FURTHER NOTE ON HOUSING

On 9 November we posted “WRONG SIZE HOUSE, WRONG LOCATION.

Subsequently, we promised to add a note in response to several comments. The original string is now 48 comments long, many of them not related to the core issue. So we will start over.

Groveton asked: “What makes a right location?” “Right location” is not determined by what any one person or Household does, it is determined by what everyone in the Community does to achieve Balance.

Groveton puts it this way: “… whether my house is in the right location seems to depend a lot on whether my job is in the right location.”

That is a start but it is not just the house and the job that matters.

It is Balance of J / H / S / R / A that matters. It is all the elements required to assemble a quality life. As many of the elements as possible that are needed to make you happy and safe should be “in the best locations.” As a backup there needs to be a shared vehicle system to get you to a few high value places that do not fit in the Village-scale station area or in the Community – say a job in the Zentrum, the Regional train station, stadium or concert hall.

Lets us assume one has a job and a home that are in convenient proximity. Next thing you know, children are on the horizon. The question that the partners must ask is not “where is the best school?”

The questionS are:

What can we do with those in my Dooryard and Cluster to crate the best environment for infants and toddlers?

What can we do with those in my Neighborhood to create the best environment and education for our grade schoolers?

What can we do with those in my Village to create the best environment and education for our junior and senior high schoolers?

What can we do with those in my Community to create the best environment and community Agencies and Institutions – including a Community college for all of us?

Ask not where to go to find a ________, ask how can we can create great ________s in this Community.

You say you move too often and change living patterns too often to make this work?

You may think you are still living in the past when burning through Natural Capital paid for a much wider range of choice and the level of excess which is reflected in the widening wealth gap, the financial crisis, food insecurity, energy dependence, etc., and, of course, dysfunctional settlement patterns.

In fact there never was a time when this “go where and when I want” strategy worked for more than a few at the top of the Ziggurat. It seemed like it a few decades ago but that was a temporary illusion driven by advertising and living off of cheap energy and foreign debt.

The Large, Private Vehicle Mobility Myth is that a Household can live where they want, seek employment where they want and then Agencies can provide a Mobility and Access system that allows everyone to go wherever they what, whenever they want and arrive in a timely manner.

Larry Gross asks again about “data.” We will get to data (again) in a further note as promised in UPON FURTHER REVIEW.

TMT said “As I understand the rule, if you take a job on the Hill, you should sell your house…”

Well that is a problem. Some will be able to do that, not everyone.

TMT, let us be clear the “Rule” is “pay the full location variable cost and you can do what you want.”

However, given humans – especially in the US of A – have burned through so much of their Natural Capital they will find the choices going forward are constrained by the market and by democratic processes – if humans are fortunate enough to preserve democracy and a market economy in the face of declining resources and growing demand by those who have been left behind by past actions.

If you think there are too many taxes now, just wait until you finally get around to costing out the true location-variable tab for the life style you espouse as a right.

The choice is intelligent and Fundamental Transformation or

Collapse.

Failure to prepare for the future and failure to reconsider traditional practices when conditions change is the prelude to Collapse.

As you may have noted, conditions HAVE changed.

It is depressing that Large, Private Vehicles and the Wrong Size Houses in the Wrong Location – places like Mountain Home – are the primary drivers of dysfunctional human settlement patterns. In spite of this reality, they have been used to “recover” from every recession since The Great Depression.

Now, when it should be clear to all that a new perspective is needed to achieve a sustainable trajectory for civilization, all the “leadership” is talking about is bailing out Detroit and propping up a flawed financial system exposed by the mortgage, derivative and default swap meltdown.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “FURTHER NOTE ON HOUSING”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Sigh.

    And he got off to such a nice reasonable start.

    RH

  2. “In spite of this reality, they have been used to “recover” from every recession since The Great Depression. “

    Maybe because that is what works.

