” and not require approval.

this is the exact issue going on in Tysons.

it’s not about whether a given building will be a certain FAR – per se.

it’s about the future IMPACTS of the infrastructure level-of-service that would occur from proposed USES of that building.

The law says that a development must mitigate it’s impacts…to traffic, libraries, schools and recreation.

The Tysons developers don’t want to pay to mitigate these impacts.

They, instead, want the locality to approve the project and for the taxpayers to pay for the additional infrastructure needed to serve the need of that development.

Can Fairfax decide what kind of uses they will accept for that development?

Yes they can.

Now… the problem is …not that they don’t have a legal basis to deny uses.

No.. the problem is.. will they exercise their right to do so.

so their right to do so is not at question in the first place but rather whether they have the will.

RH sez that if proffers are required to build more than “by-right”, then compensation is required to downzone it – i.e. take away some or all of the “by-right” uses.

I would say if it was upzoned originally and not paid for ..then why can’t it go the other way also since the owners never paid for the upzone either.

… isn’t this “fair”?

If that is not going to be true, then why should any locality approve any increase of “by-right” at all in the first place?

Indeed, in my own county, when they now designate development districts – the strip away all the by right and just have the basic designation.

Everything else requires a Special Use permit.

They got to this point because often a property would change hands and … a 7-11 would changed to a garage or some other use – sometimes incompatible with the other existing uses in that location but they could not stop it because it was listed in the “by-right” uses.

so when the original owner got the upzone (either by rezone or because of a “by-right” designation – the parcel then qualified for all the uses listed in the “by-right”.

so.. all those uses went away.

You get the “by-right” use but then you have to get the special use permit… and if you sell the property – the only use permitted is what the special use permit granted.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“I would say if it was upzoned originally and not paid for ..then why can’t it go the other way also since the owners never paid for the upzone either.

… isn’t this “fair”?”

Yes, i would say that was fair, also, but I don’t know of anyplace that was upzoned without charge. The reverse situation is far more common. I know it has happened to me on six seperate occasions. Eventually you have to ask when enough is enough.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“Everything else requires a Special Use permit.”

Yep, that is the way it is going.

And you don’t see the obvious problem with that?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“but they could not stop it because it was listed in the “by-right” uses.”

Which of course is WHY it was listed in the BY-RIGHT uses. It was precisely and exactlyso that some busy-body with no real vested interest couldn’t step in and wreck someone else’s life, livliehood, and economy : at no real risk too themselves.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“The law says that a development must mitigate it’s impacts…to traffic, libraries, schools and recreation.”

What law says that?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“the local government decides what kind of housing it will allow to be built.”

Fine, but let’s give up the charade that the local government is somehow improving the “affordable housing” situation by a) restricting development or
b) requiring the BUILDERS to provide a a certan number of “affordable housing units” in their plans.

If the government wants to have more affordable housig,then government should pick up the costs and not impose those costs on a select few.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 5, 2009

“What law says that?”

more than one…

but for instance, VDOT can and does require mitigation for traffic impacts.

The State and localities can and do require mitigation for storm water impacts.

re: special use

a rezone could be approved for a certain use based, in part, on mitigation.

For instance, a 7-11 might proffer than no junk vehicles will be allowed on their premises and so the neighbors accept that.

Then the property changes hands and someone wants to put a garage on the property and will have inoperable cars on the lot – something the adjacent land owners would not accept in the original proposal but if you don’t require a special-use permit, the 2nd use is essentially “grandfathered”.

Been there. Done That. Fixed it.

Can a locality require that new development be “affordable” as a condition of approval?

I’d say that they can – but perhaps not on that very specific basis…. but can, in fact, enforce it through other measures.

Is it a legitimate responsibility of a government to ensure that a certain amount of “affordable” housing is available?

Consider this.

A government COULD build such a project and they could build it for much less than a developer if they did not have a profit motive.

They could build it – and they could have it paid for on a break-even basis.

But then those who made a profit at development and rental properties would be raising holy heck ….right?

Right now.. some local governments are buying foreclosed homes and reselling them to entry level workers on a “break-even” basis – no profit involved.

Is this legal? Is it ethical?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“Been there. Done That. Fixed it.

Can a locality require that new development be “affordable” as a condition of approval?”

You really are dangerous. The point is that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. The local government cannot mandate affordability. It is impossible. All they can do is require that the money be taken from someone else’s pocket in order to make it APPEAR to be affordable.

It is usually called stealing.

Been there. Done That. Fixed it.

And even if they can make it appear to be more affordable, that only works to a small degree. if their demends are completely uneconomic, nothing will happen.

The only way to really make hausing more affordable is to allow a lot more of it to be built. However, existing residents know that so they lobby for fewer homes to be allowed (based on any kind of nonsense argument they can dream up) in order to profit from the artificial scarcity.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 5, 2009

“A government COULD build such a project and they could build it for much less than a developer if they did not have a profit motive.

They could build it – and they could have it paid for on a break-even basis.”

Yes, or they can let a private developer build it and then buy or rent it at the going rate, and sublease it at “Affordable Rates”.

This way they do not have to impose anything on the builders or impose artificially higher prices on the buyers of the other units so that the builder can afford the “Affordable units”.

And now if the government wants affordable housing and government is willing to bear the costs, there is nothing wrong with it that I can see.

I don’t see why the government gets in on the foreclosed home circle. Don’t know that they add anything except maybe some temporary capital and legal expertise that the entry level buyer would not have.

That might be enough to justify government involvement.

In any case it is a heck of a lot better than ordering developers to build “affordable housing” when it is actually nothing of the kind.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 5, 2009

why can’t a local government offer to upzone land for any developer that agrees to build homes/apartments that sell/rent at a set “affordability” level?

the developer would be free to keep the size to a smaller than typical-market level.. and use cost-effective materials – functional but not fancy?

What most developers do is build for the most profitable segments of the market.

Like the car dealers, the inventory that is at the basement level has very little profit mark-up on it so they prefer to deal in the higher profit margin products.

Not all developers would be interested in building for the “affordable” market but in a locality offered incentives for developers that would do it – why is that not feasible?

Right now – the government provides what is known as “low-income/subsidized” housing and it has income thresholds for qualification.

If you make too much you don’t qualify.

These rental units are build by developers who get offered incentives to do it.

why not use a similar approach for the next step up – “affordable” housing?

