Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Human Settlement Patterns: The Fringes Unravel

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Three different readers sent me this story, published in the International Herald Tribune, about the impact of rising gasoline prices on human settlement patterns in the United States. The headline says it all: “Life on the fringes of U.S. suburbia becomes untenable with rising gas costs.”

Money quote:

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Minneapolis, homes beyond the urban core have been falling in value faster than those within, according to analysis by Moody’s Economy.com. …

Many factors have propelled the unraveling of U.S. real estate, from the mortgage crisis to a staggering excess of home construction, making it hard to pinpoint the impact of any single force. But economists and real estate agents are growing convinced that the rising cost of energy is a primary factor pushing home prices down in the suburbs – particularly in the outer rings.

Bacon’s bottom line: Virginia legislators need to read this story. The very same trends are unfolding here. While transportation tax revenues are down, inducing a panic in the political class, so is driving. While some cuts in Vehicle Miles Driven are short-term — “I’ll rent a beach house in Virginia Beach this summer instead of Myrtle Beach” — many people are making longer-term adjustments, choosing to live closer to where they work in order to reduce the length of their commutes.

People, households are responding to higher gasoline prices. Human settlement patterns are changing. Vehicle Miles Driven are declining. Congestion may be easing — it is undoubtedly shifting to new locations. Yet lawmakers are determined to finance a long-term transportation plan based upon forecasts and capital projects based on the price of gasoline at less than $2 per gallon.

I know that calls for studies are often a tactic a tactic to delay decision making. But if ever Virginia needed a new study to re-evaluate its transportation funding needs, it would be now.

Multiple tips of the hat to: Jim Norvelle, Sallie Daiger and another reader I can’t remember (sorry!). Also, along these lines, Jonathan Mallard recommends a blog post on Freakonomics, in which Justin Wolfers opines upon the impact of gas prices on real estate.)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well, if we are wetting our pants over $4 gas.. what about this:

    “Oil Shock: Analyst Predicts $7 Gas, “Mass Exodus” of U.S. Cars
    Posted by Keith Johnson

    Oil at $135? That was just the opening skirmish in the “peak oil” wars. The latest smart money? $200 oil in 2010, with gasoline at $7 a gallon.

    That’s the latest gloomy forecast from Jeff Rubin at Canadian brokerage CIBC World Markets, who just a few months ago figured $200 oil would be a thing of the distant future—like 2012. “

    Over the next four years, we are likely to witness the greatest mass exodus of vehicles off America’s highways in history. By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today—a decline that dwarfs all previous adjustments including those during the two OPEC oil shocks.

    Our analysis suggests that about half of the number of cars coming off the road in the next four years will be from low income households who have access to public transit. At their current driving habits, filling up the tank will have risen from about 7% of their income to 20%, an increase that will see many start taking the bus.

    Gas prices already appear to be reshaping suburbia. But what Mr. Rubin is predicting is a far bigger shock to the American system. Europe has had decades to develop a society based on expensive energy. What will happen if Americans suddenly are forced to shoulder European-style energy prices — but without the European-style society to cope with them?”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/06/26/oil-shock-analyst-predicts-7-gas-mass-exodus-of-us-cars/?mod=homeblogmod_environmentalcapital

    http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/sjun08.pdf

    I

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is hard to make a large, long term adjustment to a major investment based on (what might or might not be) short term energy prices.

    Pobably, the first to move will be renters, because they are more mobile.

    If what you say is true, then demand for fuel will fall, and so will the prices. Home prices will fall in the outer fringes until they reach a new equilibrium value, cost of travel included. If gas prices do fall, someone who gets a steal on an outer home could be better off than the seller who abandoned n a panic.

    Changes in price will happen, but I don’t think you see those homes sitting empty. At some price they will fill, and the settlement pattern remains the same.

    Longer term, the answer might be different. But it takes a long time to make long term decisions.