    Or we can all consume less, go hungry, and enjoy the depression secure in the knowlege that it is for the greater common good and long term sustainability.

    YIKES.

    RH

  3. Grovetons Avatar

    Was it just me or did this site’s IP address disappear for a few days? My attempts to log on led me to a Network Solutions web page that said the domain name had expired but might be getting renewed. I assumed that was the case but I am wondering if I was just being technically illiterate. On the good news front, there was a woman pictured on the “Expired Domain Name” from Network Solutions. Man, she was hot. OK – it’s only a picture and not a provocative picture at all. But, I am going to go looking for expired domain names as soon as I post this comment!

  4. Let me check…

    no… my blather-o-meter shows 24/7 uptime for BR.

    Perhaps you have a virus.. that has hijacked your computer and turned it into a zombie….

    ;-&

    kidding aside.. I'd not noticed any loss of "signal"….

  5. EMR’s answer more or less confirmed what I already thought – the change to his version of functional human settlement patterns would require a sweeping revolution in how almost everybody lives. That’s too bad. Absent war I see little chance of America undergoing a sweeping revolution. Of course, if the present settlement patterns really leave us with a disaster – maybe things will be accelerated.

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton, All,

    Tysons Corner will be an interesting test case for all of this. I heard a presentation last night and the latest spin is that the transformation will take 40+ years to complete. Figures this will be long after most of the people making the decisions will be around to face any consequences of their “utopian planning”

    NMM

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    NMM, your understanding is correct; Tysons will not magically change over night, but over many years. That’s another reason why it would be totally irresponsible for Fairfax County to adopt a plan that grants major increases in density now and ties the hands of future elected officials.

    Despite the crap being peddled by the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, Tysons Corner is only one location in the county for development. It is in competition with many other areas. Of course, the next scam is likely to be an attempt by the Tysons landowners and their minions to restrict development in other parts of the county.

    There are property rights and there are property rights.

    TMT

  8. E M Risse Avatar

    Groveton said:

    “EMR’s answer more or less confirmed what I already thought – the change to his version of functional human settlement patterns would require a sweeping revolution in how almost everybody lives.”

    Groveton, this is a variation of the virial “More Places Myth”

    The 87.5 Rule is based on the fact that the vast majority already live, at the Dooryard and Cluster scale in patterns and densities that would support Balanced Communities.

    Our own research is backed up by numbers from Maryland and elsewhere.

    The problem is scattered Neighborhoods and Villages and no understanding of the need for Balance.

    You, Larry and other 12.5 Percenters have a hard time understanding that because you and many you know best made the same decisions that you did about your own best interests. The Regional market in every Region documents a differentl reality.

    Most of the Fundamental Transformation starts inside citizens heads and that can happen quickly.

    “That’s too bad. Absent war I see little chance of America undergoing a sweeping revolution.”

    And they call me the pesimist!

    “Of course, if the present settlement patterns really leave us with a disaster – maybe things will be accelerated.”

    As we have said for almost two decades, the problem is not insurmountable IF when citizens realize the need for Fundamental Transformation there are still resources left to make the transformation.

    The talk of bailing out the Autonomobile industry and “rescuing” those who made bad decisions does not bode well in this regard.

    Check out Samuelson’s new book profiled on the cover of the 10 Nov Newsweek “The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath.

    (Who knew Newsweek was still published? Doctors office managers.)

    He misses several big factors but he is right that the future will be different due to dwindling resources.

    EMR found the discussion on Mountain House (Monday Morning Test) very useful.

    It seems that with a concrete example of gross dysfunctional location the Myths that drive Geographic Illericy come to the fore where they can be whacked.

    But is it just Whack a Mole or will citizens learn?

    EMR

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    I think I finally understand:

    J / H / S / R / A

    =

    B / Y /O /B

    =

    H /A / N /G /O / V /E / R

    Peter Galuszka

  10. “this is a variation of the virial “More Places Myth”

    Nice to see I have reached mythical status.

