Doubling Down on a Broken Growth Model

by James A. Bacon

I’ve just finished an extraordinary little book. “Thoughts on Building Strong Towns,” that has helped crystallize my thinking on the fiscal trap of the “suburban sprawl” model of growth and development. The author, Charles Marohn, is a Minnesota-based civil engineer, urban planner and executive director of the Strong Towns organization, and, like me, he hews to a libertarian way of thinking. I’ve never met the man but I know he’s a kindred spirit because he views the fiscal dilemma of state and local governments in the context of a federal government whose deficit spending is careening toward insolvency, runaway inflation or some comparable disaster.

Just as the welfare state is fiscally unsustainable and bound for collapse, Marohn argues, so is the American “suburban sprawl” model of growth and development. Just as the federal government is built on a mountain of debt, so is sprawl. He offers no remedy for federal profligacy; his mission is to build fiscally resilient “strong towns.”

The core premise of the book is that the auto-centric development policies that prevailed between World War II and the Great Recession of 2007 amounted to a municipal Ponzi scheme. The process got rolling when local governments used federal and state aid to fund the expansion of roads, water, sewer and associated infrastructure. For a while, localities enjoyed the best of both worlds: They enjoyed growing revenue from new growth and development without assuming the burden for the up-front capital cost. There was a hitch, however: Municipalities did assume the liability for maintaining the infrastructure. The cost of maintaining infrastructure was modest initially but when the infrastructure wore out, the full financial burden for fixing it fell upon the localities.

(I might insert here that the picture is slightly different in Virginia, where the Virginia Department of Transportation bears operational or financial responsibility for maintaining the state road system, even secondary roads. Therefore, the financial burden falls on the state when the roads wear out.)

That wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, Marohn contends, if the infrastructure investments had generated significant economic value. But they didn’t. The revenue collected did not come close to covering the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. In the suburban development pattern, he writes, “the amount of tax revenue obtained per increment of liability assumed … is ridiculously low. Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability.”

The all-too-common solution: Double down on more growth! Goosing growth brings in another round of tax revenue and kicks the liability can down the road. Over the past two decades, localities and developers have gone “all in,” fueling the suburban growth machine by acquiring a staggering amount of debt. It’s a Ponzi scheme, and that scheme is unraveling. Writes Marohn:

Our problem was not, and is not, a lack of growth. Our problem is 60 years of unproductive growth — growth that has buried us in financial liabilities. The American pattern of development does not create real wealth. It creates the illusion of wealth. Today we are in the process of seeing that illusion destroyed, and with it the prosperity we have come to take for granted.

One of the great challenges of state and local governance in America today, says Marohn, is to shift back to a wealth-creating, financially sustainable pattern of growth. But he knows that will be politically difficult. Many people regard the so-called “American way of life” as non-negotiable. “What will we throw away trying to sustain the unsustainable?” he asks. “How much of our dwindling wealth will be poured into propping up this experiment gone awry?”

Bacon’s bottom line: This is very much the same argument that I have been making on Bacon’s Rebellion for years. Scattered, disconnected, low-density growth is a wealth destroyer. The “suburban sprawl” model has hit a fiscal dead end. But Marohn has clarified the nature of the problem for me by explaining how the life cycle of infrastructure pushes off many of the costs to the next generation. Thus, in Virginia we have built up massive liabilities for the repair of bridges, arterials and Interstates — one reason why VDOT is experiencing a cash crunch.

Marohn also has done a better job than I have of outlining the answer. I have hammered away at the idea that we should ranking transportation spending by Return on Investment, as measured by congestion amelioration, safety and (real, not pseudo) economic development. But Marohn suggests that the yardstick should be how much value-creation transportation improvements add to (or, in many cases, detract from) property values.