What’s to prevent a government from putting out a RFP for affordable housing .. and then renting/selling it on a break-even basis…

In other words, take the profit incentive out of it all together.

what is wrong with doing that?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 6, 2009

“why can’t a local government offer to upzone land for any developer that agrees to build homes/apartments that sell/rent at a set “affordability” level?”

Because it is a lie. Those homes are no more affordable than any other homes of the same size and features built at the same time and location. What makes them affordable is money that comes out of the builders pocket. Or else, if he builds a mix of homes, he asdds the cost to the other units.

Where do you think the money comes from? Now, if the government decides they want to do this and government puts up the money, that is different.

————————

“the developer would be free to keep the size to a smaller than typical-market level.. “

Another lie. Now it is no more affordable, it is just smaller. Now you are back in get what you pay for mode.

What part of reality is it that you are missing?

——————————

“What most developers do is build for the most profitable segments of the market.”

And so you think it is OK to “create” affordable housing by taking it out of the builders profits? That is exactly what I suggested is happening.

I call it stealing, or worse, since you now have the builder doing work for less than he might get paid, it is slavery.

——————————-

“Like the car dealers, the inventory that is at the basement level has very little profit mark-up on it so they prefer to deal in the higher profit margin products.”

That is their prerogative. Look where it got GM by ignoring the low end of the market where I buy. The last GM car I owned was one I inherited.

What right does government have to tellthem what their business shuld be? Look, If they overmanufacture luxury products then the prices will fall to affordable levels. That is how you get affordability.

Or else they will eventually sell all the high end homes they can, the market will be saturated and they will have to build lesser homes. At thtat point there will be more competition in that market and affordable homes will become even more affordable.

But you know and I know what the real problem is: no one wants to be next to affordable homes. You can’t et zoning: they don’t pay their way in taxes, people who are not white live in them, etc. etc.

—————————

“Not all developers would be interested in building for the “affordable” market but in a locality offered incentives for developers that would do it – why is that not feasible?”

That is feasible, but now the money comes out of the localities pocket and not the builders pocket. Now you have a more fair sharing of the costs than you have if you stick it to the builders and their customers.

The problem here is that you think you are offering an “incentive” by graciously giving them permission to build – if they do it your way.

Sorry, that is not an “incentive”, it is extortion.

—————————–

“These rental units are build by developers who get offered incentives to do it.”

There is nothing wrong with that, provided it is an actual incentive. Otherwise known as a subsidy.

——————————
“What’s to prevent a government from putting out a RFP for affordable housing .. and then renting/selling it on a break-even basis…

In other words, take the profit incentive out of it all together.”

There is nothing wrong with doing that, Larry. But isn’t it obvious to you that there is a HUGE difference between the government doing it (with their money) at no profit (to themselves} and forcing the developers to do it, forcing the developers to take it out of THEIR profit, and doing it by saying either this or you don’t get to build?

Fine, put out an RFP if the govrnment thinks it is worthwile, and the government wants to foot the bill, go for it. But the BEST way to get affordable housing is to print building permits. The market will take care of affordability. If you have too many Mcmansions, then allow them to convert to duplexes. Look for that ability in the plans and go easier on builders that come with a plan that could have some other use someday.

But if you want to make things stagnant and slow moving, and a lot more expensive, then just make every structure have a “special use” permit. Screw up the market every way you can. Give people unrealistic expectations that nothing will ever change. Even when the change might have meant more market value.

Nothing in your deed says you are entitled to hae everything around you just as it was when you bought. If you deed DID have those covenants, then you would have had to pay a lot more for it.

Imposing those covenents on others AFTER you bought amounts to stealing. I don’t want a pig farm next to me either, but I don’t believe I have the right to impose that restriction AFTER my neighbor bought his property. My neighbor would dearly love it if I did not allow hunting, but she hasn’t the right to buy in here and THEN make the rules.

Sure enough, if enough people like her get control of enough votes they can eventually ban hunting throughout the county. We still have majority rule. But hopefully the county governance would have enough sense not to allow the minority of large landowners to get ruled by the sensibilites of some majority that thinks they have a beef, or a some claim against how the property is used.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

re: “Because it is a lie.”

If a home gets built with less square feet that the average and with less deluxe features than average and costs less than average but still is completely functional.. why is that a “lie”?

They used to be referred to as “starter” homes… and yes they were cheaper and more affordable than typical market homes.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

re: “Or else they will eventually sell all the high end homes they can, the market will be saturated and they will have to build lesser homes. At thtat point there will be more competition in that market and affordable homes will become even more affordable.”

has that happened in NoVa?

in fact, hasn’t the opposite happened and driven those looking for more affordable homes into longer distance “drive til you qualify” commutes?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

re: “The problem here is that you think you are offering an “incentive” by graciously giving them permission to build – if they do it your way.

Sorry, that is not an “incentive”, it is extortion.”

no.. it’s called a negotiation.

The developer is looking for something that benefits him and the government is looking for something that benefits them.

If they can both give a little – then both of the can get a little.

What you called “extortion” is precisely what happens when a developer seeks a rezone – which is… the developer seeking permission to do something with a parcel that is not “by right”.

now if you consider rezoning to be legalized extortion… then you’re entitled to that view but it’s contrary to the way that thousands of local governments work.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

“There is nothing wrong with doing that, Larry. But isn’t it obvious to you that there is a HUGE difference between the government doing it (with their money) at no profit (to themselves} and forcing the developers to do it, forcing the developers to take it out of THEIR profit, and doing it by saying either this or you don’t get to build?”

the developers are free to seek to make a profit with any opportunities they can find.

The government is not forcing the developer to do the deal.

What the city is doing – is offering incentives in exchange for the developer agreeing to building something that has less profit in it.

If it suits the needs of both parties then you have an agreement – a win-win.

In this economic environment, a developer might be willing to take less profit just to maintain their business.

In some cases, the developer may has several projects ongoing and the need one more project that “fits” …

Sometimes the developer is looking at another parcel that will garner them big profits and they’re willing to help the government out on another parcel in hopes that they’ll get more consideration on the first property.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

re: “But the BEST way to get affordable housing is to print building permits.”

is that the problem in NoVa?

If they printed enough building permits – people would not have to drive to Spotsylvania for a home?

How many places like NoVa have this problem?

or perhaps a better question – how many places “print” enough building permits and thus don’t have the problem?

call me skeptical on this.

