GAS PRICES AND RELATED

The WaPo series “Oil Shock” continued today. All in all a good series that has been running since 27 July. How can you not like a series that profiles your past life?

The oil field profiled in the 29 July story looks EXACTLY like the oil lease North and West of Bakersfield where our family lived during the late 40s. That house in the background in the page A-8 photo with a few scraggly athel trees could our house. My father and mother were farmers. He also worked in the oil fields during World War II – too old for military service. The job in Central Valley “old field production” was a way station after being forced out of farming in the Santa Inez Valley. While living in Coalinga they decided to move to Montana where hunting, fishing and sub-irrigated meadows beckoned.

But back to the series: Today’s story: “Gas Prices Applying Brakes To Suburban Migration; Reality Check on the American Dream” repeats much of what you have heard from Bacon and Risse for over 20 years. All the usual suspects say the usual things including the mouth pieces for Business-As-Usual and the Autonomobile. See the note on funding of transportation “experts” in THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.

Ironically WaPo chose to feature a home in South Riding. South Riding started as a quasi New Urbanist Planned New Village. Of all the places in the eastern part of Loudoun County, South Riding still has the best shot at Balance and “community” at the Village scale. There is a range of building types, a plan with the original intent of becoming an “English Village” and a core of First Families that believe in creating something better than more dysfunctional human settlement patterns. Full disclosure: The South Riding governance structure is a former client of SYNERGY/Planning.

In the end, the story is more He Said, She Said journalism — with a small “j” — but at least it mentions the problems even if it papers over most of them with Geographically Illiterate foolishness such as we will not “all decide to live in apartment houses.” Who in the world said “everyone” would or should? Only the strawperson spinners of the Autonomobile crowd. A Balanced (Alpha) Community could have fewer apartments that Single Household Detached dwellings and no “high-rises” but that does not keep the Autonomobile crowd from throwing up red herrings and strawpersons to scare the uninformed and ride the tiger a little longer. See “Tiger Riders” 2 June 2008.

For those who continue to obfuscate an understanding of human settlement patterns by railing against S/P’s campaign for the use of precise language, take a look at the graphic sidebar on page A14. You will note Radial Analysis (truncated by the lack of data below the County scale) and the use of terms like “Core.” We suspect the editors never looked at the side bar. It makes too much sense and if you read it with care you understand how much of WaPo coverage is misleading at best and often intentional obfuscation.

An aside: Check out The Shape of the Future page at Amazon.Com. Look at the “Inside the Book” feature and at “Statistically Improbable Phrases.” This is a feature that Amazon added not long after our book was published in 2000. The same sort of software now produces those “word balloons” that are popular on “style” pages. A lot of what were “statistically improbable phrases” in the early years of the decade are not any longer.

Back to gasoline, CNN Money.Com reprinted a Fortune story yesterday “Falling oil prices: The Downside” that is a MUST READ. The reason oil prices (and gas prices) are down is lower demand – here, not in China or India. That is bad news for the economy and the need to establish a rational strategy to reduce consumption and energy waste without causing a long, hard depression. See our column of yesterday – “Beyond the Headlines” – for further discussion of the missed opportunities.

Apparently the mavens of Gambling Venue New York (aka, the New York Stock Market) did not get to their MUST READ pile. They will in a day or two and the market will drop 200 points. That is what gambling venues do to keep the game interesting.

And on the politics-as-usual front: candidates are falling all over themselves to find ways to lower the price of gasoline and energy. They should be suggesting ways to lower the consumption of gasoline, energy and non-renewable resources, not just lowering the price.

Let the market work, stop bailing out the greedy and punishing the thrifty.

At least WaPo gets that right in the Oil Shock series.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR,

    The article was at least pretty balanced. The arguments of the Ray Hydes, TMTs and, NMM of the world were there as well.

    The need for more places

    The affordability question see Tysons Corner and who will actually be able to live there

    and yes the fact that not everyone wants to live in a condo tower

    I’ll close with the last line in the article

    “We hate density; we hate sprawl,” he said. “But we can’t continue doing what we’re doing.”

    Its going to take EMR and RH working together to actually solve this issue. Both of you guys have some excellent ideas. You need to work together

    As an aside what is the problem with South Riding? For it to work doesn’t it need to be denser? Most people still drive to the village centers. Maybe there could be more bicycling but then how do you transport the stuff you bought back to where you live.

