Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Drip… Drip… Drip… The Message Is Slowly Sinking In

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

“The emerging oil crisis will permanently change society, increasing costs in every sector, forcing people to relocate closer to work and to reconsider mass transit options. The demand for the lowest cost and most reliable option, namely walking and cycling, will increase and the demand for solo driving will decrease.”

So said Daniel Kellogg, a citizen testifying before the Commonwealth Transportation Board yesterday in a public hearing, as it kicked off a year-long process of massaging the state’s transportation plan. With an influx from new revenue sources, this year’s 2008-2013 plan includes $8.7 billion for highways and $2.3 billion to rail and public transportation. (Read the report in the Manassas Journal Messenger.)

Virginia’s transportation system was designed around oil costing $30 per barrel or less. When the price of gasoline and asphalt triples, the supply and demand equation changes. The transportation system has to change with it.

Douglas Koelemay, the Bacon’s Rebellion representative to the CTB (technically, he’s a Northern Virginia representative, but we claim the B.R. columnist as our own), said the CTB is changing the way it considers projects, with an eye to the future instead using “measurements from the past.” Said he: “The imperatives of energy prices and climate change are real.”

So, we know we have to change. That’s progress. But how do we change? There’s the rub.

There is widespread sentiment that we must invest more in mass transit. As an abstract statement, that is undoubtedly right. But we can’t just start dumping money into mass transit projects the same way we used to dump money into roads. Every project must be analyzed for its Return on Investment. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any sign that Virginia has devised a method for calculating ROI on transportation investments in any meaningful way, much less in a way that fairly ranks them in order of priority with such alternative investments as carpooling initiatives, bike paths, traffic light synchronization or accident response management.

Secondly, dumping money into mass transit without changing land use patterns is an exercise in futility. Mass transit is one of those things that everyone thinks is a great idea — for the other guy. But trains and buses do not run in a vacuum. If we want people to actually ride them, they must serve neighborhoods and business districts of a minimum density and level of pedestrian connectivity. Sadly, I have yet to see any sign that funding for mass transit projects will be made contingent upon communities enacting the land use reforms needed to make them financial viable.

Our thinking is inching in the right direction, but we have a loooong way to go.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

26 responses to “Drip… Drip… Drip… The Message Is Slowly Sinking In”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Some folks might get used to $3 gas but have no doubt that $4 gas will change the way many do business.

    The interesting question that Jim gets to … is the cost of transit.

    but here’s the game-changing dynamic.

    $3-4 gasoline is going to dramatically cut down on how much gasoline people buy.

    and that means … virtually zero funds for new roads.

    Transit also … is at capacity right now.

    predictions?

    do you think.. that new roads will get built?

    OR do you think.. they’ll just add more rail cars… to transit?

  2. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Land use reforms are one aspect – but mass transit will not work ina socierty of throw away employees.

    The problem is that a family might move near a transit line that connects their place of employment with where they live.

    great.

    Presto!

    One or more members of the family lose their job – and their new job is not served by the mass transit system as availabe in any reasonable maaner to where they live. Meaning – a 2 hour commute one way doesn’t cut it.

    The traffic congestion we suffer most from is during commuter peak usage times.

    Moving truck traffic to only non-peak commuter hours can help too.

    Shifting the movement of goods to more frieght rail might also help ease the congestions on highways.

    So, I submit that EMPOLOYERS must embrace “Worker Reform” strategies that:

    (1) Enable workers to work close to their home and mass transit system.

    (2) Embrace greater use of telecommuting and working from the employees homes, and not requiring daily travel to a central office.

    (3) Centeral offices can be restricted to only locations served by mass transit connections.

  3. Single Avatar
    Single

    Something that you totally overlook – the increase in the cost of gas will help to give rise to alternative ways to propel automobiles (or something like an automobile). I’m not so sure we (as Americans) are ready or willing to give up the freedom that a ‘car’ brings. Ride mass transit sometime, it takes a LOT of the control over your life and time out of your hands. Many of us don’t WANT to live in apartments (call them townhouses, condos, etc – they are still apartments of one stripe or another).

