Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

FAIR ALLOCATION OF LOCATION-VARIABLE COSTS

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Buried deep in the comments on Jim Bacon’s 25 January 2007 posting on Housing in Charlottesville-Albemarle is a 27 January posting by Anon 7:58. He / She makes a good point concerning the uses some owners of small parcels (10 to 50 acres) make of their land in the Countryside.

He / she does not state the case but also makes a strong argument for the fair and equitable allocation of all location-variable costs. Consider:

If a retired couple raises horses, rare livestock, dogs, heritage fruit and vegetables (Anon’s list – or if they raise, mushrooms, emus, wine grapes or anything else) for a living that is one circumstance.

If the wife is the spokes person for a phone company in Tysons Corner, the husband supervisors janitors in a highschool in Winchester and the kids log 20 person miles a day on a school bus and 30 hours a week in day care, and the couple raises (whatever) as a hobby, that is a different case.

Or is it?

If both couples pay the full cost of their location decisions it does not matter what the circumstances are.

The problem is that now the urban household that is also a hobby farmer is highly subsidized. Subsides come via government action at all levels, by utility suppliers who apply flat fees and by goods and service users who pay a higher cost for the necessities of a contemporary life because of the cost of serving scattered urban land uses. What else happens on the land does not lower the cost of the location-dependent goods and services necessary to support an urban lifestyle.

Citizens in a democracy with a market economy cannot afford a “Welfare State” that supports “Cadillac Welfare Queens.”

Those same citizens cannot afford to support the costs of dysfunctional human settlement patterns. A typical bundle of urban lifestyle-supporting goods and services cost 10 times as much as the same services cost in a functional settlement pattern. (The Cost of Services Curve and the 10 X Rule.)

In addition, while some enjoy the spacial disaggregation (and really enjoy the subsidy), the market documents that the vast majority prefer the same house in a functional location. (The 10 Person Rule.)

Some who want to keep the reality of human settlement pattern relationships confusing suggest that settlement patterns relationships developed by S/PI are too generalized. As we note in “The Shape of the Future,” the same could be said for accounting for the actions of gas molecules via Boyles Law and other relationships found in natural systems.

The Anon poster was concerned about regulations preventing the non-urban land uses from being carried out and prohibitions against land subdivision of land to create small parcels. He / She would be happy to see to availability of land for such uses increase (and the cost go down) when the use of land for scattered urban land uses are no longer subsidized.

Those who now, or hope in the future to profit, from the current subsidies and the settlement patterns that the subsidies engender wail about property “rights” without taking into account the community “responsibilities” that come with 21st Century urban life.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

34 responses to “FAIR ALLOCATION OF LOCATION-VARIABLE COSTS”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I didn’t see anything in the post from anaonymous that said anything about subdivision. All he said was don’t zone or price the small agricultural uses out of existence, which is pretty muc what your 10X rule would do. Neither did I hear him making the case for full allocation of location variable costs.

    I think you are putting words in his mouth, unfairly, to support your position. I don’t regard that as good argumentation.

    ——————–

    Where is your evidence that the urban household that is also a hobby farmer is highly subsidized? It seems to me that the argument anonymous put forth was that these places do, in fact, put back more than they cost. This same argument was mad in the paper two weeks ago by Hope Porter, a strong supporter of the PEC.

    According to her and numerous county officials the large lot and open spaces prtion of the county are in fact subsidizing the more residential districts.

    The smaller agricultural oriented residences he mentioned are my most frequent customers, so they not only support the residential areas, but they support the larger agricultural enterpises, too.

    Not to mention dozens of commercial services, from farriers, to vets, to equipment dealers. So, what you say about whatever else happening on the land not changing the location dependent services to support an urban lifestyle, is simply not true.

    I’d suggest that if you told any of these people they had an urban lifestyle, they would be highly insulted. I, at least, don’t get anything like 40+ services.

    What, exactly, is it that these people would have to give up in order to achieve a non-urban lifestyle that meets with your approval?