    NMM

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Intersting Q&A

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/04/DI2008080401619.html?hpid=topnews

    Many familiar themes

    My personal favorite the problem of fixing schools in DC and the Eastern Burbs so more families can live there.

    Although if that actually happened property values would go up and those areas wouldn't be as affordable anymore and we would have Fairfaxes and Montogmery Counties on all four sides of DC. The lower class has to live somewhere.

    NMM

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I thought this – at least tangentially related:

    “America’s Most Overpriced ZIP Codes”

    ….”….In a report for Forbes.com, Hotpads.com produced a price-to-earnings spread for each ZIP code in the nation’s 40 largest cities by comparing rental costs with buying costs for similar properties, based on number of bedrooms, location and price per square foot.”

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/29/overpriced-zips-homes-forbeslife-cx_mw_0729realestate.html

    also – who said this:
    “We hate density; we hate sprawl,” he said. “But we can’t continue doing what we’re doing.”

    wasn’t it none other than GC?

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Some of this is amusing.

    It has been widely known that some entry level folks – like FBI newbies would refuse to be assigned to places like NYC – because they KNEW that their housing options were miserable at their entry level salaries.

    The Washington Area, at least according to another article in Forbes, is said to be one of the more affordable places to live.

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    NoVaMiddleMan:

    A few thoughts on your first two posts:

    “The need for more places”

    No, citizens and their Agencies and Institutions need to create Balance and Critial Mass in the places that we have. Both inside the Clear Edge and Outside.

    “The affordability question see Tysons Corner and who will actually be able to live there”

    See note below.

    “My personal favorite the problem of fixing schools in DC and the Eastern Burbs so more families can live there.

    “Although if that actually happened property values would go up and those areas wouldn’t be as affordable anymore …”

    Let me explain how a well functioning market works:

    Build more, and more great places and the price goes down. A few make more money from building shoddy places and even fewer make more money building nice places.

    “…and we would have Fairfaxes and Montogmery Counties on all four sides of DC. The lower class has to live somewhere.”

    Why is it so hard to understand Balance? I think it is because so many have heard that “it will not work” from those who make the most in the short term from imbalance.

    “and yes the fact that not everyone wants to live in a condo tower”

    This is that red herring again. A Balanced (Alpha) Community would have few “condo towers,” surely not enough for “everyone.” See para in our orignial post.

    “We hate density; we hate sprawl,” he said. “But we can’t continue doing what we’re doing.”

    That is the Beauty of Balanced Communities, they are not “dense” and they are not dysfunctional settlement patterns (as you know we do not use the “S” word — FCC forebids in on a family Blog.

    None of the key players make as much money in the short term from Balanced places — not since Roman Planned New Communities at least.

    “As an aside what is the problem with South Riding?”

    This could be a Masters Thesis.

    Start with a odd shaped parcel that is too small for a Balanced Community and tough to work in a Balanced Village.

    Next a whole series of conflicting goals from the original (British) developer and the architects, planners and the land use controls.

    A turnover of project to the worst of the McMansion builders — Toll Brothers who was living on OPeM (Other Peoples Money – PA Teachers Pension Fund as I recall)

    I could go on but will spare you…

    “For it to work doesn’t it need to be denser?”

    Not much, better mix, fix the holes left by changes in direction…

    “Most people still drive to the village centers.”

    Yes, and there are too many “Village” Centers, especially the new on out by Route 7 and not enough Neighborhood Centers and almost no JOBS.

    “Maybe there could be more bicycling but then how do you transport the stuff you bought back to where you live.”

    That could help within a framework of a Balanced between transport system and settlement pattern.

    Hope that helps.

    EMR

  6. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    A perfect example of the need for precise Vocabulary:

    “….In a report for Forbes.com, Hotpads.com produced a price-to-earnings spread for each ZIP code in the nation’s 40 largest cities …”

    How much do you want to get that was MSA or Urbanized Area of MSA and not “cities”

    And what is “largest”? By area or by population?

    EMR

  7. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    OK, I looked. Of the top 10 most are actually in the City for which the MSA and New Urban Region is named but note:

    The maps they use are for the Urbanized Area, not the Municipal Borders.

    Regional Metrics would tell you these are the highest value places.

    The whole story idea was that you should rent and not buy in these locations because they are overpriced. It is not about Balance in any sense.