    Heck, I can buy some land, put up a pole barn and make my own bio-diesel in there; as well as grow my own crops, raise my own animals for food, etc. I can employ various strategies that help take me off the ‘grid’ while still maintaining a lifestyle that I love.

    Are you correct? Maybe, but I think you are looking at things through a single prism. I believe that enough people enjoy freedom enough that other ways, modes of transportation, etc will come about. Finally, I not only believe that will be the case, I hope so – because I really don’t like ‘urban living’ or so-called ‘smart-growth’.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Reid has hit the nail on the head.

    It isn’t our settlement patterns that are killing us: it’s the settlement employers give when they show employees the door, or the decision employees make when they won’t settle any longer.

    But, “enabling” workers to be close to home and mass transit will require a MASSIVE increase in the availability of mass transit, because transit serves such a small percentage of the area. And it had better be mass transit that works (better than the Red Line or MARK trains.)

    And it has to actually cost less than driving, which is getting to be less and less the case. Since the actual cost of operating transit still has trouble competing on a passenger mile basis, it isn’t clear that higher oile prices will help transit much.

    AND, as it now exists, mass transit depends heavily on autos.

    There will no doubt be huge shifts in how we do things with higher oil prices, but I wouldn’t count on it changing settlement patterns much. One of the shifts may be that there are a lot of things we just don’t do. We could have a lot of people out of work, and if that is the case, we will need a lot less mass transit, too.

    Single thinks he can live off the grid, but a lot of people will find out that is not so easy. Go read some of the articles from the various homesteader magazines. One of the things you see is that some people go to a lot of expense to avoid a little expense.

    But, with high food prices as a result of oil, I do suspect that one thing will get local in a hurry: gardening. Even a modest garden can produce a lot of food (seasonally). Realistically, that means a freezer and electricity, and that means you need a job that pays cash money.

    Unless we are actively recycling employees and money, almost nothing else is going to make a difference, unless it is guns and ammunition.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I love the way you say “changing land use” as if it happens in a vacuum, and as if we have the right to simply tell people what they can and can’t do, without compensating them for our gains at their expense.

    And there you go again with that “enact” word even though you claim to be a free market advocate.

    RH

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    $3/4 gasoline means the days of building “free” mega commuting roads from urban employers to suburban homes is probably gone.

    I would no more presume that we should tell businesses where or where not to locate anymore than I would people – but having said that – having

    businesses and/or wokers pick or choose their locations- based on a belief that the “state” will build whatever road infrastructure will be needed — to essentially support and enable rush -hour SOLO commuting
    those days are gone…

    It’s not a question of one people like. It’s a question of what they will do – if their choices are no longer subsidized.

    the age of free commuter roads is in it’s last days…

  7. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ray, when I say “enact land use reforms,” that’s short-hand for saying make changes to local government ordinances that allow developers more flexibility to react to market demand, as oppose to restricting the choices available. In a free market, developers would have more latitude to build communities where people are less reliant upon their automobiles.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    from HB3202:

    …” An Urban Development Area would be an area designated by a locality that is most suited for development due to proximity to transportation facilities, ….”

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If one were able to go back in time and have an ability to change history, how many of us would think about transportation and the environment or rather Like Biff in Back to the Future, would we be looking for ways to profit. The sad demise of street cars all across cities in the US was no doubt hastened by the love affair between Americans and their automobiles. However, when it was happening and rail lines were being ripped out of streets, who would have believed or even cared that one day people would actually be concerned about the environmental impact of the beloved automobile. Fortunately, we live in a country with a large land mass and for some time to come, we will have choices between suburban and urban. However, regardless of the price of oil, we need to find ways to provide people choices in personal and public transportation. It is not surprising that “sprawl” replaced the prior compactly designed villages and towns all across America, once the cost of the automobile became so low that driving to and from far flung “suburbs” was no longer an issue. What is now unfolding is nothing short of a reexamination of this relationship between personal transportation, employment and living on the one hand and how we design for the future. As study upon study tells us, America is aging and demographics are changing and a growing number of people will want to live, work and play in compact areas served by affordable and reliable public transportation. While this will challenge us, I am confident the ingenuity of our citizens will deliver solutions. The emergence of densely and intensely designed mixed use developments in former blighted or failed business districts is one example of an encouraging trend.