    Our living expenses come from my off-farm job, true enough. But, over and above our living expenses, the farm operations drop about $25,000 a year on the local economy. If you use the usual 3x economic development multiplier, that’s $75,000 a year in local goods and services before the money goes off into the outside world.

    Taken across the entire county, it is millions of dollars of goods and services trded right here at home. What is it that is good enough for you, that these people who already work the equivalent of two full time jobs, would not be classified as welfare queens?

    Would it be good enough if they actually made their living from the farms. OK, let’s look at that. My acquaintances who make their living as full time farmers seem to fall in two categories. Some are farmers who make their living off the land by renting it, or much of it. They may have a small agricultural based residence, which acts as a place to park their equipment. This is the smart way to do it because you cannot farm land that you own, profitably, at these land prices.

    The other category are farm service engineers and technicians. Some are farm managers and some are farm managers of the type that might be described as land butlers.

    So these are people who make their living tending the land, but really they are heavily subsidised because they don’t own the land. And, the people who do own the land can afford these subsidies partly because of land use taxation, which is the root of all these subsidies.

    Then there are the 20 or so commercially profitable farms, all of which take much of their profit from real agricultural commodity subsidies. That’s about $800,000 worth of real farm welfare.

    I don’t have anything against any of them, no matter how they support themselves. I can’t bring myself to call anyone who works as hard as these guys a welfare queen.

    You can make a subsidy arguement any way you want. I’ve made the case that land use taxation is the root cause of many of the “problems” you carp about.

    What do you suppose would happen to open space and farming, and conservation easements, without land use taxation?

    Not only am I convinced that your 10x rule is simply wrong, I don’t see any point in making it. Why go out of your way to irritate the very people you most want on your side, those that own and operate the open spaces?

    Instead of working to raise their costs through a complete and utter artificiality, you should be out working to ensure that their land use taxes are used for land use purposes, instead of subsidizing the residential areas. Ther are the places not paying their full costs, at least according to county officials. The rural areas should have more subsidies, not less. And this is a case where a subsidy is an incentive you can agree with.

    I think your argument is backward, wrong headed, wrong, twists other’s words, and it’s counterproductive.

    What really is the point?

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m not totally comfortable with the linkage between the 10X as a statement/assertion and some data.

    In particular, it could be useful to see an articulation of the locational items along with an estimate of what they should cost or would cost in the fee structure was adjusted.

    Beyond this, I would ask, suppose you can show this – conclusively but the private companies that provide these services deem it NOT in their best interests to allocate this way and that actually in doing so, they end up with less customers?

    We all know that some stores will offer “cost leaders” as a way to attract folks to the store – in hopes that they’ll buy other things with a better profit margin. Every store coupon you see in a paper works this way.

    So even if you prove the 10x rule – how would you implement it without putting government controls on private industry?

    By the way. I sit here with a internet cable hook-up that I pay through the nose for and 8 miles away a friend of mine pays 1/3 what I do for DSL but Verizon has chosen to not extend it to where I live.

    I would agree that this is a perfect example of a locational cost and that Verizon has chosen to not invest money into expansion – AT THIS TIME but they promise to do so – on a priority basis – as they can afford it – because over the longer run – they’ll get a return on their investment – and more.

    Do we really want to screw around with the marketplace in this regard?

  3. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    The 10X rule applies to dwelling units. The problem of cost of services to farm land is not discussed. Farm land by definition is productive land and like productive businesses returns value to the community. Dwellings are considered separate from the productive land. The balance point where the value returned by farm land equals the cost of services from dwellings depends on the productivity of the farm land.

  4. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Earlier comments have asked how the 10X rule applies to pods of development. You can find the following ratios in the discussion of a theoretical 1000 dwelling unit development on page 95 Chapter 4, Box 6. I interpret them this way:

    One Community of 10 units per acre. X
    A number of pods served by subdivision roads. 2.5X
    A greater number of pods each served by a small central parking lot connected by existing feeder roads. 5X

  5. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Larry:
    Government doesn’t have to implement a 10X rule. Your internet cable hook-up and your friend 8 miles away with DSL illustrates a 3X location density difference in cost of service.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: cost of cable/dsl

    Yes – it does right now but Verizon has said that they intend to extend service.