    I gave up trying to fend off the bopping Ads, popup proof popups and sales videos. Soon, advertisers will give up because citizens do not believe Ads. But that is also another story.

    EMR

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EMR – MWCOG has data, I've been told, for all trips originating and terminating from census tracts, I believe. As I recall, you have suggested that Reston is an example of a balanced community.

    Have you or has anyone looked at the MWCOG data for Reston? What percentage of the residents also work there? What percentage of the workers also live there? It strikes me that quite a few people who live in Reston (& I don't just mean Reston Town Center) do not also work there. And vice versa.

    Does anyone know what the MWCOG data shows?

    TMT

  9. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT:

    Some observations that may help:

    I have not looked into COG data for several years. For a time I was on a tech advisory committee there and from what I recall:

    Most of the data is by TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zone) which is smaller (and thus better) than municipal border informaiton.

    Some data is collected by Census Tract, Census Block, etc. but I am not sure how much.

    I have not looked at Reston data in years.

    I think you are right, there are a lot less O and D of trips within Reston than the level of Balance would suggest.

    You may recall that in 1973 — I know it is acient history — in Columbia the work and live numbers went up from 19 to 39 percent in just 18 months during the OPEC embargo.

    I have NOT said that Reston is a Balanced Community. I have said you can find a lot of evidence in Reston — and other Planned New Communites to document that if one were built as planned (Balanced) the benefits would be huge.

    Reston has the potential to be far closer to Balance than most Beta Communites because of the original design but now there are far more jobs than Houses and Services.

    The best work COG ever did was the Activity Center Analysis. The raw data from that effort showed it would not be hard to identify the Cores of potential Balanced Communities and then work to create that Balance.

    The work was abandoned because it did not suit the needs or either the political “leadership” or the Business-As-Usual crowd.

    Functional settlement patterns do no require mega-roadways and back at the dawn of the century that was what governance practitioners and business “leaders” wanted support for.

    I have a copy of the June 2002 report “Metro Wash Regional Activity Centers: A Tool for Linking Land Us and Transprotation Planning”

    If you send me a SSE I will send it to you.

    The bottom line is that if there was the will and the funds, the data could be found to support rational action.

    Rational action has not been on may folks screens as you know from your work in Greater Tysons Corner.

    EMR

    EMR

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Its going to take EMR and RH working together to actually solve this issue.”

    Wow. That would be a trip. I’ll take it as a compliment.

    Thanks.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The lower class has to live somewhere.

    But they don’t have to have lousy schools.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “need to create Balance and Critial Mass in the places that we have.”

    And we still need more places. Maybe South Riding will be one someday.

    Maybe, it is possible to do it with just the places we have, but then we need to share the wealth with the places we exclude: we can’t just save them to death.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your father was “forced out of farming”, huh? Did someone come to the door with a shotgun, or did the market work its magic?

    You think being forced into farming is any better?

    I don’t mean to sound crass: given the times, I’m sure life was hard for him, but he was a long way from alone, and he was on the cutting edge of a revolution in farming that our government and agencies and popular wishful thinking havenot caught upt to, even today.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “America’s Most Overpriced ZIP Codes”

    I saw a similar one and it shwoed the zip codes that had lost and gained the most in housing values.

    San Francisco lost value in the most number of zip codes and Houston the least.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The only thing we hate worse than sprawl is density, the way I heard it. Either way, it is a perfect example of the shhizoid thinking we do.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Soon, advertisers will give up because citizens do not believe Ads.”

    Soon? I gave up forty years ago. I even had a class in high school on how to look for spoofs, lies, and mistruths. You know, things like “The new large quart size!”

    Is that larger than the old small quart size? Today, it probably is, like the one pound coffe cans that have 12 oz in them.

    That class has served me well when reading Bacon’s Rebellion Blog.

    I guess after the advertisers give up the only thing we will have left is NPR. The conservative free market thinkers will love that result.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What is the change in work and live statistics over the last thirty years?

    I think the average commute has increased some. I think it has gone up from 23 miles to 27 miles over the last twenty years or so.

    But now compare that increase to the increase in the radius of the metropolitan area over the same time, and you find that most people are halfway rational about this.

    Despite Larry thinking that all our problems are cause by half the planet driving 50 miles or more, it just isnt so. Sprawl has produced as much good as bad, according to Glaeser.

    I’m not defending places that have become automotive slums, but it isn’t he end of the world, either.