    Especially if you think that you will take a big hit on our outer home and pay a big premium on the inner home, and also especially when the borrowing market is so rocky.

    Rh

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    $7 gas won’t change because of what we do – if China and India are the reason behind the price increases.

    Will $7 gasoline

    A – cause those who want an “affordable” house in the suburbs move back to cheek-by-jowl density

    B. – change the way that suburban homeowners get to and from work?

    I’m betting that B. is the answer – not A.

    Bonus Question:

    Can 47 people sharing expenses on a commuter bus get back and forth to subrubia for less than $7 a gallon solo driving?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “By 2012, there should be some 10 million fewer vehicles on American roadways than there are today”

    Where will they be? Where will the jobs be that support them?

    —————————

    “half of the number of cars coming off the road in the next four years will be from low income households who have access to public transit.”

    OK, say your present situation is you drive an hour to work and it costs you 7% of your 35k income in gas.

    You switch to transit and it takes two hours and transit fares are half of you previous fuel costs.

    How much do you value your time at?

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Can 47 people sharing expenses on a commuter bus get back and forth to subrubia for less than $7 a gallon solo driving?”

    Define the whole system.

    How far apart do they live in suburbia? Does the bus drop off everyone individually, or do they still own cars and drive part way? How much is their time worth. How much does the value of their home drop? What is the ratio of new (home + travel) /old (home + travel) expenses?

    Then instead of saking if they can get back and forth for less, ask if they are better or worse off overall.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How about a massive increase in telecommuting as part of the change? It’s unlikely that mass transit can handle a huge increase in demand (say 25%). What’s less expensive for business and government, higher wage increases to keep talented workers commuting or the ability to work at home two days a week or more?

    Just a thought.

    TMT

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I don’t have to define the whole system.

    The people who have to answer this question will define the system.

    “What can I do besides pay $7 a gallon and $50 a day for gasoline?”

    People and companies will innovate solutions – both long term and short term and especially so if Government stays out of the way.

    Companies that pay 35K a year for workers – will no longer get workers who have to commute 50 miles on $7 gasoline.

    Will those companies send commuter vans for their people?

    Will those companies advocate more workforce housing located where public transportation serves?

    I don’t think we could possibly know all the ways that will be innovated…

    all we probably do know – is that $7 gasoline is not sustainable for the status-quo.

    Here’s what cannot be ignored or discounted as a possibility – that gasoline will not get to $7 a gallon.

    A year ago, it would have been inconceivable to think this.

    Like Yogi used to say – “when you come to a fork in the road – take it”.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The people who have to answer this question will define the system.”

    And they will take the wole equation into account, not just gas prices.

    The question you ask is unrealistic.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The average human being will be substantially richer in 50 years, just as the average American today has a real income three times what it was in 1955. But the average human being will not have much more time in 50 years than today; and life expectancy has increased by only 10 percent in the U.S. since 1955, so for most people time has become relatively scarce compared to money.

    Not surprisingly, we feel more stressed for time than ever before — the opportunity cost of time has risen compared to the opportunity cost of goods. In fact, people with higher incomes usually express more time stress than those with lower incomes. “

    From Freakonomics – Dan Hamermesh.

    Which would you rather have, time or money?

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    TMT,

    I know you hate Deeds but one of his bills provides tax credits for telecommuting

    Larry,

    I see several things occuring

    Continued outsourcing of labor because its not cost-effective in the United States

    Continue shift of the United States to a service economy… where are all those fast food workers, convenience store clerks, etc going to live now since its no longer practical to live in an affordable area and then commute an hour to the richer areas

    A push for more affordable housing by democratic counties (Fairfax) to keep teachers, police, firefighters etc…

    All of those are pretty obvious

    Here is the kicker. Workforce housing for entrylevel professionals. Its already happening in Manhatten. The test is Tysons Corner.

    Two possible tipping points

    At what point do young professionals simply say its not worth it to live in Northern Virginia and relocate eleswhere.