The immediate takeaway for Virginians is this: By passing the latest round of transportation tax increases, Governor McDonnell and the General Assembly has doubled down on the old model. State transportation planners have shown no inclination to ensure that those funds are spent more productively. The inevitable result will be the construction of more roads, highways, bridges and mass transit projects that flunk any objective test of economic rationality, and Virginia will enter into yet another round of economic wealth destruction.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

16 responses to “Doubling Down on a Broken Growth Model”

  1. I would say the following – and expect others to say what is wrong with it:

    Fairfax and NoVa have very expensive infrastructure and operational costs.

    this leads to high taxes and the need to build commercial and residential that yields high taxes.

    in doing that – entry level and even mid-level career jobs simply cannot afford a standard single family detached home and they do not want to live in a apt/condo/townhouse/dense “smart growth” home.

    so they use the available interstate highway infrastructure to drive til they can find a single family detached that they can afford.

    Prince William, Stafford, Fredericksburg, and Spotsylvania are largely commuter-centric communities where each day people get up to do the trip to NoVa – via VRE, Bus, Van, Slug, carpool, and SOV.

    the daily traffic levels on I-95 at peak commute hour are horrendous much of the time… and worse than horrendous when there are weather and other related “incidents”.

    how do you “undo” this?

    I’m curious to see if HOT lanes have any effect on it.

    I do not think you can change the commuting by “stopping growth”. There is way, way too much undeveloped land that WILL be developed as long as there is a demand for single-family detached homes.

    that’s what drives the “sprawl” IMHO.

    now tell me where I got things wrong…. seriously….

  2. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    This is a most interesting post, Jim.

    Note that general thrust of Marohn’s comments apparently dove tails with my just posted comments on your Sequestration and Resilience in Washington Region article. How the flaws in Tyson’s Corners new comprehensive plan misuses the benefits of the new metro light rail through Tysons. The same old forces that failed us before are still at work.

    Marohn’s comments also have relevance to the fact that many Smart Growth proponents are now trying with growing success to enlist the Federal Government into their cause. This is ominous development. Given that the Federal government involvement in these local issues weaves their power and its corrupting influences ever deeper into our local communities. Its just yet another new example of how massive inflows on dollars distorting might disrupt properly regulated local decisions.

  3. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Correction to last sentence above – “Its just yet another new example of how massive inflows on Fed. dollars disrupt properly regulated local decisions.”

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      I am half way through this book. It’s devastating.

      If this little book doesn’t plainly shown the truth of the Fiscal Fix Analysis in determining the costs and benefits of dense efficient mixed use development as against single use and/or low density euclidean sprawl, nothing will.

      Jim, hate to embarrass you. But I am going to pat us on the back. We’re visionaries. Now we’ll both have to duck.

  4. got any thoughts, TMT?

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    This kind of rhetoric is becoming a hallmark of so-called Libetarians and conservative Republicans. Here are some of the tell tale comments (with translation):

    1. Roads should be “user pays”. Translation: I drove on free roads throughout my working career. However, I am now retired or nearing retirement. I have no interest in following in the steps of my parents and grand-parents by paying for the infrastructure needed by future generations. Screw them, I got mine.

    2. Suburban sprawl is killing us. Translation: My children have grown and I no longer need the large house in the suburbs. I’d like to live out my retirement years in a quaint neighborhood in a nice city. My wife and I could walk everywhere. However, the cities are largely blighted, dirty and crime infested. I will complain about the suburbs where I have lived for decades in the hope that government will spend more money rehabilitating the cities where I now want to live. As for the young families that want to raise their children in suburban homes with good schools like I did – Screw them, I got mine.

    3. Government must be as small as possible. Translation: I went to public schools and public universities. I drove on free roads while pursuing my career partly financed through cheap oil made possible by the US military. My parents and grandparents paid their taxes and lived within their means so I could have all the things that made me successful. However, I want more things – vacations, boats, cars, whatever. So, I clamor for small government because it means I pay less in taxes. As for providing the next generation what my parents and grandparents provided me – Screw them, I got mine.

    Baby Boomers – truly the worst generation.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      Don – on this one, I have not the foggiest notion of what you’re talking about.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        It’s not that hard, Reed. I see people like Charles Marohn and Jim Bacon as having hidden agendas. Bacon quotes Marohn as a basis for his belief in the death of the suburbs. Marohn decries the increased liability that localities assumed when they allowed development with road construction (but not maintenance) paid with federal dollars. Bacon sums up his view thus, “The “suburban sprawl” model has hit a fiscal dead end.”.