    RH

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If you choose a long commute – for whatever your personal reason for doing so – then that’s your choice but the choices you make do have consequences and they belong to you also.

    In the future, gasoline will likely cost you more and if more folks join you on the road – your commute will take longer as it gets more congested – especially as you and all your peers are trying to get back and forth at the same hours.

    I’m not in favor of “density” as a solution to this dilemma either.

    I am completely agnostic about it, in fact – except that I believe that these are individual choices for each of us – and we should acknowledge and accept the consequences of those choices.

    No one owes us a better job, better house or better commute.

    If you want a better house – you need to pay for it. If part of the way you pay for it is by choosing a longer commute – then that is fine – but it is YOUR COST – as you actually did have a choice to live closer and pay more dollars or live farther out and pay more “time” en route.

    Anyone who chooses a longer commute and believes that congestion will not get worse is just not thinking clearly IMHO.

    It’s like thinking that gasoline will never get more expensive.

    We’re entitled to make dumb calculations also but again, those consequences are yours – not others.

    So.. when we have folks who make costly personal decisions – about where to live and work, I’m fine with that.. the same as if they choose a 12mpg SUV to commute in – as long as those folks accept the consequences of their decisions and don’t see “solutions” to their problems as raising taxes on others.

    That’s the problem we have.

    We have people who think that they are “entitled” to a cheaper house and an uncongested commute.

    Our highway policy has been predicted on that concept – and it resulted in bankrupting the highway funding.

    Now, we’re at the point where those that have congested commutes think that the solution is to raise taxes on everyone – to help make their commutes less congested and … that’s no longer going to happen.

    From now on, if you want a less congested commute – it will cost you personally – as it should.

    It was always your cost to start with even if you thought otherwise.

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Anyone who chooses a longer commute and believes that congestion will not get worse is just not thinking clearly IMHO.”

    What about people who choose a short commute and see congeston get worse? Don’t they have a stake in this, too? Density increases congestion, and transit doesn’t relieve it.

    Road transportaton has generally been provided by the state on an egalitarian basis, but that has broken down, aided and abbetted by local officials who allow overdevelopment.

    Policy has not bankrupted the program – lack of funding has.

    Saying that we have people who think theyare entitled to a cheaper house and an uncongested commute is one way to put it. Another way is to say it is that people generally believe that affordable housing and adequate transprotation is good for us all because it improves the economy.

    If you want to charge for road use, then charge everyone who uses the roads, and charge them by wight, horsepower, and distance. The way to do that is with a fuel tax, including electricity if needed. If the fuel tax has to be $5.00 a gallon,then so be it.

    Quit the whining and the finger pointing and the locational stealing and go do something instead of whining about who gets what.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We also have people who think they are entitled to a cheaper house and uncongested commute just because they got there first. They think they are entitled to (effectively) raise taxes against others through refusing to allow development, and they use this as a way to solve THEir problems.

    Larry has a curiously and obstinately one-sided view of who is pushing their problems off on whom and who is entitled to what. It isn’t that we can’t solve these problems, it is that we have small-thinking, tight-fisted morons in charge.

    How is thinking you are “entitled” to never have your taxes raised or you are “entitled” to restrict other people’s development (exactly like yours) any differerent from raising taxes on others?

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    No one is entitled to a less congested commute for the same amount of taxes paid currently.

    What is promised is that in return for higher taxes – people’s commutes will be made better.

    And we all know how that ends up.

    When you choose where to live – you are not entitled to no changes in your commute just as you are not entitled for your home to gain in value nor a promotion at work.

    You are supposed to use your own brain, your own judgment to make conscious decisions in your own behalf – and to own the consequences.

    You are not entitled to cheap gas or lower electricity rates or cheaper food – either.

    All of these things – are things you need to fold into your decisions about where to work and where to live.

    You can agree to raise your own taxes in return for a worthless promise to make your commute better – if you are dumb enough to believe it – but I guess that would also apply to somehow who think they can choose a longer commute without an ultimate cost to that choice either.

    We have too many folks whose basic philosophy is “I had no choice” and “someone owes me because bad stuff is happening to me”.

    “whining” about taxes?

    HA!

  22. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    As for choices that people make –

    People chose to live in a place where education is a secondary consideration. A lot of parents are not engaged in their children’s education. PTA meetings are poorly attended. The local government reduces their contribution to school funding every time the state increases that funding. The parents chose where they live. If they don’t like the bad schools and bad attitudes of their neighbors – they should move. It’s their choice – no one is forcing them to live in a place with lousy schools – just like no one is forcing people to live in a place where there are long commutes.