    RH

  11. “…based on the fact that the vast majority already live, ….in patterns and densities that would support Balanced Communities. “

    So, what is the problem then? Don’t have the jobs and other amenities spread out right?

    Why do we have to worry about a few outliers?

    RH

  12. “The talk of bailing out the Autonomobile industry and “rescuing” those who made bad decisions does not bode well in this regard.”

    We know you hate automobiles, but what would you propose to about the one in 20 people who would lose their jobs without the auto industry? Are they going to make shoes for our new pedestrian friendly economy?

    (Some people claim on in ten, but that is probably inflated.)

    RH

  13. “Of course, the next scam is likely to be an attempt by the Tysons landowners and their minions to restrict development in other parts of the county.

    There are property rights and there are property rights.”

    That is EXACTLY what has happened in Fauquier, on a smaller scale.

    Except that rather than being done by rich landowners with urban holdings to develop, it was done by rich landowners with rural land to protect.

    Funny thing about Big Money.

    RH

  14. I think RH is right – how to get the jobs and homes close enough. I guess moving the jobs is easier than moving the homes.

    But Bob says that most of the automobile trips are for something other than commuting. I think he’s right. I conducted a statistical sample of one. My wife puts a lot more miles on her car than I put on mine – even after I inflated my milage for the many days I am out of town.

    I thought about that further. I took one specific example of non-commuting milage – little league football practice. Drive the boy to practice, drop him off. Drive home. Do something for an hour. Drive back to the practice field, pick the boy up. Drive home again. Two round trips to/from practice.

    Yes, there are times when my wife stays at practice, yes there are times when rides are shared with others in the neighborhood. There are even times when I do the drop off and pick up. But – those trips are going to be made and made by car. Working from home doesn’t work when it comes to team practice.

    I guess you could order groceries over the internet and have them delivered. Assuming that the delivery was made by a truck that made many stops – it would be more efficient than everybody driving to and from the store to shop and unload.

    But, it seems to me, that seriously putting a dent in road use means either a much more sophisticated public transit system (including the subsidies to make its use economically attractive), rebuilding neighborhoods with sufficient density to achieve critical mass (including the bulldozing of low density dwellings) or dramatically changing our lifestyles (like banning little league football for all but the kids who can walk to/from practice).

    I’d be very interested in hearing how one could take a real life community like Springfield, VA or McLean and turn it into a balanced community without drastic action. Because I personally believe that the drastic action is more painful than just building more roads.

  15. Also – if you want to strongly discourage scatterization and you don’t want to impinge on people’s property rights – why not just tax the bejesus out of gasoline?

    When the government wanted people to stop smoking what did it do? First, it pasted scary messages on the side of cigarette packs.

    That wasn’t enough.

    Then, it made smoking illegal at work.

    That wasn’t enough.

    Then, it made smoking in bars and restaurants illegal (most places).

    That wasn’t enough.

    So, they hiked the taxes to the moon (in some places). A friend in the Big Apple tells me that a pack of cigarettes purchased from a newspaper stand in Manhattan now costs $10.

    Oh yeah – I forgot, the government sued pretty much everybody who ever made cigarettes.

    And guess what? People are still smoking!

    If you think nicotine is addictive – you ain’t seen nothing yet. The modern American lifestyle of having what you want, when you want it, any way you’d like is a whole lot more addictive that mere tobacco.

  16. Commuting is about 20% of travel.

    Congestion affects 10% of the roads 15% of the time.

    In a post below Larry refers to a report listed at http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3840

    Look at the graph there. It shows what might happen to density of housing if urban tolls were in effect.

    Just as EMR predicts density woudl increase and scatteraton would decrease.

    Only nowhere near as MUCH as he predicts. the graph also shows that the density around subcenters or edge cities is nearly as great as at the core. in other words it will pay to have multiple subcenters, just as other reserchers have predicted.