When I drive up to NoVa… I look around for undeveloped land.. and guy.. I don’t see much… it’s pretty much wall-to-wall.. and even if they had more.. how would you move the additional cars?

I think this is perhaps your version of property rights dogma.

no?

If someone told me that NoVa is so expensive because they have not printed enough building permits… I’d have to stifle a guffaw….

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 6, 2009

Here is the problem with wqhat EMR calls economic, social and physical sustainability.

——————

“The hallmark of our dilemma is our inability to reconcile our prosperity and our way of life with our environmental ideals. We Americans love our cars. We like the freedom to “move about the country” – to drive to work, fly to conferences, visit distant friends and family. We aspire to own the biggest house we can afford. We like to keep our homes and offices warm in the winter and cool in the summer. We like devices that use electricity – computers, flat screen TVs, cell phones, the Internet, and many other conveniences of modern life that come with a power cord. We want food that’s low cost, high quality, and free of bugs – which means farmers must use fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels. We like things made of plastic and clothes made with synthetic fibers – and all of these things depend on abundant, affordable, growing supplies of energy.
And guess what? We share this planet with 5.9 billion other people who all want the same damn things.
America’s energy use has been growing at about 1.5 % per year, driven by population growth and prosperity. But while our way of life depends on ever-increasing amounts of energy, we’re downright schizophrenic when it comes to the things that energy companies must do to deliver the energy that makes modern life possible.
We want energy security – we don’t like being dependent on foreign oil. But we also don’t like drilling in the U.S. Millions of acres of prospective onshore public lands here in the Rockies plus the entire east and west coast of the U.S. are off-limits to drilling for a variety of reasons, some legitimate, some not. We hate paying $2 per gallon for gasoline — but not as much as we hate the refineries that turn unusable crude oil into gasoline. We haven’t allowed anyone to build a new refinery in the U.S. in over 30 years. We expect the lights to come on when we flip the switch, but we don’t like coal, the source of 40% of our electricity – it’s dirty and mining scars the earth. We also don’t like nuclear power, the source of nearly 20% of our electricity — it’s clean, but we’re afraid of it. Hydropower, the source of about 6% of our electricity is clean and renewable. But it has also been blacklisted – dams hurt fish.
We don’t want pollution of any kind, in any amount, but we also don’t want to be asked: “how much are we willing to pay for environmental perfection?” “

…….

“There are no near-term alternatives to oil, natural gas, and coal. Like it or not, the world runs on fossil fuels, and it will for decades to come. The U.S. government’s own forecast shows that fossil fuels will supply about 85% of total world energy demand in 2030 – roughly the same as today. Yes, someday we’ll find alternatives. But that day is still a long way off. It’s not about will. It’s not about who’s in the White House. It’s about thermodynamics and economics.”

Keith O. Rattie
Chairman, President and CEO
Questar Corporation

—————————

Economics and Thermodynamics. Where have you heard that before?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 6, 2009

“is that the problem in NoVa?”

Absolutely. They printed nowhere near enough building permits.

I know personally of just one example. When I built my house in Alexandria it took me 18 months to et a building permit. That delay cost me over $30,000.

Multiply that by the number of building permits issued since 1989 and it is a staggering amount of WASTED money that shows up in EXAGGERATED home prices. Or did until recently.

If I tried to get that permit today, I would not get it at all and the cost would be over a half million dollars. For nothing.

I don’t have a problem with that, but if the county thinks that nothing is worth a half million, then they can buy my house and tear it down.

Or, they can pay me somewhat less than a half million not to build it.

What they don’t get to do is take the money out of my pocket for free, no cost.

—————————–

“If a home gets built with less square feet that the average and with less deluxe features than average and costs less than average but still is completely functional.. why is that a “lie”?”

Because you haven’t made the same home more affordable. What you did was build a cheaper home. For what you get, that home is no more affordable. it is an obvious lie, I don’t get why you can’t see it.

It is certinly not any more “affordable” for the builder, since he sould have built a better home for little more effort and made more money for the same work. It tkaes as long to install a formica counter as it does a granite one. (And the granite lasts longer, it may wll be “more affordable”.)

———————————-
“yes they were cheaper and more affordable than typical market homes.”

But no one ordered the builder to make them: they were what the market would bear, at the time.

Hey, my starter home was a freaking sailboat. I had nine square feet of floor space. I also had waterfront property and spectacular views up and down the coast.

———————————-
“the developers are free to seek to make a profit with any opportunities they can find.”

That isn’t saying much when the government is saying take it or leave it.

You are suggesting that it is a free market, just as yousuggest that HOT lanes are a free market.

You are wrong.

———————————
“The government is not forcing the developer to do the deal.”

Really? When every building opportunity requries some kind of proffers, you don’t think the government is forcing the developers to take the deal?

Of course the government isn’t forcing the deal. It is only that it is this or go out of business.

Fauquier county used to have a number of small buiders. Pick up truck companies that built maybe six custom homes a year. Maybe one or two of them are left.

We made rules to prevent the “big developers” from taking “windfall profits” and the result is that only the big developers can afford to play by the rules.

The idea that government is not forcing the builders to comply is cynical and wrong.

——————————

“What the city is doing – is offering incentives in exchange for the developer agreeing to building something that has less profit in it.”

An outright falshood. Not to put too fine a popint on it, a lie.

An incentive is not written as do it my way or else. An “incentive” does NOT result in less profit. If the government wants to take less profit, that is their business, but don’t try to sell the idea that stealing someone profit is an incentive. It is stealing.

Frankly, I think the government would be stupid to do as you suggest. There is no reason for the government to take less profit. All they have to do is print the building permits and competition will reduce the profits.

Here is the problem. In order to get takers for that many permits, government might have to reduce the restrictions and the proffers. what they would save one way they might have to spend another way. TINSTAAFL, a famous German word you can look up.

——————————-

“If it suits the needs of both parties then you have an agreement – a win-win.”

How is it a win-win when the money comes out of the builders profits?

A win-win is when there are no losers. It is not a win-win when the government gets what it wants at no cost (beyond waving the “YES” wand) and the other party gets to scrape by on less than what is available.

Unconditional surrender meets the needs of both parties, but it isn’t a win-win, it is extortion by force. Victory, yes, but still extortion.