    People who choose uneconomical small lot farming as their vocation. These people have chosen to engage in a vocation that leaves them too little money for things like adequate taxes for schools. If they moved to an urban area they would make more money and would be able to pay sufficient taxes to provide good schools. But they don’t move. Why? Because they choose to engage in uneconomical small lot farming. It’s their choice – just like people who choose to commute long distances.

    Why do you howl so much about people who choose to commute but sit so silent when it comes to other choices?

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What is promised is that in return for higher taxes – people’s commutes will be made better.”

    I’ve never heard that promise made – ever. We do expect that money raised for roads will be spent on roads. Presumably that will partially help people have more options on where and when they travel. As you point out, they can choose wisely or not: that is up to them.

    I am entitled to lobby for more road spending and more rational road priorities. If that happens to help me persoanlly, so much the better. If it doesn’t help me personally, I can hope that it helps alleviate the $1089 in congestion costs that we all pay.

    I’m entitled to lobby for a better commute, and if my argument is better than yours I may eventually get the support I need to raise your taxes.

    When people realize that the costs of doing nothing are as high or higher than raising taxes, then they will argue to see taxes raised, or for different spending priorities.

    Larry is entitled to lobby for obstrucionism to protect his tax pocketbook, without regard to any other factors, but I don’t see it as wise, or as successful in the long term.

    But, to cloak his choices (lobby for obstructionism) in terms that attempt to make it look as if everything is the result of someone else’s choices isn’t an idea with a lot of weight.

    If you don’t want to spend money on roads, say so, and say why. All thosepeople stuck in traffic should have plenty of time to listen.

    Instead what we have is:

    1)We don’t have anywhere near enough money to fix the roads.

    2)If we had the money it would be spent wrongly.

    3)Even if it wasn’t spent wrongly it wouldn’t do any good.

    4)We can’t get the money because people are not entitled to have it.

    5) They are not entitled to have it because they made dumb decisisons thinking they had no choice.

    6) My position is so intransigent that I’m not about to offer (or allow) any choice that costs money.

    Those are my ground rules, now let’s sit down and negotiate a deal that will make eerybody happy , but remember, my rights are more important and worth more than your rights.

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you are not the one doing the long distance driving, the fuel tax won’t affect you, much. What’s the beef?

    That somebody else’s money will be spent wrongly?

    That somebody else’s money will be spent in a way that does no good?

    The people whose money it would be, would also be the ones doing the most driving in the most heavy vehicles, right?

    The gas tax charges money to those who drive the most. Most everybody drives, and that is the reason the gas tax is unpopular. And yet, Larry’s basic premise is that those that don’t drive shouldn’t have to pay for those that do.

    The gas tax does exactly what he wants done, but he uses the fact that most people drive, and most people will pay, to oppose what it is that he (says he) wants!

    It is irrational, so the only thing you can conclude is that there is another agenda, because this one makes no sense.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ok so once again you are both right. I feel like the mediator lately

    How about this

    The gas tax is for maintanence a user fee for the right to travel on existing roads

    The toll roads are for additional infrastructure. Basically why should someone in Bath Virginia have to pay to build roads in another area to satisfy the needs of people who made shortsighted decisions. (But its all about keeping the economic engine healthy so we can fund your schools…. ok thats a whole nother debate :-p)

    Now granted this is a fundamental shift in transportation funding but otherwise individuals aren’t paying for infrastructure costs and after all I think most of us want a user-pays system.

    Although…. I think I can see a counter argument all ready. Its actually the opposite of the proffer issue for new homes. In the transportation example you are actually punishing the existing residents because there road used to be uncongested and it only became congested when all these new people moved in or decided to drive on it. So why should I (existing resident) have to pay. Why not force it all on the new people just like with the home proffer system.

    I’ll stop there for now before I argue myself into confusion

    NMM

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: howling about long distance commuters

    no really. I’ve actually taken pains to show that commuting is but one of the choices that we all have – and we make those choices – presumably expecting the consequences.

    I don’t see choosing a longer commute any different than choosing an SUV over a plain jane econobox or a lower salaried job or a less modest home or a $3000 home entertainment system.

    You check your financial status – do a little thinking about the future and you make choices.