    At what point do businesses decide to provide workforce housing… tipping point is where is the line between being being in a prime location vs saving money on employee pay/housing.

    Both of these are market driven with no government intervention needed

    Long term more points in favor of Rays more places arguments

    NMM

  11. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    Not this again…

    “While transportation tax revenues are down,”

    THIS IS 100% NOT TRUE.

    “Revenue collections increased by 3.8 percent in May, and on a year-to-date basis, growth
    is 4.1 percent, ahead of the 4.0 percent annual target. Most of the annual gain in the Commonwealth Transportation Fund is attributable to the $10 increase in the registration
    fee. Adjusting for this rate increase, year-to-date growth would be 0.7 percent.” — May 2008 Commonwealth Transportation Fund pdf

    I guess that doesn’t fit into the sky-is-falling Malthusian world view.

    Before Larry points it out: Gas tax is finally down for the month at -0.6 percent. BUT, it’s still up +2.1% for FY08.

    Car sales are taking a massive hit, not the gas tax.

    —

    As for moving, I’d love to move closer to the city. I can’t afford it. As said above, except for renters, it’s just not that easy to pack up and move to save $20 a month on gasoline.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I have my doubts about “more places” for entry level folks on a career track unless “more places” is lots of different job opportunities.

    Older folks of child-bearing age – read to settle down – yes.

    but young folks .. who are by their nature – mobile – for jobs and places to live …

    they are primarily urban type dwellers.

    It’s only when they get older, married, settle down that they want suburbia… and more locked in to a job – NOT in suburbia -usually.

    That’s the essential issue.

    You’ve worked your way up the ladder, you’ve now got a good paying job but you can get a lot more house for your money if you drive until you qualify.

    Now .. at least in Fredericksburg – homes, on average, have lost 100K in value and they still sit.

    I cannot see $4/5 gas improving the situation – much less $7 gas.

    and so far..I don’t see the Fredericksburg Area becomes one of those “more places” despite the fact that it has a ton of highly skilled and highly educated workers – virtually all of them NoVa Commuters.

    re: more places

    just a curiosity question

    If we had intra-city rail – Washington to Richmond to Norfolk to Raleigh etc…

    would that be an “incubator” of “more places”?

    what would have to happen to create “more places”?

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: nit picking the gas tax.

    seriously – what does it matter if gas tax revenues are UP or DOWN 2.1%?

    “Motor Fuels Tax collections declined by 0.6 percent in May. Annual collections through
    the first eleven months of fiscal year 2008 are up 2.1 percent….
    gasoline, which averaged $2.81 per gallon in 2007, will average $3.78 in May”

    Bob – are you just going to stick to your story even though the trend line is pretty clear?

    Do you think the May decline is an anomaly due to “temporarily” higher gasoline prices?

    What will you say when the June numbers also show a decline?

    and what does it matter anyhow?

    Isn’t the relevant point that the cost of maintaining roads is OUTPACING gasoline tax revenues by 3 times as much?

    Why is Kaine asking for $250 MORE for road maintenance?

    Here’s the question to answer:

    Do we need to raise taxes for the increasing costs of transportation maintenance?

    Is the increase in gas tax revenues sufficient to take care of our maintenance needs?

    or …are we ..essentially blowing smoke here by claiming that the gas tax revenues are increasing?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “but young folks .. who are by their nature – mobile – for jobs and places to live …

    they are primarily urban type dwellers.”

    With fewer and fewer job guarantees, a lot more of us will need to be more and more mobile. We need to lower the transaction costs on selling/buying homes.

    What would it take to get more places? I don’t know. But I do think we need to reevaluate why we move 800,000 people every day, twice a day. Who does this really benefit, and why? Can we get equivalent benefits some cheaper way?

    And let’s not prejudice the search for truth with preconcieved dogma of either species.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Isn’t the relevant point that the cost of maintaining roads is OUTPACING gasoline tax revenues by 3 times as much?”