  10. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Another issue often ignored in discussion and in action is the RISK associated with riding mass transit.

    Islamic Terrorists are sure fond of blowing up public transit –

    Buses – Ka-Bomb!

    Trains – Ka-Bomb!

    Planes – Ka-Bomb! (Even taing out high-density urban business towers in the process).

    Subways – leathal gas and Ka-Bomb!

    You just don’t hear too much about Suicide bombers blowing up one person driving in their car to work or the store.

    Next up – the cost of protecting public transit riders from robbery, assault, rape, murder, and intimidation.

    This aspect of public transportation is seldom seriously discussed and rarely adequately funded with any measure that can PREVENT CRIME, that being a armed guard on each and every car that is trained and prepared to kill those criminals that prey upon public transit riders.

    Nor is adequate safeguards offered for park & ride facilities to protect your vehicle should you avail yourself of a park & ride lot and ride public transit to work.

    Law “enforcement: uses electronic surveillance to help PROSECUTE crimes – but that really doesn’t spare the transit rider that annoying stab wound and swelling in the face after being punched and struct with crow bars and two-by-fours.

    Waiting for a bus when you are the only potential victim of the next robbery leaves many of us easy targets.

    Are transit riders permitted to carry fire arms on public transit?

    If not, how are they to protect themselves from armed robbers and sexual preditors? Mot to mention the deranged and/or drugged out segments of our population that committ harm to others because they are no longer in control of themselves.

    Nope, the “budget” for public transit really doesn’t provide funding for adequate armed security forces, terrorist detection and intervention, and a plan that will actually PREVENT transit riders from harm.

    I have a loaded weapon in my car. I very the times and routes I take to and from work – to do what I can to avoid a predicable routine.

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Reid, You make a good point about mass transit and personal safety. There’s another risk, an economic risk. Just look at Paris right now. They’re in the middle of a mass transit strike. By shutting down the city, the strikers are causing billions of dollars of economic damage. If we take into account the externalities of automobiles, which I think we should, we also need to consider the externalities of mass transit.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If we “enact land use reforms,” in any major way they are going to have a major effect of massive transfers of wealth. Those who propose land use reforms need to have some plan for adressing such effects. Otherwise the idea will be politically dead unless it happens to benefit the business as usual crowd that seems to control the “political” process.

    In a free market, developers would have more latitude to build what they please. Which might make them less reliant on autos, or not. Unless land use reforms also means that they WON’T be allowed to build some places. In that cae you go right back to the transfer of wealth problem.

    If an Urban Development Area would be an area designated by a locality that is most suited for development due to proximity to transportation facilities, …
    then what we have is an excuse to transfer wealth. Or else, the zoning fight shifts to the fight to get transportation facilities, wich in turn leads to massive transfer of wealth.

    If we are going to fuzzleduck our bumbling way into such a massive restructure of how we all live, we had better give some thought as to how do do it equitably.

    Yep, mass transit has externalities, too. If and when such externalities begin to be felt, we can expect the same kind of backlash that roads now get.

    And, we will still have to maintain the roads, for the most part. So mass transit is in additon to roads, not instead of.

    RH

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    UB3202:

    An Urban Development Area would be an area designated by a locality that is most suited for development due to proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of public water and sewer, and its proximity to a city, town or other developed area.

    * Require that the UDA must allow residential densities of four units per gross acre or at least three times greater than the area outside the UDA, and a floor area ratio of 0.4 per gross acre for commercial development.

    * Require that the UDA must be of sufficient size to accommodate 10 to 20 years worth of residential and commercial development.

    * Require that the size of the UDA must be re-examined and revised every five years to accommodate the next 10 to 20 years of population growth.

    * Require that the local comprehensive plan in the UDA must incorporate principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development, as defined in the legislation, anywhere within the jurisdiction.

    * Require that the local comprehensive plan include financial and other incentives for development in the UDA.

    * Allow any county to certify that its comprehensive plan already satisfies the requirements of a UDA.