——————————–
“if you consider rezoning to be legalized extortion… then you’re entitled to that view but it’s contrary to the way that thousands of local governments work.”

Funny, I seem to recall my county supervisor, Harry Atherton, calling proffers exactly that: extortion.

I could be wrong, he might have called it bribery instead.

The difference isn’t all that much. A bribe is a gift that is freely offered with the expectation of changing the behavior of the recipient.

Extortion is soliciting a bribe through the force of superior power.

I’d say the government is in a position of superior power.

I fully agree that it’s contrary to the way that thousands of local governments work. It makes me very sad that thousands of local governments have no concept of civic ethics.

The idea that ANYONE can confuse conditional permission with “incentive” frankly makes me want to vomit.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

re: “I’d say the government is in a position of superior power.”

why is that?

What do local governments have the kind of power that we are talking about?

Why has it never been taken away from them – especially if a majority of property owners feel the way you do?

Even the developers in Richmond have been unsuccessful is taking away these powers – so where did they get these powers from in the first place?

What is the legal justification for them having this kind of power?

FYI – did you know that the are a few counties in Va that do not have zoning and building permits are pretty much available on a demand basis?

How come developers have not flocked to those places and build a whole bunch of housing including affordable housing?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 6, 2009

“What do local governments have the kind of power that we are talking about?”

The government can say (up to a point) No, you can’t build anything – unless you give us something we want. We will put you out of business.

That is extortion.

That is a LOT DIFFERENT from saying that when you build townhouses we require firewalls between the units.

I’ll concede that you could take those two arguments and inch them towrds each other until the distinction becomes fuzzy. The whole point is to keep the regs rational enough so that this isn’t an issue.

——————————–

“Why has it never been taken away from them – especially if a majority of property owners feel the way you do?”

That is an idiotic question. First of all it implies that a majority has the right to steal from a minority.

Second, it implies that a majority of homeowners have ANY interest in this topic. Most people are content to sit home and watch their TV: they already got THEIR building rights, why should they care what happens to the next guy in line?

Third, it implies that only property owners have an interest. Any one with an ethical bone in his body should be concerned when the government is stealing from some citizens and then trying to paint over the crime by explaining (lying) to other citizens that they have improved the afforability of housing.

Or any other kind of government ethical garbage.

——————————-

I gotta tell you, I described your ragument on affordability to one of my engineer friends, and he just shook his head. He said “Do these people never study economics? Do they not understand the concept of net benefit?”

his exact words, and this is not you most socially conscious kind of guy: he is interested in cool widgets, but even he struck immediately at the problem with your argument.

——————————

What is the legal justification for this kind of power?

Glad you asked. There is none. Go read up on the histoory of zoning. It was originally introduced to unload the courts from a lot of minor nuisance lawsuits.

It quickly outgrew tht foundation and that rationale

But once it became common, and once the Supreme Court made it clear they were not getting into the zoning business, once it became clear that partial takings were allowed, and recourse in court was unlikely, then social activists found they had a powerful new tool.

That tool is called legalized stealing.

It has not been taken away – yet. But greedy people are the same all over. The more the get, the more they want, and the more they think they can take. There have already been SOME cases where the rules became so egregious that people eventually got to court and won.

If what has been happening continues, eventually the worst abuses will be halted. I just think it is too bad when you have to sue your own government to get fair treatment. But that is what the blacks did and when landowners start getting treated badly enough, so will they.

———————–

“How come developers have not flocked to those places and build a whole bunch of housing including affordable housing?”

You have proably proved my point.

I’ll go out on a limb here and take a guess. I’ll bet those places have plenty of affordable housing. If a permit is availble on demand, anyone with a hatfull of skills can build his own affordable house. This creates too much competition for the builders and they stay away.

Shoot, if I could get a permit at will I’d start an affordable home tomorrow, for my hired farmhand. Since I can’t get it, he is probably going to live in an overpriced and less desirable apartment for the rest of his life. I think it is a crying shame.

I think it is wrong that he can’t live where he wants to and I am willing to let him, just because someone who has no real interest in the matter doesn’t want it, as a matter of general principal, and never mind the specific hurt is causes. One size fits all and the answer is no.

“How come developers have not flocked to those places and build a whole bunch of Mcmansions?”

I’ll go out on a limb again and suggest it has to do with a lack of jobs and income in the area.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

do you mean all those folks who work in NoVa and have to commute to the exurbs for “affordable” housing… that they could not set up their own advocacy group to get NoVa to “print more building permits” so more affordable housing could be built so they would not have to commute?

At the least – wouldn’t you have advocacy groups – advocating that idea like we have advocacy groups for everything else.. “smart growth”, “adequate facilities”, etc.

Where are the “print more building permits for affordable housing” folks?

Why haven’t they sued Fairfax to print more building permits?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 6, 2009

“The government can say (up to a point) No, you can’t build anything – unless you give us something we want. We will put you out of business.”

That simply is not the case. Subject compliance with other applicable laws and regulations (e.g., building code, site plan review, etc.), any landowner can build to what is permitted by the EXISTING Comp. Plan and zoning ordinance.

But what a landowner does not have a right to do is to have the Comp Plan changed to give more density or to have provisions of the zoning ordinance changed.

If one wants more, one ought to be willing to pay for that. From a purely economic perspective, one ought to be willing to pay close to the difference in incremental profits between building to right and building to what has been requested. No landowner has likely been asked to proffer anywhere near the delta. Certainly not in Fairfax County.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

“Proffers – The proffers statement dated June 27, 2008, revised through March 9, 2009
defines the proposed use to allow for a maximum gross density of 6 units per acre with a
maximum number of 150 townhouse units. The project will provide a minimum of ten
percent (10%) as affordable dwelling units as further defined within the proffer statement
(proffer II). All 150 units will conform to the architectural renderings as provided and no
differentiation between affordable units and market rate units will be made.”

……

Now the county staff are recommending DENIAL of the above proposal, in essence, because it does not
pay for itself and the county computes an annual deficit of $1,644 per unit.