    No, it is not relevant. How much is maintenance outpacing all transportaton revenue sources?

    If the answer is that we don’t have enough for maintenance, then what? Shut down roads as they become unsafe? Let our investment fritter away? Raise enough funds to do the maintenance?

    If we need to raise funds(for maintenance on ALL roads), what is the best, most fair, most rational way to do it?

  16. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    “and what does it matter anyhow?”

    It matters when an argument is being built upon a completely bogus premise. People drive primarily because they need to get to work. This is not going to change. It’s the discretionary purchases — new cars and tolls — that are showing the significant hit.

    Facts matter.

    As for the need for new revenue, it’s the same answer I’ve given several times. There is plenty of money, but it’s not being spent on roads. There is no need for new money with Homer, Kaine and Howell are just going to blow it on trolleys and bicycle paths.

    Kaine is asking for tax hikes and more revenue because he is a supporter of big government. Big government has an endless appetite for your money. It always needs more.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “…why we move 800,000 people every day, twice a day.”

    who is the “we”?

    “search for truth”

    Unless…”we” told people that all 800,000 of them MUST move twice a day, shouldn’t it be assumed that each of the 800,000 made their own decisions?

    Are we waiting for “we” to tell those 800,000 what to do next?

  18. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “There is plenty of money, but it’s not being spent on roads. There is no need for new money with Homer, Kaine and Howell are just going to blow it on trolleys and bicycle paths.”

    I thought it was office drapes in Fairfax County Government offices.

    yes Facts do matter – but only if they are relevant to some point…

    what is the point that gas tax revenues are increasing at 2.1%

    what is the point of that fact?

    is it supposed to “prove” that Kaine is lying about the need for $260 million for highway maintenance?

    Someone did question whether or not we are spending maintenance money effectively.

    That would be a good relevant fact if true.

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “No, it is not relevant. How much is maintenance outpacing all transportaton revenue sources?”

    …”If the answer is that we don’t have enough for maintenance, then what? “

    According to Kaine – it is outpacing at the rate of about $260 million a year.

    then what? well.. again.. if you believe Kaine – we need to raise taxes by about $260 million a year to cover the shortfall.

    If you believe Bob – then the fact that gas tax revenues are coming in at 2.1% higher then we don’t have to raise taxes because we are wasting what we already collect and could negate the need to raise taxes just by tracking down the existing waste.

    so what is the point about the 2.1% to start with… if it is not enough to compensate for the shortfall in maintenance .. if we just then switch the entire argument to a claim of wasteful spending as the cause of the shortfall?

    Is there something about the 2.1% that has something to do with the $260 million shortfall?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “shouldn’t it be assumed that each of the 800,000 made their own decisions?”

    They make their decisions based on the facts they have at hand. that’s one kind of decision.

    The facts they have at hand are based on home prices and availability, transportation options, and jobs.

    We as in government, have an interest in making sure people get what they want, so we study their decisons in order that we can provide conditions that allow them more and better choices. (Rhis is where the truth comes in. Are they really better choices or are we pushing our agenda and our choices?) That is how we increase OUR revenue, and how we spend it so that they can increase THEIRS.

    It is a different level of decision making.

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “That is how we increase OUR revenue, and how we spend it so that they can increase THEIRS.”

    just curious. Where does OUR revenue that we spend come from?

    Wouldn’t it be better if THEY (THEIRS) spent their own money directly on what benefited them the most?

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ok time to take it even further

    What if what people want is not what is best for the whole.

    Thats why this issue is so complicated. Depending on where you live you have a completelty different view about what needs to be done (if anything at all), who should pay for it, and how it should be paid.

    In the end the governor is the only one who is expected to fulfills the role of what is best for the common good (i.e. the entire state of Virginia).

    Larry,

    You are making the regional approach and toll approach argument. Of course there are many who don’t trust the regional or toll collection agencies to make the right decisions.