    * Not allow counties to limit or prohibit development of property (including applications for rezoning) based solely on the fact that the property is located outside the UDA.

    Now tell us again… how this is a transfer of wealth?

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    “…allow developers more flexibility…”.

    You must be kidding.

    What do you think the developers will do?

    They will subdivide every available piece of land and build 4,000 sq. ft. “cityscape” McMansions.

    That’s where the margin is.

    They wll not build new age multi-unit dwellings in a transit-centric framework.

    They will not build affordable housing.

    You must know some developers. Do you think they are being forced into non-sensical building because of zoning laws?

    They are driven only by profit.

    McMansions have the highest margins. THat’s what they’ll build.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Now tell us again… how this is a transfer of wealth?

    Surely you jest.

    If you are lucky enough to be in a UDA you will get your units per acre. That will be a transfer of wealth, compared to anyone who is not allowed a similar density.

    The UDA will have capacity for 20 years worth of growth (at that density). You can bet that everything possible will be done to make sure that is where the growth goes, that and the backlog of designated area amounts to a subsidy stacked against anyone outside the area. The only thing working against the UDA is that it will be more expensive on a square foot basis. If Portland is an example, quite a bit more.

    Requiring that the local plan incorporate principles of new urbanism and traitional development ought to be thrown out as a violation of freedom of religion. If you are a new urbanist designer, it is a direct subsidy: a requirement that people be offered only your kind of work within the UDA.

    A requirement for financial and other incentives is an outright subsidy. Where is the money going to come from? Gotta be outside the UDA by definition: you don;t thinkt that is a transfer of wealth?

    That last one is purely a sop. Counties won’t prohibit development outside the UDA solely because land is outside, they can easily invent plenty of other “reasons”. What they will do is prohibit it because other land is available inside the UDA. They may not say as much, but that is what will happen. It is a direct transfer of wealth, based soley on where you happen to be.

    And that is just for the UDA’s already in process. What Jim is talking about will be much, much more than UB3202 considers, and over a longer period of time.

    Unless there is some kind of plan for rural (outside of UDA) taxes to go to rural uses, and vice versa, this will be a major violation of the user pays philosophy, which will result in a continuing transfer of wealth.

    If there isn’t a well thought out plan as to how to do this equitably, it is going to turn out to be percieved as a screw job for everyone. Success or failure of the UDA’s will be one big test, if they fail, there won’t be a lot of political support for real land use reform.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You must know some developers. Do you think they are being forced into non-sensical building because of zoning laws?”

    Actually, I think they are. Super normal lot sizes and restrictions mean that they MUST build large homes in order to recoup the costs of getting through the development process. They MUST develop large tracts in order to get enough of these large lots.

    If they were allowed to build more and smaller houses on smaller lots, I think they would. There are alot fo advantages, from the builders viewpoint: factory or partial factory construction, more production line type processes as crews march down the block. And that is the point of Jim’s position.

    The Question is, who would buy them if so many can afford McMansions? And who would want THEM next door?

    Unless of course you take a lot of money from outside the UDA’s to front the subsidies it will take to make them work.

    Let’s just call it what it is and be done with it: It is a conservationist scam to preserve more countryside, not only without paying for it, but to make others pay for what they don’t get, or don’t get to keep.

    It is EMR’s dream come true: raise the costs of those in the countryside to further subsidize urban areas, and lower the value of land to the point it can only be used for forestry, agriculture, and conservation.

    RH

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If the UDA is funded by user fees within the UDA – like water/sewer and CDAs (Community Development Authorities), and special tax districts then why would that be a transfer of wealth?

    I think what you are saying is that it is illegal for a locality to designate a UDA unless it is county-wide. correct?

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If the UDA is funded by user fees within the UDA…”

    How does that square with:

    “* Require that the local comprehensive plan include financial and other incentives for development in the UDA.”

    If the UDA is funded only by user fees from within the UDA, where are the incentives? By definition they would have to come from outside.

    No, Iam not saying that the benefits of UDA development have to be county wide. Tah would be ridiculous – and impossible.

    What I AM saying is that the benefits of the UDA are not possible without others suffering the financial consequences and paying much of the price. What we ned to have, and do not have at present, is a plan for equal treatment for those outside the UDA.