    Based on a number of effects the author figures that this will result in a net social benefit, after the cost of tolls is subtracted from other benefits that may develop.

    He doesn’t say how long this might take to develop. Nor does his graph give any idea what the radius of effect is.

    But, at the far radius the study predicts density will fall. This suggests exactly what I suggested which is that tolls will amount to a subsidy for urban landowners, and a penalty for suburban landowners.

    In other words, while this will result in a net social benefit, the author did not address the issue of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, or how the winners pay off the losers and still come out ahead.

    The other thing is that the model shoes the change in density as a cross section of a hypothetical city, but if you consider it as a 3D map it is clear that the change in density effects in the far suburbs will cover a much greater area than density effects in the inner areas. Again, just as EMR predicts.

    I’d have to assume that the author took area considerations into account, but I can;t tell that from this report.

    Like Bob, I’m not sure I understand his “balbnce sheet”. the authors shows loss of housing values of 56.6 billion as a cost, and toll revenues of 63.6 billion as a revenue. But wouldn’t those have to show up on the costs side as well?

    The model focuses on only the costs and benefits of congestion pricing, so it does not qualify as a systems model, which might show very different results. It assumes people will still drive and there are no mode shifts. It assumes there is no job shifting or relocation of workplaces.

    I’m gonna have to see the original report, and may be write to Winston to fully understand.

    My take is that this suggests that everybody here is patially right, and no one has the whole picture.

    We need a lot more of this kind of thing and a lot less of EMR’s hypotheses before we can begin to think about how to actually accomplish whatever it is the fully integrated models eventually suggest.

    RH

  17. “…don’t want to impinge on people’s property rights – why not just tax the bejesus out of gasoline?”

    Wait a minute. I figure the money in my pocket is property. Any new tax or incresed tax impinges on my property rights. The question is whether I get my moneys worth or not.

    —————————-

    ” I guess moving the jobs is easier than moving the homes.”

    Probably easier AND cheaper. The Citizens are not the ones who planned and constructed this mess, why should THEY be the ones to endure a new tax, that will result in jobs moving anyway?

    Tax the BOS,and the EX BOSes. I’ll bet they made plenty of money along the way.

    —————————–

    “Because I personally believe that the drastic action is more painful than just building more roads.”

    My feeling too, except we aren’t going to get the new roads where we need them because of nonattainment and expense. And we don’t need new roads anyway, we have plenty that are barely used.

    The only drastic action we need is to cut back the job density in some areas until the congestion stops.

    RH

  18. “I’d be very interested in hearing how one could take a real life community like Springfield, VA or McLean and turn it into a balanced community without drastic action.”

    I’d be intereted to take a few comunities and apply drastic action (temporarily) as an experiment to see if any of this could ever work. Ban all cars from Warrenton for three months, except jitneys, and at teh same time saturate the place with free jitneys providing guranteed ten minute service intervals.

    At the end of three months add up the cost of operating the jitneys and see if it makes the slightest bit of sense, compared to individual ownership.

    RH

  19. Good points. More thought should be put into a city and its development- Peter the Great did wonders with a swamp- he built Saint Petersburg, Russia.

    Oh well- I hope the stadium never ends up in the Shockhoe area…

  20. I found this interesting:

    “Stafford: Each house costs county $92,002

    That’s the new comprehensive plan’s answer to the question: How much does each new single-family home cost the county? The plan’s financial-impact model calculates each new home’s share of the county infrastructure–things like schools, parks, libraries, roads, fire departments and administration buildings.”

    http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/112008/11202008/425272

    Now.. if that number does not snap your socks …consider the transportation part of it:

    How much of the $92,002 is attributed to the cost per home of funding transportation needs?

    $46,975

    How did the county arrive at this number?

    “Few localities have tackled the issue with as much vigor as Stafford County has.

    “It’s a complex model,” Planning Commissioner Michael Rhodes said. “We’re way ahead of other counties. I don’t think anyone has this level of sophistication.”