The BOS will vote on this shortly and some folks are saying that the will probably approve it because
the county utilities fund needs water/sewer hookup money and the county needs affordable housing.

go look for yourself at the analysis:

http://www.spotsylvania.va.us/onlineservices/pcagendas/GetPageNewWindow.aspx?id=V0VCU0VBUkNIfkFHRU5EQUxJTkVJVEVNV0VCU0VBUkNIfjxQPjxGPjxOPlVTRVJDUklURVJJQTwvTj48Vj51ZF9tYWJzeXNyZWZpZDo5MTQxNjQ8L1Y-PC9GPjwvUD5-U1BPVDAwMDJ-U3BvdHN5bHZhbmlhfjAwMTI3OWQ4MThjNThhNTcxMWRlMzY1OGNhMWFkMzZjflBDQWdlbmRhSXRlbQ**

after you’ve read it, how about giving an opinion on the fiscal analysis that the county did in deciding
whether the development paid for itself or not and also the point about the lower-priced affordable units
sitting side-by-side with the market units.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 6, 2009

“…any landowner can build to what is permitted by the EXISTING Comp. Plan and zoning ordinance.

But what a landowner does not have a right to do is to have the Comp Plan changed to give more density or to have provisions of the zoning ordinance changed.”

true but they can (and not infrequently do) petition to change the comp plan and zoning and succeed but the burden of proof is on them to prove that what they are proposing is a net benefit rather than a burden on publically-funded and provided infrastructure and facilities.

but Ray… if he will admit it ( he has before ) is opposed to the idea of zoning and comp plans to begin with.

He thinks that government unfairly creates winners and losers when they designate some areas for some kinds of higher density and uses and not other areas.

That’s why I was asking him why the Government DOES HAVE THE POWER to do Comp Plans, zoning, special use permits, traffic studies and mitigation, etc, et al.

what gives local governments this right – as opposed to local governments having no right to do this and basically just administratively provide building permits per demand?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 7, 2009

“how about giving an opinion on the fiscal analysis that the county did “

I can give you an opinion, but unless youpay for it, it will be worthless.

I can tell you the last time i tried this, the analysis looked preety good up to a cerain point. then it became one of those things where a miracle happened toget to the next step.

I never did figure out what as wrong with it, but I was pretty certain that it was not correct.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 7, 2009

“That’s why I was asking him why the Government DOES HAVE THE POWER to ….”

As usual, youar deliberately missing the point.

The government has the power to do pretty much as it damn well pleases, which is precisely the problem.

That is why we have had to insert checks and balances on that power, such that they cannot use it obtusely against minorities, etc. etc. etc.

The real issue we are missing is WHY the government would want such power? The government has NO REASON to execute a policy that does not provide a positve net social benefit. Provided a policy HAS a net social benefit, then there is no reason the government should execute that policy and allow ANYONE to be worse off as a result.

Any other policy necessarily amounts to stealing from someone in order to pay disproportionately for some alleged social benefit. And it is this (so the argument goes) that user fees, for example are supposed to prevent. (The obvious problem is that if we could get the user to pay we would have a business instead of a government. the whole point of gevernment is to do things that business cannot.)

It is ethics that is important here, not power.

We as citizens should insist first of all that government act ethically. There should never be a reason that the county website has to warn you to get a lawyer before attempting to do business with your own government!

At the same time we should demand thot our representatives reject out of hand policies that are designed to promote the interests of one group over another.

That, as it turns out, is exactly what zoning has been perverted from its original intent to do. Zoning has been perverted from its original intent such that now it promotes the interests of the “already haves” over and above the interests of the “don’t have yets”.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 7, 2009

“That simply is not the case. Subject compliance with other applicable laws and regulations (e.g., building code, site plan review, etc.), any landowner can build to what is permitted by the EXISTING Comp. Plan and zoning ordinance.”

That’s part of what I meant when I said, “up to a point”. But even that is highly subjective. If somoene doesn’t want you to build, they can just nitpick you to death. Even the building code is subjective: it has famously been used for retaliation, and was a favorite tool in the old Daley administration in Chicago.

There was a famous California case in which the builder was only trying to build BY RIGHT, but the board told him to come back with a smaller plan. Sixteen times. Then he sued and won, and the court wrote a scathing opinion on the county’s behavior.

To various degrees, that sort of thing happens all the time, and it is a huge waste of money. When it happened to me it cost me tens of thousands of dollars, for which no value was obtained for anyone, except my bank.

———————————-

“If one wants more, one ought to be willing to pay for that. “

And I agree on this, up to a point.

The flip side is that when a county wants to DOWNZONE, then they should be willing to pay. Fair is Fair.

The down side of this argument is that it suggests that zoning is for sale. Anyone who agrees to pay enough, should be allowed to build anything. if that is the case we can eliminate teh public hearings and let the necessary site plan reviews, comp plan compliance, and all that other stuff can become administrative.

So, what this argument boils down to is that thee is a price on all this (yet undetermined) property right. All we need to do is define those rights and publish a price list and we can get out of the zoning business.

It is a matter of defining property rights (not just real estate rights), protecting those rights, and allowing them to be bought and sold.

Obviously,there will always be some unreasonable AH that objects to something being built next door. But now the county is empowered. They can say “Look, that price was published before you bought your property. You knew waht the risk was, and besides, look how much you (the county) is getting out of this. We simply can’t allow you to be unreasonable. If you don’t want something built next door, then go buy the property.”

—————————–

With regard to your analysis, I have not looked at it yet. But without even looking I can guess that there “analysis” of the affordable housing units is wrong.

“If one wants more, one ought to be willing to pay for that. “

If the county didn’t pay for the losses the affordable housing units created for the builder, then the county is lying to itself about the units being more affordable. all they have done is move the costs from one place to another. If there is no NET social benefit there is no reason for the policy.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 7, 2009

I read the staff report.

Based SOLELY on what is in the report, I don’t see how they came up with a decision to deny (or approve).

I would need to see the contractors fiscal report and the county’s guidlines for proffers, for starters.

I count 20 statements in the report that suggest values but which are entirely subjective. if you have an argument, you need to put a price on it, otherwise it has no value.

There is no real financial analyis to determine whether there is a net social gain.

There is no description of who all the primary, secondary ,and tertiary stakeholders are, and what they might gain or lose.

Those are general comments, I’ll provide more detail when I have time and forward it to you through Bacon or Groveton.

Basically, if I did an analysis like that for any grad school course, I’d expect an F. If I did one like that for a boss or client with money in the game. I’d expect to get my butt chewed.