    This will come at an intial loss to them but their business plan is that by making that investment, ultimately it will benfit them.

    My question is “would you prevent private industry from extending services even on an initial loss basis if that is what they wanted to do as a private business?”

    This is to me an important question because the big gorilla in the closet is roads.

    So, if you have toll roads and they charge what it costs to service the commuters needs to commute and it is done by private industry and they actually turn a profit and return net money to the taxpayers for other services…

    what is the real problem?

    If the argument is that it is not as efficient and extra money is spent in that endeavor – if it is willinging spent by cousummers for something that they want – then what is the role of government in that circumstance?

    Do we outlaw products and services that are deemed not in the best interests of those who can afford them?

    This is why I think much more needs to be discussed with regard to HOW we would evolve settlement patterns without the force of government and with the force of the market.

    I’m not seeing a level of disclosure with regard to how this might work.. that would make me an avid supporter rather than a cautious skeptic.

    You have to SELL the idea, not lay it down as truth from on high only for true believers.

  7. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Larry:

    We are in agreement on most of this. I would prevent private industry from “cherry picking” and monopoly pricing. I would not prevent competitive business practices. I would allow products and services for those who can afford them. I would not ask the taxpayer to subsidize these individuals or services.

    Toll roads are a different problem. I grew up in Lancaster Pennsylvania and can name the Pikes in the area. Pike is another name for toll road. They are now all part of the public highway system. The only “private” facility I can name is White’s Ferry. The rest are concessions from the State, like Pocahontas Parkway which went broke and needed a longer contract and is lobbying for more taxpayer construction to turn the profit corner.

    The problem at the moment is the force of government is being used by developers to distort the force of the market. While the taxpayer want VDOT to end congestion, VDOT is working with the developers to subsidize costly markets while starving service in existing markets. Zoning laws encourage large lot by right use instead of developing communities. School Boards spend their building money on new schools serving new markets while they defer expansion and redevelopment of schools in existing locations. The market can not compete in this arena.

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    As I have noted in prior posts, there is no way for me to repeat 40 years of research and experience in every post. I try to porvide refereces to where I have developed this relationships in more detail.

    Thanks to Jim W. He has read our work and provides good perspectives on the issues.

    We are working as hard as we can to provide a clear a path to a sustainable future as we can and are sorry it is not always as clear as we hope.

    EMR

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I note Mr. Hyde was the first to jump on this post. It is hard to belive his denial in another string that someone is not paying him to “.. (join(ed) online converstionas to help steer them the way clients what them to go.” to quote The Washington Post’s Business section today.

    He seems to be bright enough to spot a good opportunity and he says he wants to stop commutting…

    On the other hand, potential clients may have done focus groups and found that persons like me who were novices in this field and who were initailly sympathetic have grown weary of his selfserving comments.

    In the above post he suggests that the quoted Anonymous poster did not mention land subdivision. As I read it this poster said: “But preventing the very “large lot” agriculturally zoned divisions prevents many people who would want to farm…” To me this says he opposes large lot subdivision prohibitions. Just another example…

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Dr. Risse:

    We were surprised that you noted Mr. Wamsley’s support but not ours.

    Alpha Zoro and Zora

  11. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim:

    One minor point:

    The 10 X Rule carries one from the Dwelling Unit through, Dooryard and Cluster to Neighborhood scale.

    The 10X Rule was derived for 1,000 units (let us assume 3,000 population, the size of a typical Alpha Neighborhood) on 10,000 acres in those four distributions.

    At the Village scale and especially at the Communtiy scale the calculations get much more complex and thus we always say “at least 10 X (ten times)” as costly for a simmilar bundle of services to support dwellings because we are sure the savings are potentially much greater but, as you point out, when you get jobs, services and recreation involved it becomes very complex. It also depends how far from the Centroid within the Clear Edge around the Core of the New Urban Region.