    Okay… so the point is that scatterization – of which Stafford, an exurban community smack in the bullseye has done a study of the transportation costs of low-density suburban road infrastructure.

    They got this number from their previous study of whether or not to accept the General Assembly’s 3202 offer ..that in exchange for taking over the county’s roads…that they would be given the power to assess impact fees county-wide (rather than proffers only on rezones).

    So.. to summarize.. the results of their study on devolution of the roads generate a dollar number per house for transportation costs.

    This would be the number that they would have to assess each house as it’s share of providing roads to serve it.

    So.. what did Stafford do?

    Two things.

    1. they kept their current proffer at 42K for rezones

    2. they decided NOT to maintain their own roads because obviously there would be a 42K deficit per home unless they raise the impact fees.

    3. they let VDOT continue to maintain the roads.

    Contrast this with the cities and towns … and two counties Alexandria and Henrico’s approach which is.. that they ARE responsible for their roads…

    AND as a direct consequence – responsible for transportation infrastructure costs imposed by their land-use decisions.

    What the toll roads do – is essentially internalize a previous externalization…

    ..which is the cost of providing roads for commuting.

    Very similar to the situation that Stafford found itself in …when it became a bedroom community …. for commuters.

    What EMR and Jim Bacon have advocated is for folks to each pay the costs of their decisions about where to work – ad where to live.

    Tolls and Impact fees (that incorporate the transportation costs) …ARE a way to price those decisions…

    AND.. I would submit… a much BETTER approach than having any kind of centralized government deciding where people and businesses can locate or not.

    I’ve always maintained.

    If someone wants to live 40 miles from where they work – fine by me… just pay your share of the transportation costs.

    and you can see..that with the current gas tax paradigm .. that this does not happen… as there is no way that each commuter in Stafford ..will generate 40K from his gas taxes to pay for the costs required to provide him with transportation infrastructure – and this is just his part for the county – and does not include the rest of the costs of his commute once he leaves the county and uses roads in other counties on the way to his job each day.

    Now.. I know ..that some will question this study but let me add one more ingredient to this stew which at the least partially validates…

    VDOT is running out of money.

    Why is VDOT running out of money?

    Because more and more of their funding has to be spent on maintenance.

    What is the fastest growing part of their maintenance costs?

    It’s not interstates or primaries.. of which only a few miles a year is added…

    Nope.. it’s the 400 miles a year of subdivision roads and upgrading of the 600 series rural roads to handle the new subdivisions…

    so… wrong-location.. does have consequences…

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “What is the fastest growing part of their maintenance costs?

    It’s not interstates or primaries.. of which only a few miles a year is added…”

    And where. exactly are the biggest traffic jams and congestion?

    It’s on the primaries.

    Now, commuting accounts for 20% of all travel, so lets charge 20% of the travel – people going to work – enough to make up for all our other deficits.

    And where are those people going? They are going to work in jobs that have been created in the wrong location.

    But it’s OK because we have this complex model that shows us every new house costs us $92,000.

    Not evey new job that’s 40 miles away from where people want to live, nope, it’s every new house that’s 40 miles from where someone wants them to work.

    RH

  22. “Why is VDOT running out of money?

    Because more and more of their funding has to be spent on maintenance.”

    Well, DUH.

    I have the same problem on the farm. Every time I add something new, it has to be maintained.

    I can do nothing and lapse into stasis, and probably my maintenace bill will STILL go up.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    “How much of the $92,002 is attributed to the cost per home of funding transportation needs?

    $46,975″

    How much of that is commuting cost?

    $9400.

    RH

  24. “Why is VDOT running out of money?

    Because more and more of their funding has to be spent on maintenance.”

    Ahhhh…. because the gas tax has not been raised in 20+ years although both the labor and material for road building and maintenence have skyrocketed?

    Your General Assembly at work.