I understand what they did and why, but it doesn’t meet any kind of goal or criteria that would support a decision, or allow a better decision to be made next time. The whole point of this kind of exercise is to create a database that will most certainly be wrong at first, but whihc can be refined over time untilyou have an expert system: plug inthe neumbers for most anything within range of the sytem and a yes or no pops out. Based on something you can verify.

This decision is neither transparent or predictable, and therefore it fails, in my book.

The one place it succeeds is that it is not arguable, which suits the county’s purpose.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 7, 2009

At the very minimum, you know what the builder’s price point is. You kow how fara part you are on proffers. Figure out how much you would have to raise the price of each house to meet the desired proffers, and keep the builders profit the same.

Recognize that at a higher price he is taking more risk – he may not be able to sell them at that price. Is the county willing to share the risk?

In this case it looks like you need to raise the price by almost $25,000 to meet the desired proxy. That is almost 10%.

What is going on here is that eht builder is selling houses and the county is sellig infrastructure. Put the infrastructure on a second mortgage, withthat mortgagge backed by the county. Then if hard times hit, like now, the owner defaults on the second mortgage, which the county pays off, and he gets to keep his home.

The county has still got the homeoener “captive” so they can figure out how to recoup later.

The buyer now has more information: 1) how much does it cost me to buy this kind of house from this builder? 2)How much does this county cost me?

Pretty soon, counties would be competing on infrastructure costs just as they do on teacher salaries. This already happens, but the data is not so transparent.

In my brothers county he tells me they weren’t getting enough money from building permits, and the needed the money (I guess some growth is good), so they raised the price of a building permit!

Just the opposite of waht a business would do, and a business has some cost of goods. To the county issuing a building permit is pretty much free: why not LOWER the price, if you need more money?

Isn’t that the Republican mantra?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 8, 2009

Ray,

I don’t think this fits Fairfax County. Because of its close location to Washington, D.C. and the federal trough, many people and businesses will come here and pay “higher prices” in terms of housing prices, rent, commuting time, declining quality of living, etc. than in other places.

Fairfax County has big operational costs for the land development and zoning services it provides to real estate development. After many years of nagging by citizens groups and this year’s financial crisis, Fairfax County finally raised its fees significantly to 90% of direct labor costs. And the industry screamed, but lost. But keep in mind that the fees do not including all of the loadings that most businesses try to recover in their costs. So taxpayers are still subsidizing real estate development in Fairfax County.

Higher prices for fees and for proffers (which are still laughable in Fairfax County), might repress additional development. But since the county is pretty well built out and it’s infrastructure overused, where’s the downside to that for the average business or resident of Fairfax County?

TMT

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 8, 2009

“What is going on here is that eht builder is selling houses and the county is sellig infrastructure. Put the infrastructure on a second mortgage, withthat mortgagge backed by the county. Then if hard times hit, like now, the owner defaults on the second mortgage, which the county pays off, and he gets to keep his home.”

what a convoluted way of thinking.

The builder … is selling something …to make a profit…

the county is selling something – not to make a profit – but to provide infrastructure – at cost as a needed service necessary for the builder’s project to succeed and be profitable.

when you say the county should pick up the second mortgages – you are talking about other taxpayers….

why should other property owners pick up the infrastructure costs for other homes and properties?

You keep forgetting that someone has to pay for the water/sewer/schools UP FRONT.

that stuff has be available the day someone walks into that house.

who pays to pay to install that infrastructure?

the buyer pays. when you buy a house you get a mortgage and it’s your mortgage not someone else.

If water and sewer is build from bonds sold – someone has to pay those bonds and it’s usually the folks who are hooked up to the system – not people who are not.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 8, 2009

“Higher prices for fees and for proffers (which are still laughable in Fairfax County), might repress additional development. But since the county is pretty well built out and it’s infrastructure overused, where’s the downside to that for the average business or resident of Fairfax County?”

according to Ray – there could be more available housing and more affordable housing available if Fairfax would simply print more building permits.

What he does not understand is where the new schools, libraries, parks and roads would come from to support the additional “building permits”.

It’s a mere detail.. the same argument made by the developers.

“give us our building permits and you take care of the infrastructure”

Tyler – what is your view here?

who should pay for the infrastructure for new homes?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 10, 2009

“You keep forgetting that someone has to pay for the water/sewer/schools UP FRONT.

that stuff has be available the day someone walks into that house.

who pays to pay to install that infrastructure?”

By your line of reasoning the first guy to move in would have to pay for ALL the infrastructure.

Assuming that isn’t he case, who pays for the infrastrusture?

What if he moeves in and the rest of the development never sells? (I saw this happen in Colorado.)

If the county cannot afford to put the money up front, what makes you think teh builder can?

When it is all done, who owns the infrastructure? Why should the county get to own something they didn’t pay for? Let the developers own shares, and let them get shares of the fees paid.

The reason we have to require proffers boils down to bad financila management. We have not paid enough into the capital improvements or maintenance funds, for decades. Now we want to make it up on the “new guys” and do it in a matter of months. No wonder the “suggested” proffers are so high.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 10, 2009

“according to Ray – there could be more available housing and more affordable housing available if Fairfax would simply print more building permits.”

And why do I think that?

Because if I tried to get a building permit for my Fairfax home today, I would be refused. As a result the hosue ai already own would have been unaffordable to me.

I speak from personal experience on this, therfore “according to Ray” has become a certifiable veracity, not a conditional.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 10, 2009

“Fairfax County has big operational costs for the land development and zoning services it provides to real estate development. “

I’m not surprised they have big operational costs: it took them eighteen months to give me a building permit for one modest home. They lost the plans I gave them three times. They consistently failed to show up for inspections, as agreed.

In the end, the “services” they provided me consisted of six signatures. Big builders have dedicated gophers whose job it is to hound the government into doing their job.

From my point of view, the count’s job is to promote freedom: fins an economical and fair way to say “yes” and then make the path to that result obvious, transparent, and fair.

But from the county’s point of view (and apparently form Larry’s) the issue is power. They exert no power, by saying yes, only by saying no, by demanding favors, and generally making things miserable, slow, and expensive for the poor slob like me that just want to get on with his life.

I figure the county EASILY cost me $30,000 extra for my home. That was pure lost productivity becasue that money bought nobody anything, with the exception of my bank.

Not too long ago I had a conversation with a guy who was responsible for his church’s building committee, and he said much the same thing about Fauquier county interference. My brother says the same thing about Dukes County.