    The 10 Person Rule applies to the Community Scale and reflects what hundreds of entities building hundereds of Community scale urban enclaves have done over the past 50 years.

    Since we completed The Shape of the Future we have done more work on the “Disaggreaged but Balaced Community” and the component parts there of that exist in the Countryside. Places like Greater Warrenton Fauquier that have components like the Village Scale Greater Warrenton.

    We will be addressing those issues in TRILO-G.

    EMR

  12. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Alpha Zoro and Zora:

    You are right. I am sorry that I have not acklowledged your insights and comments.

    Please except our appologies.

    Keep up the good work.

    EMR

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    JW and EMR – thanks.

    I see the settlement pattern/governance condundrum in terms of how much is understood/accepted by average folks – as a “detector” of it’s viability for fostering real change.

    In other words – taking it from a concept to specific implementable things – regulations, policies, laws, removal of subsidies, etc.

    Specific things that can be promoted to the public… so that when a legislator is considering either writing a bill and/or supporting one that he/she knows what it is about and that they know that a certain number of their constituents know about it also.

    Some activists groups call these “talking points” to put in your letter to your elected…

    whatever you call them… if the concept is going to be more than a concept.. it needs to go to the next step….

    Like what exactly would I put in my letter to Senator Edd Houk – who does have a sympathetic ear to land-use issues. Three years ago in a forum, he alluded that to the fact that subdivision roads were sucking VDOT dry. He knew then.. what took the rest of the GA guys to figure out this year.

    At this point.. I’m simply not smart enough to know what exactly to advocate to him .. for.

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    If the ten x rule is right then it implies that we could subsist on one tenth as much energy, if we just lived in the right location.

    If we lived in the right location we would still have the same lights, computers and washing machines. The power would still come from West Virginia and Ohio.

    Until I see real, documented, peer reviewed data from case studies on facts in the field, I will continue to say this idea is utter hogwash. You will never achieve that kind of savings, and EMR’s hypothetical example has no meaning n the real world.

  15. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I stand corrected by Anonymous on Anonymous.

    I’m happy to admit when I am wrong when confronted with facts. I understood his comments differently.

  16. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I think Larry has a case with regard to subdivision roads. If they don’t go anywhere, why should we pay for them?

    On the other hand, there are subdivisions with dirt roads, and scattered residenceces along county roads that are also dirt roads. Observing the runoff and erosion problems these create, I’m no so sure we shouldn’t spring to pave them, and then bill the residents.

    But, where would we get the up-front money?

  17. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Larry, A wireless modem might cost you a lot less: if there are any cell towers in your area.

    Anyway, I assume you get cable television, too, so you can’t allocate all of the costs to your network costs. ;-))

  18. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “The problem of cost of services to farm land is not discussed. “

    There aren’t any services to farm land. That was the point of my comment. If Hope Porter is correct, and farms are subsidizing the residential areas, then farms are paying for what they don’t get.

    I think that needs to change, just as it has in New Zealand.

    EMR put it a little differently, by saying it doesn’t matter what the farm does, it’s the costs for the urban residences that count.

    Even by EMR’s standards, my situation is different. He would say I’m an urban residence, because I work in an urban area. But, this place was here long since, and became an “urban residence” through no fault of its own. And I still make a fair portion of my income from the land, unlike most of my neighbors.

    And, thank God for my neighbors, because some of my income comes from them. That means I don;t have to truck my hay 40 miles to sell it.

  19. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “You have to SELL the idea, not lay it down as truth from on high only for true believers. “

    Thank you. EMR MAY be right, but I’m not sold yet.

    ——————

    I’ve been accused of self-interest. Reading my post Icansee why.

    Let’s look at what happens if the 10x rule is invoked.

    My tqaxes go from $5000 a year to $50,000. My electric bill from $1500 to $15,000. The other 38 servies that I don’t get and don’t use go from $400 to $4000.