    If you choose a longer commute and an SUV and gas prices skyrocket – should you be expecting “help” from other taxpayers who were more conservative and careful in their choices?

    re: higher taxes and “obstructionism” and lobbying

    good luck.

    in your book, you’d call the 70% opposed as “obstructing” but no matter.. the chance of you convincing the other 70% of agreeing to higher taxes to improve your commute are nil.

    NMM has got it right.

    the gas tax is for maintenance of existing roads.

    New ones – will be paid for by those that use them.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I would add though the only way for this to truely work is to eliminate all subsidies which includes mass transit.

    My hunch is when you strip everything away its almost exactly the same.

    The HOT lanes are at $1 per mile maximum. I am out of my element on this but would metro be $1 per mile during peak usage as well?

    Then you would have a choice pay $15 to go from Vienna to downtown on metro or on the newly constructed HOT lanes on I-66.

    If that actually occured I have a hunch most people would pick the free carpooling option or taking a bus which would propably be cheaper than metro by a long shot

    I have no idea if any hard data exists on this. I remember there was some discussion on costs per mile for different tranportation options at some point.

    NMM

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why not force it all on the new people….

    If only the new people use it, why not? Then it is an ownership and property rights problem.

    Surprise.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I would add though the only way for this to truely work is to eliminate all subsidies which includes mass transit.”

    Not always. There are some subsidies which are cost effective. That happens when there are external benefits (just as we cn have externalized costs). Those benefit should be piad for by people external to the system.

    I don’t have any problem with that. The problem I have is that in order for that to happen, some people will claim exaggerated or even infinite benefits.

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    You have to define and agree as to what constitutes a subsidy.

    Is public school a subsidy?

    Is rail in Europe a subsidy?

    Are police and fire a subsidy?

    as far as a subsidy being cost effective – you need to have convincing data or else it’s only a claim – no more or less – and something where RH can then say it is exaggerated and someone else will say it is not.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What is a subsidy?

    -a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. …

    -An economic benefit, direct or indirect, granted by a government to domestic producers of goods or services, often to strengthen their competitive position against foreign companies.

    -Economic assistance granted directly or indirectly to individuals or organizations to encourage activities designed to satisfy the needs of the public or a particular group.

    -A payment by government, perhaps implicit, to the private sector in return for some activity that it wants to reward, encourage, or assist. …

    -Government financial assistance to a domestic producer.

    -Subsidies are designed to support the conduct of an economic enterprise or activity, such as ship operations. They may also refer to provisions in the tax laws that provide certain tax expenditures and to the provisions of loans, goods, and services to the public at prices lower than market value, such as interest subsidies.

    -A subsidy is a payment made to firms or consumers designed to encourage an increase in output. A subsidy will shift the supply curve to the right and therefore lower the equilibrium price in a market.

    I like the last one, but if we ignore the international implications and apply them locally, the other definitions will work.

    How about if we just don’t use loaded words like subsidy, and focus on whther the cost averaging method is more or less fair, and whether some other method is cost effective, after you pay transaction costs.

    Consider fire or police protection. Basically we all share the costs of participating in a lottery: If you lose the lottery, then you get protection, on a more or less equal basis. So no, this is not a subsidy. However, you could claim it is “Economic assistance granted organizations to encourage activities designed to satisfy the needs of the public…” but in this case the public pays for ALL of the cost, so it isn’t properly a subsidy, in my opinion.

    More or less the same argument applies to public schools. With schools there is both a lottery condition (you may not have kids) and a temporal condition (you atttend school now and pay for it later). Either way it isn’t a subsidy in the usual sense.

    ——————–

    Is rail in Europe a subsidy?

    I think that is harder, and again,I’m not sure the question is asked in a way that makes sense.

    Someone buys a rail ticket, Europe, VRE, or Metro. They do not pay full price and the cost of their ticket is surely subsidized. But rail confers benefits to those who do not ride it (and so do roads, Larry).

    So now when you say rail, as in all of rail and not just rail tickets, it might or might not be subsidised. Say the cost of subsidizing Metro tickets is $500 million a year, over and above what the riders pay. The question is if people other than riders who pay the costs get benefits greater or less than the cost. If the benefits are less thant he cost, then Metro is subsidised. If not, then it is a good deal.

    We think congestion costs every driver $1089 per year, in spite of Metro. What we don;t know the answer to is how much is congetion reduced BY metro.