        Now, Bacon’s point might be more understandable if he didn’t oppose each and every attempt to increase the funding for transportation put forth in Virginia. In Virginia, the “suburban sprawl” model has hit a fiscal dead end in large part because the gas tax has been reduced (in real terms ) each year for the last 27 years. Jim Bacon and his pals cry buckets of tears over Bob McDonnell’s “massive tax increase”. In real terms, it is an end to a “massive tax cut” for transportation.

        What is Jim Bacon’s solution? Does he really believe that cars will be equipped with GPS devices that will track how far and where they drive so the driver can be taxed based not only on distance but the cost of maintaining the underlying road as well? Of course not. This is a red herring thrown out to discredit all practical approaches to raising transportation funding.

        Bacon has been clear as to his personal plan – sell the house in the suburbs and move into The Fan. He just doesn’t think he should be asked to clean up the fiscal mess that he created all those years he lived in the suburbs. As the post says, “Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability.”. So, Jim benefited from the creation of this liability by living in the suburbs and failing to pay for the roads. In fact, if you look at total taxes, the entire state benefited from money flowing out of the suburbs and into inner city and rural Virginia. It now appears that more of the tax money generated in the suburbs should have been kept in the suburbs for transportation. Maybe it’s time for the state to put more money into the suburbs since they have historically taken too much money out.

        Not in Jim’s mind. Now that he’s ready to bid the suburbs adieu the fiscal problems created while he lived there are somebody else’s problem.

        Screw them, he got his.

        1. having lived in an area than went from rural to suburban sprawl – my perspective is not as harsh.

          We were two poor counties with about 15K in population each, single elementary and high school – no middle. That was in 1963 – when I-95 was completed.

          Now I’m not sure how DJ determines who are “boomers” but I can much assure him that from 1963 on – we started to get people commuting down I-95 to a low-tax, detached single family home in a subdivision.

          It’s what people wanted. We also had Fredericksburg and at that time, the vast majority of people wanted to live in subdivisions not “downtown” – although “downtown” is where all the shopping was from Legget to JC Penney to Goolricks Pharmacy and Kishpaughs Stationary.

          more and more people came over the years… Now when people get up in front of a hearing to (usually) complain about “growth” or crowded schools or.. the mother of all complaints ” degraded quality of life”… they begin their whining with ” when I came here in 1978, it was a beautiful rural area – and NOW, it’s getting RUINED by too many people moving in”. “When I moved here, I had a pasture or pristine woods behind me and NOW.. NOW.. there’s too many frigging people living in too many frigging houses… clogging up our roads and causing more strip shopping centers that we don’t need”.

          so..long story short.. I’m familiar with the “come heres” that are in many respects – the true sprawl mongers… if you want to slather on pejoratives.

          but virtually ALL of them came here to get something better for less money than they could up Fairfax way. They made 30,40,50K a year and a single family detached in Fairfax was harder and harder to find.

          My view is – that we have to recognize what is at the root of sprawl – and it’s not bad planning or stupid planning or for that matter, any kind of planning.

          It’s something pretty simple. Someone owns 25 acres.. often the son/daughter of a guy that lived here their whole life and was lucky to have a 10th grade education and made a living any way they could but not as a GS-9 or above in NoVa.

          So son/daughter want to sell the land – maybe keep an acre or two for themselves and sell the rest – and unless the local elected say “no, you cannot subdivide your land”, they WILL subdivide it AND a developers WILL offer a tidy sum for the land and everyone will be happier except perhaps the Jim Bacon’s of the world.

          All I ask from the anti-sprawl folks is that they truly look at what is going on and not pretend something different.

          you cannot tell people they cannot sell their land. If you won’t subdivide it, they’ll sell it as is to a NoVa commuter who will build one house on it and that will happen all up and down every rural road in Stafford…. and after 30 years of it , what do you have?

          You can’t dig up I-95 and get rid of it. You can’t tell people they can’t use I-95 to commute so what would you do?