    Obviously, under those conditions I can’t afford to live here.

    But who is going to buy it? Anyone who might, can’t afford to live here either. Along with most of my neighbors. We would all move into town, driving the prices higher. Fortunately, I own a house in town, so I kick my tenants out and move there. But now, I have to pay the rent they are not paying, so that’s another $50,000.

    God knows where they will live.

    At $400 an acre of production, the land is orth $4000 an acre. But there will be so much more of it than any farmer needs, it will bring a fraction of that.

    The only reson we are using much of the farmland we have, is because it is a hobby.

    I throw up my hands in disgust, and let the county take it. But there is this great old farmhouse here. The county has so many housing problems from all the evicted tenants, that they turn it into a homeless shelter, re: the scene from Dr. Zhivago.

    Yep, I’m arguing against this idea from self interest. You gotta problem with that?

  20. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Your internet cable hook-up and your friend 8 miles away with DSL illustrates a 3X location density difference in cost of service. “

    Well, yeah, but maybe it wouldn’t be that way if the county hadn’t taken Larry’s building right. Larry is paying twice for a problem that he not only didn’t cause, but is a victim of.

  21. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Nope, I don’t get paid for this.

    I also don’t live in a large home on a large lot in a subdivision carved from a farm on the edge of twon. I don’t drive an SUV, either.

    I can, and freeze, the food I grow and I chop the scrap wood I burn.

    How about it JB? is your readership and posting up or down since I came on board? Wanna make e an offer?

    ——————

    EMR and I agree on many of our premises. It is the conclusions we draw that cause us to part ways.

    We both believe we are on an unsustainable track.

    He believes we can fix this by creating more of the places that are most unsustainable, and most likely to suffer major disasters.

    I believe the disaster will get us where we weren’t looking. It will be a culmination of many things, just as many disasters are.

    I think Al Gore is right: we will face displacing 100 million or more people from our major cities, although the cause may not be global warming, it could be nuclear holocaust, or any number of other things.

    When it is over, the bushmen and bedouins, the Amish and the eskimos will be better off than the canyon dweller.

    I’ve been accused of saying, “we’re screwed, no mattter what.” That is probably not too dis-accurate. The sun will burn out some day, extinction is not uncommon, etc. etc. We may be no luckier than the dinosaurs.

    But here is the thing: Fundamental Change has huge risks of its own. If we don’t do it we may face an unsustainable future, and many will die. If we do do it, then we may be faced with taking actions that will cause many to die.

    I don’t think we have the political will. Yet.

    But, in the meantime, history shows that diversification is the key to success. Putting 95% on 5% of the land is like putting 95% of your money in 5% of the market.

    I don’t think it is a question of how much land we use, it is how well we use it, and how much we enjoy it.

    While we are here.

  22. Lawrence Avatar
    Lawrence

    Call me a skeptic but I don’t see Dominion, Verizon, or cable folks aligning their rates according to settlement patterns.

    Right now, water/sewer is already done according to “nodes” – actually according to watershed.

    So again, settlement patterns have already evolved over time as to WHERE their outflow can be. i.e. you cannot have sewage outflows that go “nowhere”.

    On top of that, even if you had the best settlement pattern ever conceived – if it were situated where the only available outflow was – say just above a water supply reservoir – you might have problems with THAT location – right?

    Now – I’m truly not sure in the bigger scheme of things if part of the “better” settlement pattern regime that the intent is to have 100% recycle – and THAT would seem to me to be a major deal in terms of location of settlement patterns.

    Finally – there are four kinds of roads:

    1. – interstates – to connect states and regions

    2. – Regional/State level roads to connect regions within the state

    3. – local collector roads

    4. – subdivision roads.

    You need ALL of these roads no matter what kind of settlement pattern you have.

    For instance, 1 & 2 need to exist to provide national and state mobility… you know those WalMart Trucks…UPS, etc plus personal use for visting relatives, travel, getting to the airport, etc.