    My question then is the state doing a better job. If not isn’t it time for a new way of doing things.

    NMM

  23. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: regional/toll argument

    not really – although it probably appears that way.

    I DO PREFER local decision-making and quid-pro-quo transactions but I also do acknowledge that public policy does require some level of taxation for the “good of the public”.

    But it appears that we have put our eggs in the more roads for commuters basket and now we’ve got $5-7 gas staring at us and more roads doesn’t appear to be an answer that is going to help us deal with the future.

    The Europeans have chosen to put a $2+ tax on gasoline .. no excuses about “diverting” money from roads to “wasteful” transit – and they now have a fairly comprehensive multi-modal network – that if nothing else – is a alternative to having no choice but to pay $8 a gallon to auto commute.

    Look at this chart, page 6, Table 1
    Daily Travel Characteristics

    http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/sjun08.pdf

    and you can see the stark differences between two very different industrialized countries that chose very different public policies apparently with the same goal of “for the good” of the public.

    This is beyond the regional/tax/toll issue in some respects.

  24. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The empirical evidence from countries where gas does cost $7/gallon is against “more places”. England, The Netherlands, Japan, Germany, etc. – they seem to have fewer, denser population centers than the US. I believe that London’s population is growing faster than England’s and Tokyo’s population is growing while Japan’s stays flat. If high energy prices forced dispersion into “more places” wouldn’t it have happened in some of the countries where energy (at least gasoline) has been very expensive for a long time?

    So, what are the attributes of countries where gas has been expensive for a long time?

    1. A few, densely populated cities harbor a relatively large percentage of the population.
    2. People live in much smaller housing than the US on much smaller lots.
    3. Taxes are high.
    4. Mass transit is ubiquitous. It is multi modal.
    5. Relatively wealthy people have a “flat” in the city and a vacation home somewhere else.
    6. Local governments have substantial power and decision making authority.
    7. The supply of affordable housing is created by taxing the relatively wealthy and subsidizing the less well to do – especially government employees such as teachers, policemen, etc.
    8. Secondary cities often suffer from economic decay while primary cities prosper (example: Liverpool and London).

    Jim Bacon can’t remember the other reader who sent him the article. Tisk, tisk … I’ll wager I was the only reader who sent it from the country where it was first published.

    And, last in my sequence but first in my admiration, Nova Middle Man:

    “My question then is the state doing a better job. If not isn’t it time for a new way of doing things.”.

    The state is doing a horrible job. It is time for a new way of doing things. Some on this site like the idea of selling public assets to private companies. Maybe the state should sell the right to tax NoVA to a European city in return for some cash to waste and a promise to rehabilitate NoVA into a modern, well run metropolitan area over the next 20 years. Everybody wins:

    1. I get rid of the state legislature’s role in NoVA.
    2. TMT gets rid of local NoVA politicans (no need for them since we outsourced government to a European city).
    3. EMR gets more functional human settlement patterns provided by those who seem to know how to do this.
    4. The citizens of NoVA don’t know who represents them today so they don’t care that it’s, say, the Copenhagan City Council.
    5. RoVA doesn’t have to “pay for NoVA’s roads”.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Where does OUR revenue that we spend come from?”

    Like my friend Jesus says, “What good all that money, it no go round and round?”

    ——————————–

    “Wouldn’t it be better if THEY (THEIRS) spent their own money directly on what benefited them the most?”

    First, will they, or will it be on SUV’s to drive solo, and video games?

    Second, they don’t have the ability to spend it on the things that government can buy or provide. Individualy, they can’t buy roads, Research, Scholarships, police, government administration.

    Wouldn’t it be better if…

    Maybe, but they won’t always and they can’t always.

    The “if” makes the question moot.

    ——————————-

    “What if what people want is not what is best for the whole.”

    Individually, they are welcome to spend their money any way they want. Theyy want to drive SUV’s solo, knock yourself out.