          Well. you’d not expand it – until now and then the only new lanes will require either carpools or tolls so that’s what? Horrible? for what? sprawl or charging people tolls? take your pick. DJ doesn’t like the tolls. Bacon doesn’t like the sprawl.

          not sure where exactly to end this other that I support the HOT lanes concept and I support people commuting in high occupancy vehicles and I support the successes of downtown type places as now embraced as places to live, work and play – and I support new urban places that are TRULY live, work and play and not just places to live and play and still commute north – and commuters from NoVa don’t want that kind of place anyhow…they can get all they want of that kind of residential – out the wazoo all over NoVa.

          so two problems with the anti-sprawl folks:

          1. – they don’t really have any real viable solutions other than things to make it harder for people to “sprawl”.

          2. – some of them pretend that all of this can be accomplished by the free market and not by govt fiat.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          I would be fine with tolls if they were on all roads. Obviously, that is impractical. So, let’s tax vehicle miles driven by using the odometer readings taken at every annual inspection. This runs into opposition since it excludes out of state drivers. In the end, there are so many special interest blocks at play in Virginia and such a vacuum of lasting political leadership that you get the transportation bill compromise we now have. I support it because I don’t see anything better as a political possibility. Bacon opposes it because he likes getting a tax cut (in real terms) every year of the frozen gas tax. Jim knows the Imperial Clown Show Show in Richmond is incapable of anything other than a misshapen Rube Goldberg plan. But he doesn’t care. He’ll soon be walking around his home in The Fan. New residents to his former suburban home can pay for the infrastructure liability he left behind. After all, screw them – he got his.

          If he really believed in “user pays” shouldn’t he – a creator of the infrastructure liability – pay off that liability? Nah, in true Boomer fashion he’ll leave that liability for future generations.

          1. re: “paid for roads” … what we need is to show for a major road –

            1 – how much it cost to build
            2. – how much it costs to operate
            3. – how much it costs to maintain

            most folks don’t know about 2 or 3 much less what percent they are.

            but let me ask you. do you support a toll on the CBBT or do you think it should be a “free” road?

            how about the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the Baltimore Tunnel or Chesapeake Bay-Bridge?

            support your position..

  6. Not sure any of us grew up in a world where there were no toll roads and 100% of roads were free.

    So.. we all knew of toll roads such as the Bay-Bridge Tunnel, northeastern toll roads, Pennsylvania Turnpike, and even the Powhite Parkway in Richmond.

    so we did recognize that some infrastructure was ‘different’, not “free” and did have “user pays” rules.

    the real question is how did we reconcile in our own minds why some roads were ‘free’ and others ‘not’? I suspect most folks just saw it like they did trees… some were pines and some were oaks, eh?

    😉

    re: suburban sprawl – I’d be fine with the concept if people were willing to face the truth about what it is and why it exists and stop pretending that it’s “bad” planning … It’s what people want. People want to live in a detached single family home preferably in a subdivision with cul-de-sacs rather than through streets and a nearby “nice” school, shopping mall, churches, etc.

    People do not “crave” suburban sprawl. They “crave” a particular lifestyle and they mostly have no clue about what it takes infrastructure-wise to provide it and as long as they can find it and buy it – at a reasonable price -including the terrible commute – they will. I just don’t see how you stop it as long as the govt is willing to build “free” roads. Toll roads.. and sprawl ?
    Can you think Dulles Toll Road? Does it inhibit suburban sprawl more than a “free” road would? I think perhaps some … but as long as the combined price of the home + the tolls does not exceed the higher price of a home closer in – not sure it is a game-changer.

    re: govt as small as possible… which is a bunch of conservative blather.

    they don’t want small govt – look at what most of them want in the way of DOD and National Defense. The “conservatives” are about as ‘conservative’ as a tax&spend liberal – just on different things…

    the difference is that tax&spend types will mostly admit it up front while the Conservatives play this silly little game pretending they are “fiscal conservatives” – until of course you talk about cutting the things they want to spend on.

    Reed seems to have recurring “fog” attacks these days…

  7. Near Brisbane, Queensland in Australia — a country with even more wide-open spaces and just as high of per-capita car ownership as the U.S. — three communities have sworn off building any more roads.