    The problem is #2 with some overlap to 1 and 3 CAN .. and ARE used in addition for commuting purposes between a settlement pattern and a job.

    I seriously doubt we can or should essentially outlaw commuting even if it collectively not good as long as folks have the money and the will to do it.

    What it seems that we CAN do is CHARGE what it costs to provide commuting infrastructure and beyond that.

    But I’ll admit, as I have before, I know that I”m not as smart as some of the folks who appear to have this figured out… but I’ve yet to see convincing advocacy.

  23. Jim Wamsley Avatar
    Jim Wamsley

    Ray Hyde analysis.

    “Let’s look at what happens if the 10x rule is invoked.

    My taxes go from $5000 a year to $50,000. My electric bill from $1500 to $15,000. The other 38 services that I don’t get and don’t use go from $400 to $4000.”

    On the other hand, I assume that because I live in a high rise sweet spot my mortgage will go down.

    Not likely. The 10X rule is based on current costs. Not all costs are averaged; most costs currently trend up as you leave the sweet spot.

    If additional sites were available for high rises near metro stations, the price would stabilize at a lower free market price. Current shortages in transportation investment distort the free market. On the other hand, current investment in highways distort the free market and increase demand for your property.

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: 10x

    what if a guy commuted but only 1 day every 2weeks and the rest of the time he telecommuted?

    Would he effectively be reducing his impact by 10X?

    I know.. dumb question.. maybe

    but the question is what impact does telecommuting have on the “sweet spot”?

    Good, bad or indifferent?

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    First and foremost, you miss a very important point – that in any cost benefit analysis, the benefits must be considered as well as the costs.

    You are doing exactly what I was criticizing – fixating on the costs to society (which I believe you are grossly overstating) and ignoring the huge benefits.

    A world without horses, heritage livestock, heritage vegetables, well-bred dogs, and organic gardens would be much the poorer. What’s the point in living in an isolated urban desert?

    >The problem is that now the urban household that is also a hobby farmer is highly subsidized.
    >
    I’d love to hear how, given that I don’t see these subsidies that you keep talking about.

    Please be specific.

    > Subsides come via government action at all levels, by utility suppliers who apply flat fees
    >
    The only utilities I have are phone and electricity. I am in a much better position to generate some of my own power (which I’ve considered doing with solar) than those in the city.

    Phone service and electricity are required all over the country (remember the rural electrification project, which you doubtless don’t care for) – and pulling a branch off of an existing line is a relatively small charge, which I believe the householder has to pay for in the first place when they build.

    The rest are all non-public. Water? I have a well. Sewer? I have a septic tank. High-speed Internet? (Picks self off of floor laughing.) My friendly Hughes Satellite. Trash pickup? Pickup is right, as in it goes in the pickup to be delivered to the dump by myself or spouse. Road? I live off of an existing rural road that’s been here a long, long time. School bus route? I don’t have kids in school now, but I have no objection to charging for rides.

    > and by goods and service users who pay a higher cost for the necessities of a contemporary life because of the cost of serving scattered urban land uses.
    >
    Examples? I pay for my goods and services – and then pay a delivery fee, which varies according to where it’s sent. Go to a less convenient place, and you pay more. So I’m already paying location-specific costs there.

    I get minimal services in my still mostly rural county, which is fine, because I expect and want minimal services.

    > What else happens on the land does not lower the cost of the location-dependent goods and services necessary to support an urban lifestyle.
    >
    No. The different is the value to society, which is considerable.

    Small farmers provide value – both tangible and intangible – to our society – by preserving rural culture, by preserving rare livestock and plant breeds, by raising horses, by raising well-bred dogs, by providing a source of locally raised fruits and vegetables.

    Bottom line – if you want to preserve agricultural land and agricultural activities, you have to preserve farmers. More and more farmers now, out of necessity, are not able to make a living via farming alone.