    “What if what [some] people want is not what is best for the whole.”

    We call those special interests. Or criminals. They routinely exhort the govenment to enact regulations that either lower their costs or raise other’s costs. If this causes a move away from the optimum cost/benefit ratio then their move is not good for the whole. They may (and probably do) beleive they are moving towad that point and not away. Government practitioners make that decision (we hope, and we hope they make it correctly).

    “What if what people (everyone) want is not what is best for the whole.”

    They can probably get that by electing people who will give it to them. We could vote in a despot or legislate ourselves to totalitarianism, but why would we, if it makes us individually worse off, along with the whole? It makes no sense.

    The government on the other hand does have an interest in seeing that everyone is better off: it lowers government costs, and it makes more revenue available to government, possibly even with lower tax rates (this is th eLaffer curve argument).

    ——————————–

    “Depending on where you live you have a completelty different view about what needs to be done “

    OK, so you are a member of a geographical special interest. You can ask for what you want, but someone else makes the decision. That person is in a position to weigh the value of competing interests and you are not. We hope he does that rationally and not politically, but frequently politics rule. That’s why we need a better decision making process.

    “who should pay for it, and how it should be paid.”

    This isn’t an issue. The way you decide if a proposal is better for the whole is if the winners can pay off the losers and still come out ahead. If everybody is a winner you pay proportionate to your gains.

    ——————————

    “In the end the governor is the only one who is expected to fulfills the role of what is best for the common good.”

    Not really. Your legislators have to negotiate trades to get what they think you want. The process of trades amounts to a kind of auction that results in everybody getting something. With fifty people negotiating for their own highest cost benefit ratio, regression to the mean results in a conclusion that is not too far away from the best optimum.

    But, if you demand that your legislator take a strict regional approach, he will be unable to make any trades. You are (once again) placing an infinite value on what YOU want (zero mercury or some such) which is an impossible condition. It necessarily puts you in the position of violating your own tenet, which is that no one has the right to “damage” others.

    “It is neither desirable nor possible to tax each group of tax payers in the same order of magnitude as this group benefits from public services.”

    And that is the fundamental problem with regionalism, which is a larger version of user pays. The transaction costs (inability to make deals) wrecks the system and all are worse off, including the regionalist.

    And like the individuals who think they are better off spending THEIR money on what THEY want you never have enough to get the grand projects done. (Third Crossing.)

    With Corn prices this high, maybe I would like a combine. But I can’t afford one so I’ll have to form a syndicate in which we are all better off than if we all wait till we can afford one. If I choose to look at it that way, I can mightily object to having the syndicate spend MY MONEY on someone else’s cornfield, but it is a dumb-ass couterproductive, curmudgeonly way to view things. way to view things.

    It is different of course if the combine NEVER shows up on my field. But there are a lot of ways to play this game. Suppose I get paid according to what the combine produces and my share of the combine. I’m the farthest guy away, so it is to my benefit to do me last, if at all. I could invest in the combine, get my share of its profits, and still make hay.

    The whole point of a deal is that both sides win. But if you approach every deal as if the other side is stealing from you….you don’t get much.

    What good all that money, it no go round and round?

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “no excuses about “diverting” money from roads to “wasteful” transit “

    Their gas tax goes in the general fund. And they have PLENTY of discussions about wasteful public transit.

    Anyway, what they do has very little bearing on us: we have a diferent problem.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “is a alternative to having no choice but to pay $8 a gallon to auto commute.”

    They have a choice, they could lower the tax. Ours is too low and we miss the optimum cost benefit point. Theirs is too high and they miss the optimum cost benefit point.

    “apparently with the same goal of “for the good” of the public.”

    I don’t see that it is apparent. You are claiming they are better off with no way to measure. Same as claiming we are always better off with less pollution. It is hard to believe, but it ain’t always so.