    Why? Because Brisbane has the world’s largest TravelSmart program, a project which simply talks to drivers about the costs of driving and provides incentives and information about using alternatives. On average, the city of Brisbane and the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast area surrounding it, are decreasing vehicle kilometer traveled 12-13 percent annually — three times faster than any American drop in VMT.

    TravelSmart is so successful that every urban area in Australia, except Sydney, has a program and, therefore, are saving billions of dollars NOT building highways which lead to greater suburbanization. Beginning in 2010, Infrastracture Australia announced that most federal transportation dollars would go to commuter rail and that it would provide money for highways ONLY if it could be proven that the roadway would primarly be used by freight haulers. Sydney does not have a TravelSmart program because it’s mass transit is already maxed out and it is scared of generating demand it can’t supply.

    The one community in America today utilizing TravelSmart is showing a 15 percent VMT decline.

    Bottom line: People can learn, we can change our behavior in ways which destroy our economy.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Attraction-Curbing-Affair-Automobile/dp/1477657770/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363627566&sr=1-2&keywords=Randy+salzman

  8. Thanks Salz! The other thing Australia is doing is only building major roads if they can be operated as self-sustaining toll roads.

    And the analysis being done are what is known as “investor grade” and even then it has proven to be a learning curve.

    The thing that strikes me most in the US is that the people who are most opposed to toll roads are usually the folks who say they “have no choice” but to drive solo – all the time. In other words, they can’t even carpool or not drive solo SOME of the time.

    It’s not like a ton of people find various ways to NOT drive SOLO all the time or if they do, they expect to pay for it.

    I’m just fine with tolls. I’d much rather pay a toll to get a reliable time trip than the rolling crap-shoot disaster that the interstates and beltways have become in many places, especially at rush hour.

    I believe the days of “free” interstates for SOV driving are in the final stages of extinction in most places in the world and in the US.

    If an outer beltway is going to be built west of NoVa, 10 to 1, it’s going to be a toll road. It may end up being a subsidized one like the ICC but people are going to know that it is – that it’s not only not “free” but tolls from other roads – cash cow roads – are going to be used to make up the difference.

  9. Richard Avatar

    The population growth has to go somewhere. In the late 50s (yes I Am a member of that evil generation) I watched as a child the building of Rivercrest a large subdivision in northern Arlington just south of the Potomac. For months it was bulldozers and carpenters large mounds of dirt and eventually hundreds of houses. I dare say that part of Arlington is now considered semi urban and a significant part of the tax base. But I doubt it was very affordable then or now. But it had the right ingredients for the time – access to DC being primary – and those ingredients remain, and so its value has been sustained. It turns out to have been the right type of sprawl. Sprawl in itself isn’t bad but it can be stupid. The problem is as Jim notes is when localities double down on sprawl as a solution to tax base problems. Instead of being smart about the long term some localities decide the solution is to make things easier for developers by removing obstacles like zoning or by building spec roads. It’s not unlike tax incentives for businesses to move to a state to create jobs – a race to the bottom. Loudoun County now has a Bd of Supervisors that is all Republican that received contributions of more than $500,000 primarily from builders and real estate groups. What do you think they have been doing? No Jim Bacons there. That’s a big part of the problem. In the outer suburbs there are few advocates for anything new or long term.

    1. re: ” double down on sprawl as a solution to tax base problems”

      I might have to go back and re-read what he said because Sprawl does the exact opposite to the exurban localities that receive that growth.

      and Sprawl seriously damages the utility of the interstate roads and beltways that provide the commuting paths to sprawl.

      the governments that benefit from Sprawl are the ones that export the lower earning workers who need more affordable housing and retain the highly paid workers who can afford to buy higher priced homes and pay higher taxes.

      One of the big differences between some jurisdictions in NoVa is not only their concern about affordable housing options – but their actual performance to be effective in providing those options.

      As bad as DJ thinks Richmond is in it’s cultural infatuations, Parts of NoVa have become more and more places for elites to live because a lot of others are just simply priced out and, in effect, invited to live elsewhere – “down the road” to where they will “qualify” – i.e. sprawl.

Leave a Reply