    Society wants the benefits that I provide – and because I enjoy what I do, I am willing to basically work two jobs. You need to look at the benefits to society, not just the costs.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    > The Anon poster was concerned about regulations preventing the non-urban land uses from being carried out and prohibitions against land subdivision of land to create small parcels.
    >
    Not exactly. I am concerned about regulations preventing non-urban uses, and about zoning rules (like requiring VDOT quality access roads, rather than a gravel driveway) and outright prohibitions of land subdivisions to produce medium sized (10-50+ acres) parcels. Traditionally, largish subdivisions have been permitted by right on agricultural land in many areas.

    > He / She would be happy to see to availability of land for such uses increase (and the cost go down) when the use of land for scattered urban land uses are no longer subsidized.
    >
    I’d be happy to see both. I think the actual cost (given the low level of services we usually get) is probably lower than you think.

    Mostly, I think there is a major difference, both in costs and in value to society at large, between traditional subdivisions stuck in the middle of rural areas, versus small farming on modest-sized parcels.

  27. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 3:36

    Are we to assume that you are the Anon 7:38 noted in the original post or are you some one in the same position? (We usually hear from those Anon’s who would like to continue to get the subsidy and not pay their fair share.)

    It would be good if you gave yourself a name and acknowledged earlier posts if they were yours.

    Be that as it may be, you make a good point:

    The belefits to both individuals and tos society must be considered with the costs to individuals and to society.

    In this democracy we have a mechanism for doing that, it is called the market.

    If the market does not work in a particular case then there may need to be transparent, specific, targeted adjustments either temporary of longer term.

    That is the role of government which has the responsiblity of looking out for the general welfare.

    All of our work on the evolution of functional settlement patterns recognizes the need for beneficial use of the 95 percent of the land that is not needed for urban land uses.

    What we oppose is the counterproductive subsidy now granted to all who choose to live in dysfunctional patterns or advocate the perpetuation of those patterns.

    There will be some hard cases but first lets take care of the Welfare Queens of large lot urban housing where there is not question about some benefit.

    I know REA well, I grew up in Montana. There was much good that came from that program but have you seen what they are doing lately? In hindsight, there may have been a better way to go with REA. Another subject. There is surley a better way to go now than flat rates for power, regardless of location or use and utilities that are trying to find ways to expand energy use to enhance profits with out regard to long term impact.

    For a good perspective on the long term bad of a program what seemed like a good idea at the time see Phipip Kennicott’s “On DVD, American Propaganda’s High Water Mark” in the Sunday WaPo. (Page N2) This is a great item about which you will hear more soon.

    In the meantime without knowing far more than you have told us about what you do and where you do it we cannot comment on your condition.

    You may be interested that “some of my best friends” are trying to figure out how square their 30 acre farm with 21st centruy reality.

    By the way there are no “mostly rural” jurisdictions in Virginia. There are some very low density urban areas in urban support jurisdictions but no “rural” ones. A whole valley full of “hold two jobs” farmers do not make “rural.”

    EMR

  28. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Clarification:

    I was posting in response to Anon 3:36 when Anon 3:46 posted.

    EMR

  29. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “then there may need to be transparent, specific, targeted adjustments either temporary of longer term.

    That is the role of government which has the responsiblity of looking out for the general welfare.”

    I just wanted to make sure what I am reading.

    Are you advocating that the GOVERNMENT make these changes even if they contradict market forces?

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: rural electrification program.

    That WAS a government intervention in the market – as if the idea that we all now pay a fee on our phone and other communication providers bills to extend the internet to rural areas.

    The counter argument is that communication, electric power and mobility are (for right or wrong) should be provided on an equal access basis to all citizens so that they are not penalized for choosing to live in a rural area.

    Even if we could go back and rip up the existing infrastructure and/or somehow convince private providers of these services to redo their rate structures – it would not change people who for five generations have lived there and I know of no way to continue to provide longtime residents with these services while denying it to long-distance commuters.

    I think this approach is wrongheaded both from an equitable point of view as well as a market point of view.