    A major reason for the UDA is to conserve other property. Usually, savings accounts pay some kind of dividend. At present, rural residents get squat, and pay more than their share. I don’t need or want, necessarily, development rights. But I also don’t want to subsidize those that get them (partly because mine were taken without compensation), and the money that goes with it, decades before they finally getting around to finding some use for my property: like taking it under eminent domain for a school.

    Headline on MSN today: “Georgia Farmers See Water Hogs in Atlanta.”

    I would settle for some kind of reasonable rural services in exchange for the (additional, over and above the same taxes everyone else pays) rural taxes I turn in. If it is going to be user pays, then the community should expect to pay for rural services (including environmental services) out of the money that comes from rural areas. And, because the urban areas especially benefit from the lack of competition that comes from redlining rural areas, not to mention the environmental services, maybe, just maybe, the cash flow that represents equality ought to be the opposite direction that it is now.

    And maybe, just maybe, that would be enough to tip the scales from people subdividing out of sheer necessity, to people conserving because they can afford to.

    But, even with all that said, if I could put a couple of modest workforce quality homes here, on land I’m not using anyway, I would do it. Because I don’t think the other thing is ever going to happen: it is too easy to just steal waht you want. And because the income from a couple of rental properties would pay my losses on the rst of the farm – for decades.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”What I AM saying is that the benefits of the UDA are not possible without others suffering the financial consequences and paying much of the price. What we ned to have, and do not have at present, is a plan for equal treatment for those outside the UDA.

    A major reason for the UDA is to conserve other property.”

    Isn’t the primary idea to concentrate development into areas that have infrastructure rather than scattering development such that the same number of people require more infrastructure?

    For instance, one of the issues with transit is that it cannot go everywhere, cannot serve sprawl and really requires density to be viable.

    Isn’t the purpose of the UDAs not about “saving land” nor “preserving” open space but more about compact and efficient development and cost-effective infrastructure?

    Isn’t that also the whole idea of Mixed-use, New Urbanism development?

    Why does any this “hurt” people who are not in the UDA?

  20. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Ray:

    Interesting thought about zoning, lot sizes and house sizes. I thought I’d do a little online research. So, I went to Weichert.Com and looked at “lots and land” in Fairfax County. I picked a few of the many listings at random and tried to proved or disprove your theory.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.weichert.com/search/realestate/SearchResults.aspx?countyid=33239&ptypeid=30

    Here are some of the examples:

    1. Great Falls – 15.55 ac, 3 lots, $6,121,500 – average size per lot – 5.1 ac, average cost per lot – $2,040,333.

    2. Lorton – 20.09 ac, 10 lots, $6,000,000 – avg size per lot – 2.0 acres, average cost per lot – $600,000.

    3. Centerville – 33.34 ac, 7 lots, $4,950,000 – age size per lot – 4.762 ac, avg cost per lot – $857,142.

    4. Great Falls – 10.42 ac – 2 lots – $3,999,000 – avg size per lot – 5.21 ac – avg cost per lot – $2,000,000.

    5. Great Falls – 3.26 ac – 3 lots – $2,457,000 – avg size per lot – 1.08, avg cost per lot – $1,228,000.

    6. Alexandria – 3.707 ac – 6 lots – $2,100,000 – avg size per lot – .61 ac, avg cost per lot – $350,000.
    Note: In the written description of this property is the claim (in caps) NO PROFFERS.

    7. Clifton – 28.8 ac, $1,900,000 – avg size per lot – 14.4 ac, avg cost per lot – $950,000. Note: The following is aritten in the description of this property, “You can build many many expensive houses in this golf comunity, or build few soccor fields as a park…Many possibilities.”

    8. Fairfax, VA (Cheapest parcel listed) – 3.43 ac, $550,000 – 2 lots, avg size per lot – 1.715 ac, avg cost per lot – $275,000.

    If I understand your theory correctly – low density zoning creates large lots. The larger the lot, the more expensive the lot. Therefore, low density zoning (and its large lots) require developers to build large homes in order to recoup the cost of the large lots.