I don’t have any sympathy for the counties problems. Especially when they simply foist their problem on county residents, who, after all, ARE the county.

I don’t see that we are arguing about what shouldbe done, only about how to make it fair.

If we are really concerned about the rate of growth, then fine. Let’s jsut say up front, we are going to issue 1500 buiding permits this year, or enough to restrict grwoth to 1.3 percent. Whatever.

Then just auction off the building permits and be done with it. Better yet, have a lottery and grant them to county residents, to do with as they please.

If they do not wnat growth they can sit on their permit. If they don’t care, they can sell it to the highest bidder, with half the proceeds going back to the county.

Then you get four things: a built in referendum on whether growth is desireable by the residents, maximum revenue to the county with minimum expense, residents get an opprotunity to benefit from growth, and those that don’t want growth have to actually pay something (or forgo income) to get what they want.

I imagine that if Fairfax residents thought they had a reasonable chance at personal gain equal to 0.01% of what Tyons redevelopmnet is gong to be worth, then they might feel differently about it.

The problem is that they think they are going to absorb costs and they can’t see any way to profit.

The solution is to find a way to define ownership, and then defend it.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 10, 2009

“…for the builder’s project to succeed and be profitable.”

This is the narrow view. The systems view is to make everyone succeed and be profitable. As I said above the popular perception is that only the builders benefit.

That perception is fueled by the (probably false) argument that “residentisal doesn’t pay”. But that doesn’t explain why there is ALSO opposition to commercial and industrial development, which aguabley does pay AND provides jobs.

What explains that is selfishness and resistance to change on the part of existing owners. They think they own more rights than they actually have or have paid for.

What we need is a way for them to participate in the profits from growth, to the extent that they absorb real (and not imaginary )costs.

Ifg we had that, people would be looking for profits from growth, in order that they could claim a share.

Instead, we have incentives for epople to look for the negatives in growth, in order to avoid costs.

That is a pretty stupid business model.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 10, 2009

The “gain from Tysons.” I have some stock that I’ll sell you for $20 a share.

Last September, when the Tysons Vision was presented to the Fairfax BoS, Supervisor Pat Herrity asked for a fiscal study of the impacts of building the new urban Tysons (incremental revenues and incremental costs). Supervisor Linda Smyth accepted Herrity’s request as a friendly amendment and it was adopted by the BoS without dissent.

No study has been done so far. The landowners, developers and their flunkies have been lobbying against the study almost as hard as they have been lobbying against the 527 traffic study. Now these people are not fools (not necessarily brilliant, mind you), but not fools. Why don’t they want the fiscal study or the 527 study done? Gee, it’s not too hard to figure out.

I have a friend who was a supervisor some time ago. I’ll not name him/her to avoid embarrassment. But in a candid, off-the-record conversation, he/she told a small group that even commercial construction doesn’t usually pay its way. Existing taxpayers, residential and commercial property owners alike, generally are worse off because of new commercial property construction.

That suggests to me — that Fairfax County is built out and that we need to figure out a new way of allocating the benefits and costs of construction. We don’t want a county where nothing is built for 40 years, but we also don’t want to continue to subsidize someone else’s business plans.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 10, 2009

“By your line of reasoning the first guy to move in would have to pay for ALL the infrastructure.

Assuming that isn’t he case, who pays for the infrastrusture?

What if he moeves in and the rest of the development never sells? (I saw this happen in Colorado.)”

For water/sewer the water/sewer authority borrows money to build new infrastructure and get’s it back with hook-up fees over time.

the hook-up fee includes the financing cost including the time it takes to pay back the loan.

If there is NO development then the county taxpayers will have to pay for it but it will be in the form of a “loan” that will be paid pay by future hook-up fees whenever development proceeds again in the future.

The amount of the loan and the interest costs are set by the entity making the loan – based on perceived risk of having their money paid back….

If a county has a AAA rating and backs the water/sewer bonds with it’s full faith and credit (i.e. willing to raise taxes if push comes to shove) then they’ll get a better rate.

More shaky water/sewer systems pay a lot more for credit so think about it this way – when you have a bunch of taxpayers who are willing to back a loan – you get a better rate – but in return for that – they get to set the rules.

Otherwise, the developer is free to do their own…

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 10, 2009

“This is the narrow view. The systems view is to make everyone succeed and be profitable. “

that’s not true….

it’s up to each individual to seek out their own profitable activities – not up to anyone else nor the government to assure that they do.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 10, 2009

“What we need is a way for them to participate in the profits from growth, to the extent that they absorb real (and not imaginary )costs.

Ifg we had that, people would be looking for profits from growth, in order that they could claim a share.

Instead, we have incentives for epople to look for the negatives in growth, in order to avoid costs.

That is a pretty stupid business model.”

WRONG!

you could offer to double or triple the value of someone’s house and many would refuse it if it meant more traffic, crowded schools.. unruly neighbors, and higher taxes.

that’s what you don’t get Ray.

It’s not about money.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 10, 2009

“fiscal study of the impacts of building the new urban Tysons (incremental revenues and incremental costs). “

AKA TIF = Tax Increment Financing and a perfectly valid and legitimate way for development to occur if there is agreement on the level of infrastructure and services required and who pays.

In TIFs, the original taxes continue to go to the county but the increased taxes that result of increased values of what is built is devoted to the infrastructure and services needed by that development.

But.. for instance, if the TIF proposal assumes that the county and not the TIF district is going to pay for schools, parks and roads then it is pretty bogus…

..and that’s usually the back and forth argument about TIFs – what will they pay for and what will they not pay for.

it all goes back to the pretty basic concept of whether a given development and the people and businesses in that development will bear the costs of the infrastructure and costs needed by and used by the people in that development

..or will other taxpayers have to pay ( in increased taxes and/or degradation of levels of service or both.

the developers are working off of a bottom line of can they build and then sell it for enough to make a profit on it.

the county (and citizens) are working off a bottom line of how much a given development will cost THEM and are there enough return benefits from that development to make it worthwhile to them.

The developer does not get to make the decision as the development is a “proposal” not a “by-right”.

It’s up to the developer to satisfy enough existing taxpayers to gain their concurrence through their elected representatives.

I don’t know any other way for this to work unless there will be an unelected… somehow “authorized” 3rd party to decide what a fair outcome is.