    Versizon is not going to have two rate structures.. one for “real” farms and one for hobby farms owned by commuters.

    or.. let me back off and ask that it be explained.. because perhaps.. I don not understand.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “By the way there are no “mostly rural” jurisdictions in Virginia. There are some very low density urban areas in urban support jurisdictions but no “rural” ones. A whole valley full of “hold two jobs” farmers do not make “rural.””

    Does that include counties like Bath, Highland, Giles, etc? I really have a hard time accepting them as low density urban.

  32. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 10:55

    I know you do. When I say that in West Virginia they reach in their pocket in a threatening manner. In Montana they react in even more violent ways.

    The municipal jurisdictions you name (and most of West Vriginia) are in the Appalacian Urban Support Region and on the surface look like places that were once “rural.”

    Ask them how they liked Letterman last night, what their three favorite songs are, if they have a MasterCard, what NFL team the root for, how much they pay for necissities of life, what brands of food, beverage and other good they perfer, how often they order on line or via phone, if they have Fed Ex and UPS delivery, etc. You get the idea.

    As we note in The Shape of the Future, believing they live in “rural” areas helps keep citizens from taking actions to preserve what is great about the Countryside and further spread the forces of urban scatteration.

    Just for fun go down to Courthouse in Bath, Giles and Highland Counties and see how much of the jurisdiction is owned by international, national, out of state, out of county organizations and individuals.

    Sorry Anon, we are all in this together.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The municipal jurisdictions you name (and most of West Vriginia) are in the Appalacian Urban Support Region and on the surface look like places that were once “rural.””

    The examples you’re giving of a wider world in rural communities actually were also applicable fifty years ago, in these same counties (one of which my family is from, for many generations, the others of which I have friends who go back to.)

    “Ask them how they liked Letterman last night, what their three favorite songs are, if they have a MasterCard, what NFL team the root for, how much they pay for necissities of life, what brands of food, beverage and other good they perfer, how often they order on line or via phone, if they have Fed Ex and UPS delivery, etc. You get the idea.”

    Just to point out – even fifty years ago, people there had television, they had credit cards, they had radio and records, they rooted for NFL teams, they bought food, beverages, and other goods like the rest of us (yes, more canned and home grown goods – but they had store bought goods even then, with regular shopping trips to urban centers). They regularly bought mail order and by phone even then. They had package delivery even then (I don’t know about Fed Ex and UPS, but everything from clothes to chicks were delivered by Sears by mail as long as I can remember – there used to be a huge Sears catalog and even a special Sears farm catalog people got. Online ordering is new, but the idea of mail ordering isn’t.)

    The biggest differences today are the widespread availability and convenience of satellite Internet, with all that implies, including the ability to telecommute and work a second job from very remote areas, and the ubiquitous Wal-Mart, which brings big box shopping within driving distance of VERY remote areas – cuts the drive to do the “big shop in the city” down quite a lot.

    It’s changed, but it wasn’t as isolated as you seem to think even 50 years ago. I don’t live there now (I migrated to the far exurbs in Central Virginia), but I still visit.

    It wasn’t as different as you think it was. The roads may not have been paved back then (not kidding), but rural even then wasn’t Ellie Mae and Jethro.

  34. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Anon 4:50

    You are right. The end of “rural” started after the Civil War and really accellerated after the outbreak of the World War I, at least in northwestern Montana where I grew up.

    The use of “50 years” was just a point in time when I was first remote areas East of the Mississippi and know that I did not see what I do now. But hindsight is 20 / 20 or at least 50 / 50.

    What really happened 50 years ago was the explosion in land values and land not based on what the land would produce but what it was worth to an outsider and what the other land owners then thought they should get for their land.

    It happened in the Bitterroot Valley in 1946 (oops that is 60 years) and in small Caribbean Islands where I was lucky enough to be in the mid 60s.

    The important thing is you got my point and added new detail from your experience.

    We are all in the same pizza together now.

    EMR

Leave a Reply

Read More