  25. re: running out of money…

    inflation costs certainly contribute but when subdivision roads are built to VDOT standards.. then VDOT agrees to maintain them and this means snow plowing… pothole filling, ditch-pulling, and re-paving.

    When you add 400 miles of these every year – it has a fiscal impact.

    Question – if you are running out of money – and the solution is to raise taxes –

    do you spend the new money to reduce congestion or to maintain the roads?

    The law..in Virginia currently says that maintenance must be paid for FIRST.

    What that means … is that a nickel or even a dime.. increase..most of that will get used for maintenance.

    RH – you mentioned that safety and keeping people from getting killed – i.e. “safety” is a primary reason to fund roads.

    and right you are.. and “maintenance” first is how you do this.

    and Groveton brings up inflation – and right he is.

    So.. putting an inflation index (with or without an actual increase) would probably be more acceptable to most.

    But as for as increasing taxes to buy down congestion – forget it.

    It’s just not going to happen unless the folks who are actually causing the congestion are going to pay.

    You’re just not going to collect taxes from RoVa folks to buy down congestion in NoVa even if buying down congestion was a viable strategy..and we know it is not.

    The BEST strategy for congestion is to charge folks who are causing it – and guess what.. that’s the solution that will be implemented.

  26. “When you add 400 miles of these every year – it has a fiscal impact.”

    Which is mitigated by all the taxes those new people pay, as Bob has pointed out. It isn;t that the money isn’t there, it is that the accounting is screwed up. Then there is still inflation to consider, and the need for new roads – independent of new users.

    “But as for as increasing taxes to buy down congestion – forget it.

    It’s just not going to happen unless the folks who are actually causing the congestion are going to pay.”

    And just who do you think that is? people driving on the roads? People only driving on new roads? Only new peoplw in the area? Onlly people who drive farther than others?

    None of those answers are right. The right answer is that congestion is caused by planners and BOS’s that permit more attractive nuisances in one area than the roads (and or metro, if it exists) can handle.

    Blaming and taxing the drivers who are stuck in, suffering from, and paying for congestion already, is a double whammy. Particularly since the overall congestion level is likely to increase in spite of whatever else we do about roads, congestion tolling, or hot lanes.

    Congestion tolling and HOT lanes DEPEND on congestion for their existence, so that cannot possibly be a full answer.

    In the end, we will realize we need to attack the root cause, which is too many attractive nuisances in too small an area with too litle road and parking capacity.

    RH

  27. Peter the Great wouldn’t be allowed to buid in a wetland today.

    RH

  28. “You’re just not going to collect taxes from RoVa folks to buy down congestion in NoVa even if buying down congestion was a viable strategy..and we know it is not.”

    Agreed. So the only answer reamining is to move NOVA congestion – and jobs – to ROVA.

    RH

  29. Whether it is housing or congestion this sees to be an accurate picture:

    “What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That’s not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. “Jeeze, 230 pounds!” But you can’t pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. “

    PJ O’Rourke

  30. On another housing front, broadly supported by EMR:

    “In June, 2005, the Supreme Court infamously decided that cities could condemn peoples’ land to give to private developers provided the government had written an economic development plan for the project. In response to arguments that many previous such plans had failed, the Supreme Court merely said that “we decline to second-guess the City’s considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan.”

    A decision that was roundly criticized by economists. How’d it work out?

    Three years after the decision, no one had to second-guess the city’s judgments. Instead, it was clear that they were wrong. The homes of Susette Kelo and her neighbors have all been torn down or removed. But, except for the remodeling of one government building into another government building, virtually no new development had taken place in the Fort Trumbull district by May, 2008.”

    Warren Meyer

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    “Why is so much of the subprime mess concentrated in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida? Of the 20 zipcodes with the worst negative equity, 13 are in three counties–one in CA, one in NV, and one in FL. Is this just a random event? I don’t think so. But I don’t know the reason and I haven’t seen one.”

    Cafe Hayek

Leave a Reply