    Metro hauls 80,000 people per day and that is 3% of the total travel, so non metro users are something like 2.6 million people, and maybe 20% of them have travel trips that might be helped by metro, times 200 days is around a 100 million people.

    Does Metro save you $5.00 a day in travel time, call it 15 minutes?

    I doubt it, but that is only a partial analysis, Metro has many other fine external benefits not covered here. but lets just say that we are ONLY considering transportation, not land development. Would we have any reason to think that a subsidy three times as high is justified?

    I don’t know the precise answer, but we could find a way to reach an agreed approach to finding the answer, and then it is what it is.

    I would say that if the total system offers a net public benefit that is more than the net public cost, then it is NOT subsidized.

    But as I said, the people who WANT the benefit will tend to claim exaggerated values, in which case we need clearer property rights, so that we can identify the values more easily.

    Larry will hate that answer.

    RH

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry refuses to believe there are any beneficiarie other than the users, but that EVERY nonuser distributes negative externalities that shold be paid for.

    RH

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If a majority of voters agree to fund transit with taxes, is that a subsidy?

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It doesn’t matter whether a majority approve or not. It matters whether the net benefits (all things considered, within reason) is greater than the cost.

    Here is a simple test: without the subsidy would the operation continue? The problem withthat test is the same as the problem with pollution: the costs of operation don’t include the costs (or value) of the externalities, so the measure is incomplete.

    There is also your favorite issue of location. If all the voters agree to support something that serves only a few or a small area, then it is probably a subsidy, just as you frequently claim. But before you can justify that claim you need to make sure you actually have all things considered (for example communities that efectively used road funding to reduce real estate taxes).

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Indeed an entire industry seems to have sprung up to identify “new commons” (such as the internet) or to claim as commons things not always seen that way. Silence, for example, should arguably be seen as a commons, because if one person interrupts it, there is less of it for others to enjoy.”

    Imagine, a whole industry based on property grabs: defining yur previously unclaimed common, before someone esle does.

    RH

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Let me explain how a well functioning market works:

    Build more, and more great places and the price goes down.”

    Great places cost more money to build and that means the builder takes more risk. If youwant to win at Poker, you don’t play every hand like it was a royal flush.

    RH

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The Washington Area, at least according to another article in Forbes, is said to be one of the more affordable places to live.”

    Especially with that new office 35 miles from DC.

    RH

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A Balanced (Alpha) Community would have few “condo towers,” surely not enough for “everyone.”

    But you are still talking about ten DU per acre, right?

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If density means balanced, the clowns (a kind noun, as you will surely agree) at the Tysons Task Force are proposing lots of balance. The county staff has enraged the clowns by revealing the actual density that the Task Force is proposing.

    If they have their way, Tysons Corner, after considering all density bonuses, could be built to 220,000,000 square feet from today’s 45,000,000. That’s right, my friends, 220 million.

    Task Force chair Clark Tyler, joined by Gerry Connolly, expressed severe concern that this figure is being released as it will only upset people.

    The goal is to get those densities embedded in the Comp Plan so that they become “as of right,” regardless of what’s being built.

    Fortunately, along with the staff, Supervisors Linda Smyth and John Foust, who represent Tysons and nearby areas, revolted. They are insisting that this plan, which is about 100 million square feet larger than what has been proposed, go before the people again. Connolly and Tyler oppose this.

    Ray, I live on a different planet than you do. Groveton, the real enemy lives in Fairfax County. We do this to ourselves.

    TMT

  40. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    TMT said:

    “If density means balanced…”

    NO, NO, NO! Balance requires mix, location / proximity, Critical Mass, mobility system — trip generation parity. Balance is Balance, not density or any other single parameter. Density is just one that cab be made a scape goat.

    TMT, everything you or I have posted documents that what is in the Tysons Croner is not Balance. It is, as you point out, the work of clowns.

    But be aware that clowns are protected by a Teflon shield against lances of “density.” It takes understanding of human settlement patterns.

    You are right about where the enemey lives.

    EMR

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, I live on a different planet than you do.

    We sure do. Youd think there would be some “balance” in what people think of density, wouldn’t you?

    Around here, three houses on 200 acres is unthinkable.

    RH

  42. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. an obvious question is – if the current Tysons proposal is not “balanced” – and you were King – what changes would be necessary to the proposal to make it a “balanced” proposal – instead?

    in other words – if it is about a whole lot more than just density -isn’t this the ideal opportunity to advocate for those things that are needed in addition to density?