But we know historically by just looking around – that development has occurred at a fairly robust rate..and we know that such development had to be “approved” so they did get “approval” to proceed.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 11, 2009

Larry, the fiscal impact study is not TIF. It is simply a study to forecast the likely impacts of building an urban Tysons Corner on Fairfax County taxes and expenditures. Some Task Force members have been touting all the extra taxes that will be generated by an urban Tysons Corner. Of course, that is true. The new construction would certainly result in higher tax revenues. But what about the additional costs?

Until business lost its mind and conscience altogether, most companies attempted to measure whether their new and existing products would make profits. They had product managers whose job was to manage the products. They didn’t just rely on the sales staff. We need the same discipline for Tysons Corner.

TIF is not appropriate for Tysons Corner. TIF should be used in a blighted area where private capital cannot likely be attracted without public expenditures and then only on condition. TIF is being used (appropriately, IMO) in Merrifield, an area that has seen better days. Fairfax County will permit some of the added tax revenues from development on limited parcels in Merrifield help fund infrastructure necessary to support the new development. But the landowners will also proffer some of the costs and will agree to pay added taxes in the event that the TIF funds are insufficient to cover bond interest and debt amortization.

Tysons Corner is not blighted. And it can certainly attract capital from the private sector. TIF should not be used there.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 11, 2009

“The new construction would certainly result in higher tax revenues. But what about the additional costs? “

This is the crux of the issue. Will the benefits outweigh the costs at the total system level, and if so will the benefits be distributed fairly or in relationship to how the costs are distributed.

It is a question of ownershp, property rights and markets, but we are hung up on politics, arguing all the wrong or intermediatate problems.

meanwhile we STILL don;t know the answer to TMTs question, nor is anyone seriously looking for an answer.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 11, 2009

“the county (and citizens) are working off a bottom line of how much a given development will cost THEM and are there enough return benefits from that development to make it worthwhile to them.”

Show me the calculations. They are not included whith the decision.

——————————-

“The developer does not get to make the decision as the development is a “proposal” not a “by-right”.”

But the government does not have or should not have the right to make decisions arbitrarily.

——————————–

“It’s up to the developer to satisfy enough existing taxpayers to gain their concurrence through their elected representatives.”

If that is the standard, it is pretty much one that can easily be made impossible to meet. if the taxpayerw don’t want you, you are history, regardless of the proffers you make.

——————————-

“I don’t know any other way for this to work unless there will be an unelected… somehow “authorized” 3rd party”

We already have one, it is called the court. But, so far as zoning regs are concerned it is nearly impossible to get standing to to even get to court.

Another way is to do as we have done with EPA and other agencies. We have restrictions on what they can do, such as requirements for cost benefit analyses, and environmental justice regs to protect minorities.

Zoning adminsistration should not be a matter of majority rule, and we need to make that plain to the majority.

“But we know historically by just looking around – that development has occurred at a fairly robust rate..and we know that such development had to be “approved” so they did get “approval” to proceed.”

So what? Growth is an irresistable force. It is going to happen. What we don;t know is the answer to TMTs question: what are the costs and what are teh benefits?

Could we have gotten the same or even “better” growth and more benefitis, at lower total costs, and with costs distributed fairly – by using some other system?

My personal experience leads me to believe that the answer is unequivocally yes. The current system is unfair, wasteful, unethical, and disingenupous in application and adminsitration.

Just allow a few people with zoning grievances to actually get to court and see what happens.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 11, 2009

“that’s what you don’t get Ray.

It’s not about money.”

Oh, I know it is not about the money. it is about power and controlling you rneighbors property. I’ve said that all along.

You are the one that says it is about money for infrastructure, as long as that is covered, the citizens don’t mind growth.

To which my response is BS, if that was the case then put a price on and open the gates to see who comes in.

NOW you say its not about the money.

Well, which is is, money or power?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

May 11, 2009

“that’s not true….

it’s up to each individual to seek out their own profitable activities – not up to anyone else nor the government to assure that they do.”

That is true as far as individual activites go, somethin EMR doesn;t seem to get.

But the government has a RESPONSIBILITY and an OBLIGATION to look at things from a systems point of view because they have the requiremtn of looking out for everyone equally.

The government has NO REASON to execute a policy that does not provide a positive net social benefit. Provided a policy HAS a net social benefit, then there is no reason the government should execute that policy and allow ANYONE to be worse off as a result.

The government does have an obligation to take the the systems view: to make everyone succeed and be profitable. NOT JUST THE EXISTING VOTERS. The systems view, as managed by government, requires that future citizens be treated the same as current citizens. That is why we cannot be allowed to saddle them with INAPPROPRIATE debt, for example. Which doesn’t mean that we have to pay 100% up front for everything they will someday enjoy.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

May 13, 2009

“You are the one that says it is about money for infrastructure, as long as that is covered, the citizens don’t mind growth.”

and TMT’s comment about the appropriateness of TIF.

On it boils down to IMHO – is a protocol that recognizes the existing levels of service and then a REQUIREMENT that any proposed development will mitigate and maintain those levels of service.

In “theory” a tax revenues that accrue from the development will then be reserved and available for the development infrastructure… roads.. parks.. schools..etc…

The problem with the TIFs is often twofold:

there’s the devil-in-the-details about how much infrastructure will be needed to mitigate… i.e. the developer will argue that other development besides his own will contribute to degradation of “off-site” infrastructure unless that infrastructure is restricted to only the folks from the development that is paying for them.

and then related to the above… how does the development pay for stuff like police.. and other general services paid for by all taxpayers on their property taxes.

So – pre development there are x number of people who require y number of cops but post development there are 10x people and a need for 10x cops but the post-development tax money has been “TIF”ed… kept for infrastructure….and not given to the county to pay for increased police….

but Ray -you are wrong about the role of Government to make everyone succeed.

There are many folks who do not deserve to succeed and what you are essentially advocating is that the rest of us should be taxed to make sure that “everyone” succeeds.

No thanks. I’m not paying a developer to “succeed” especially a dumb… “game the system” type person which is what you get when you have policies to ensure that “everyone” will be profitable and succeed.

I call this “sweat equity”… and when you are responsible for this – you work harder to make your ideas work and not expect others to “compensate” you when your ideas do not.

Log in to Reply

Bacon's Rebellion

A & A HOUSING

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

106 responses to “A & A HOUSING”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

A & A HOUSING

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

106 responses to “A & A HOUSING”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read More