    The key problem I see is the implicit belief that the larger the lot, the more expensive the lot. That just doesn’t seem to hold up.

    From my (admittedly random) list of lots and land:

    In Clifton, I can buy a 14.4 acre buildable lot for $950,000. However, in Great Falls, I can buy a 1.08 acre buildable lot for $1,288,000.

    Meanwhile, in Alexandria I have to pay $350,000 for a buildable lot of .61 acres while in Fairfax I can buy a 1.715 (approximately 3 times the size) acre lot for $275,000.

    So, from my little sample, here are the average costs per acre per buildable lot by location:

    1. Great Falls (5.1)……$400,065
    2. Lorton (2.0)………..$300,000
    3. Centerville (4.762)….$180,072
    4. Great Falls (5.21)…..$383,877
    5. Great Falls (1.08)…$1,192,593
    6. Alexandria (.61)…….$573,770
    7. Clifton (14.4)……….$65,972
    8. Fairfax, VA (1.715)….$160,350

    I am interested in your thoughts.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If I understand your theory correctly – low density zoning creates large lots. The larger the lot, the more expensive the lot. Therefore, low density zoning (and its large lots) require developers to build large homes in order to recoup the cost of the large lots.

    The key problem I see is the implicit belief that the larger the lot, the more expensive the lot. That just doesn’t seem to hold up.”

    I think both of these statements are correct, and neither one necessarily contradicts the other.

    First of all, we probably are not concerned about affordable housing in Clifton or Great Falls.

    Second, the cost per acre isn’t a real driver, it is the cost per buildable lot. Researchers have studied the effect of virtually the same home on different sized lots. If you do this in a number of places you can decompose the neighborhood effect and decouple the house price from the lot price.

    House A on one acre winds up costing $88,000 per acre for the land. House A on two acres is far less than $88,000 per acre, because the marginal value of the extra acre is less. House A on two one acre lots is far more than $88,000 per acre, because of the value of the extra building right.

    Because of the neighborhood effect the actual cost per acre does change, but over all, for each available option in terms of neighborhood, larger lots will cost more, even if the effect is not linear.

    The actual cost of constructing a home does not change very much by location. for modular homes it hardly changes at all. Building homes is not all that high tech, so there is a lot of competition.

    Over all, builders are virtually giving away the homes, but they make their money from the subdivision of land: smaller parcels are worth more per acre. The more parcels they are allowed the more money they can make.

    If they are not able to make as much money from the land because minimum lot sizes are large, the only way to increase their margin is to build larger homes.

    What actually happens is that the builder figures the number of lots he can get, vs the bulk price of the land. He adds on his part of the cost of proffers and in kind amanities, his cost of construction, and his profit. Then he compares that figure to what the market will bear in the local neighborhood.

    If he can’t afford to build something that will sell in that neighborhood, he moves on.

    The fact remains a builder won;t buy that 14.4 acre lot in Clifton for $950,000 and then put a $200,000 home on it. But if he could subdived into 10 one acre lots, he might.

    That $950k lot might buy and sell a number of times and not change much in value, but once it is “improved” with well, septic, and driveway permit, the price might go up $50k. Your profit on the improvements is $25k maybe. Your profit on the house is 15% regardless of the size.

    If you put a $200k house there you make 2.7%. If you put a million dollar home there you make 9.5%. If you put 10 $200k homes there, you make 283%. If you put a million dollar home on a $1.1 M dollar lot in Great falls you make 8.4%. If you put it on the 5 acre lot you make only 6.6%.

    In order to have enough margin to stay in business, you need bigger homes or more homes. You won’t get ten one acre homes in Clifton, so you are back to McMansions, or some other line of work.

    RH

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Did you and Groveton take into account- access to transit in your calculations?

    how about water and sewer?

    my understanding is that Great Falls does not have water and sewer…

  23. andrea epps Avatar
    andrea epps

    If the UDAs are coupled with transfer of development rights programs with decent incentives, they will not transfer wealth, and the densities will be high enough to justify transit.
    TDR programs are so underutilizied.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I Figured the Cost of well, septic, and driveway at $25,000 and the Value of having it already in at $50,000, in each case.