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well, for one thing take a look at what else is around it, like the rest of Vienna. If there is a huge inflection point where the density suddenly changes, then something is out of balance, I think.

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Where is the Z team when we need them?

    RH is at it again, subtly trying to make Dr. Risse look like a fool.

    “… talking about 10 DU (Dwelling Units) per acre, right?”

    As anyone knows who reads carefully it is “The Ten Person Rule” and at the Alpha Community scale.

    In a recent private lecture to a group of environmental entrepreneurs Dr. Risse repeated something he has posted recently:

    The constant of 10 in The Ten Person Rule is base on what was built in the First World from 1950 to 2000. As with any constant that is based on economic and social as well as physical reality, the 10 number may be drifting up due to the cost of energy.

    He went on to say – which we have not seen elsewhere – that the number may not drift much higher because of the need for access to Openspace at the Dooryard, Cluster and Neighborhood scales. This access will be needed for common (community with a small “c”) gardens and play areas but also for places for recycling and composting of organic waste close to dwellings.

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m not trying to subtly make Dr. Risse look like a fool.

    Dr. Risse can look after himself.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m pretty certain I saw ten DU per acre somewhere around here, and I’m almost sure I heard some one say the sweet spot was above five DU.

    If it was supposed to be ten persons per acre, then I apologize, for the apparent misquote.

    But, where the heck does THAT leave the Tyson’s proposal?

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Environmental Entrepreneur?

    What is that, foresters and farmers?

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A good friend of mine told me that 220 million square feet is equal to about 3/5ths of all the real estate managed by the General Services Administration around the entire United States.

    Doesn’t it sound like a good idea to plunk that down on 1700 acres in Tysons Corner? ha,ha,ha.

    There must be great benefit to local citizens! ha, ha, ha.

    Ray, I don’t suspect that the folks out your way would put this one on the board of supervisors’ agenda. Or even down in Larry’s neck of the woods.

    But Groveton and I have to live with these clowns. But at least Supervisors Linda Smyth and John Foust objected.

    TMT

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    TMT:

    I’m on your side Tysons is way out of control as it is. It COULD be fixed, but it would take something a LOT differerent than either the task force or the developers are thinking of. Both sides are thinking way too small and way too one sided: my way or no way.

    And, the right answer would also mean that a lot of public funds would have to be expended, costing citizens a lot of money and taxes. But it would have to be done in such a way that the average citizen can see (and put in his pocket) the benefits as well.

    Right now there is neither the visibility, the vision, nor the willingness to look for the right answer.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    See Marc Fisher’s article in today’s post on how to power the planet with Happy Drinking Birds.

    It is a hilarious blow up on our dsire to “get something for nothing”

    RH

  51. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    the biggest existing commercial development in Fredericksburg is 2.5 million square feet – at a place called Central Park – but it’s primarily a glorified shopping center .. with some limited office space.

    The tallest building in Fredericksburg is about 7 stores and it’s mostly an anomaly as most of the multi-story buildings in the area of about 4 or less.

    The two biggest employers in the Fredericksburg Area are the school system and medical care providers including the Hospital and their size is pretty much dictated by the 300,000 who live here and a substantial portion of – which commute every day to NoVa jobs.

    and we have similar discussions along the lines of “dense enough for transit”….

    but the State density proffers associated with 3202 and urban development districts have been rejected primarily for two reasons:

    1. – the state-offered “help” with transportation was viewed with extreme skepticism in terms of how easily it could be being revoked in the future after higher densities were approved and then could not be undone easily if the state did renege.

    2. – open-ended state sanctioned “by right” that could limit the locality’s ability to negotiate uses and intensities of uses.

    so you approve a much higher density… a developer steps in with a “by-right” proposal .. and then the State says… “yeah.. but we are broke right now so it’ll take a few years to build the required infrastructure”.

    This is not unlike VDOT’s public statements with regard to Route 7 in Tysons – and citizens concern that they don’t see how it will work the way it is being promoted.

    but I do have to say.. it’s very odd that Gerry Connolly is as popular as he is .. almost a shoo-in for Congress – at the same time there seem to be some unhappy campers…

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    To date, while alternative energy sources have gotten cheaper over time, the cost of conventional energy sources has fallen even faster.

Leave a Reply