    Yes, the argument is to concentrate development into areas that have infrastructure rather than scattering development such that the same number of people require more infrastructure.

    But there are two problems here: first we know that more densely populated areas have higher taxes not lower, so the argument that you will somehow save money on infrastructure rings hollow.

    Second, that argument is being either cynically or falsely promoted in order to create a de-facto land conservation situation: we will use that argument to prevent that awful sprawl. Never mind that sprawl is apparently waht a lot of people want. Or did with cheap gas.

    My position is simply this: regardless of what the arguments are for UDA’s we need to consider the actual facts on the ground, what happens to real live people.

    We can argue about illegals, too, but the facts on the ground are 12 million people. It is like pollution: we can’t ship it all out, and we can’t prevent 100% of it from happening. We need to figure out what we have and deal with it fairly instead of posturing over what “should” be or planning for wishtostications which aren’t actually very likely.

    The fact is that there is a real interplay between rural and urban or sparsely and densely populated areas: each needs the other, so we need to look at what is actually happening and figure out a way to deal with things fairly.

    The UDA’s are only a small part of what JB is hypothesizing about, but they are symptomatic of a larger problem. IF people revolt over the price of gas and walk away from their more or less far-flung homes to move to more compact dwellings, that is one thing.

    The banks that hold the notes on those homes will take a beating. The people that walk away will take a beating. And those same people will pay a pretty price to get more compact homes in more compact areas. – If we let them get built – and if we don’t starve them back out to the countryside with enormous proffers needed to build or re-build newer and or bigger infrastructure to handle the throngs.

    The people who stay in far flung places and deal with the hardships will be able to buy up their former neighbors homes for a song, if they are lucky enough to have one. The people who are lucky enough to be where people throng to will do well, also.

    That is one scenario.

    The other Scenario is that we create giant UDA’s and we do everything in our power to make sure that is the only place people can reasonably live. If we get a lot of conservation land “for free” well, tough tutu’s to anyone that won’t dance to our ballet. We’ll make sure the UA landowners do well and everybody else suffers, in order to choreograph the greater public good.

    RH

  25. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Great Falls does not have water and sewer other than in unusual situations. For example, if you live in Great Falls close enough to the Loudoun County border – you can pay Loudoun County to run water and sewer to your home. But most homes do not have access to water and sewer.

    As for access to transit – I don’t know how much of an issue it presents. It’s bad in all the areas of Fairfax County.

    RH –

    Per the data I provided – a 5+ acre lot in Great Falls is about $2M (at least that’s what they’re asking). A 1 acre lot sells for $1.2M. Both are buildable lots. I assume that sub-dividing the 5 acre lots into 5 one acre lots would result in 5 lots costing $1.2M each.

    The builders would still put 4,000 sq. ft. homes on those lots. Only now, there would be 5 families adding congestion to the road instead of one. And the developer who politically finagled the zoning variance would just get all the richer.

    There is a false belief that developers use some kind of “cost plus” pricing scheme. They do not. They build what will make them the most money and sell it for the highest price possible.

    Right now, McMansions make them the most money. They make the most money on 5 acre lots, 14 acre lots, 1 acre lots.

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    A UDA is simply a policy statement with respect to the scope/scale of infrastructure that will be provided to support … higher densities than could be supported if you did not explicitly plan the infrastructure to do so.

    You build BIG – SHORT pipes to support density as opposed to BIG – LONG pipes to support low density development.

    You build sidewalks and trails that serve all the structures as opposed to not having sidewalks in subdivisions and the only way to get around is walk in the middle of the street.

    When you have density, you can design TOD – explicitly plan to have transit rather than try to backfit it and/or extend it to where there is insufficient density to support it.

    The folks who still want to live in the suburbs can still live there.

    There is nothing inherent about UDAs that harms non-UDA land unless one is going to claim that by not designating all land as UDA – that only certain “lucky” landowners are given superior development opportunities.

    But you could said that about the location of a new road also – right or just extending water and sewer to an area than residents did not request.

    so … are you saying that .. building a new road or extending water/sewer is “unfair” to those that did not get it?

Leave a Reply

Read More