    Having no agreed way to measure is why I say we need a better decison process. Or else we agree that legislative deal making gets us pretty close, and stop whining.

    Whatever happened to the gross national happiness?

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Netherlands has an official policy in place to create more urban centers, they call it something like dispersed aggregation. Those places also pay large amounts to support the rural areas tha support them.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “what are the attributes of countries where gas has been expensive for a long time?”

    How do we KNOW they are better off. If we think it so great why aren’t we moving there, the way Mexicans are moving here?

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Here is the question”

    In our opinion – right now – are the Europeans better off than us by having invested in wide/deep transit in an era of expensive gasoline?

    What is our policy response to mobility needs if gasoline is going to cost $7 and up?

    Do we:

    1. – raise the gas tax to build more roads

    2. – do something else

    You don’t need no Mexicans to answer the above questions.

  31. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Frist:

    Thanks to all those who forwarded the IHT story to Jim Bacon. And thanks to Jim Bacon for putting it up and to Larry Gross for the other leads.

    Second:

    Groveton hit it out of the park on both lists.

    We will deal with the Myth of More Places in a forthcoming item but his emperical observations are right on.

    Now we need to stop trying to obfuscate reality and move on to build a solid base for Fundamental Change.

    Oh, and Larry’s last question: A no brainer that every Latino and Latina could answer if they had the right information.

    Have a good week end.

    EMR

  32. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Again, all this is based on the status quo. Assuming that things will continue as they are, with the exception of rising gas prices. As the price of gas rises, we develop more and more vehicles that get more and more gas mileage (Prius anyone?). We also develop modes of transportation that don’t require gas at all, using some other form of energy to propel the car. The biggest folks to get hurt will be the low income people because the car gave them a means to become upwardly mobile. Be able to go to jobs beyond the mass transit system on schedules beyond mass transit schedules. But hey, we’ll all move into EMR’s tiny hovels and the world will be a better place. I’m betting on human ingenuity over EMR’s dismal vision of the world.

  33. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think the biggest ones to get hurt might be those who drove til they qualified – then paid more than top dollar for a suburban home and did it with an ARM mortgage.

    Some of those folks had no clue how they were going to come up with the increased mortgage payment and their bail-out plan was to unload the house – until that strategy cratered.

    So.. the increased gas prices “work” just like the escalating ARM – and the result is that many are walking away from a mortgage that will be higher than the value of the home – for the life of the loan.

    These folks did not have stellar credit to start with or else they could have gotten fixed rates instead of ARM rates.

    The interesting thing is – that there is a lucrative business in buying up the abandoned properties and then renting them to – guess who?

    I do agree.. cars that get 30+ mpg are going to be hot, hot, hot.

    anyone who can afford one (and remember many are $15 and less) will get one – and this might be just the beginning if plug-ins come on the market.

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Accurate” did not prove to be accurate when he tossed out comments on “How to Build a Village” and then was called on them by the author.

    He is at it again, spinning sillyness.

    Show us one place that Dr. Risse has called for anyone to live in tiny huvals.

    Geographic Illiteracy creates false impressions among what Dr. Risse call the 12 1/2 Percenters — because they have chosen to live in places that do not fall within the 87 1/2 % Rule.

    For those who do not know, 87 1/2 % is a majority of the Households in the US of A.

    Anon Zoro and Zora

  35. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Hey, thanks for the slam Anon Zoro and Zona – so let’s try to set the record straight.

    What is your definition of ‘tiny huval’? To quote one of EMR’s works (The Shape of the Future) “Accept the fact that Multi-Household Dwellings and Single Household Attached Dwellings will make up the majority of the housing stock in any Neighborhood, Village and Community.”

    So I don’t know what that means to you, but it certainly doesn’t mean living in a 1500 or 1800 or 2500 unattached SFH to me. I don’t really care if people like living in ‘attached dwellings’ that is their choice, they have had it in the past, they have it now, they should have it in the future. But THAT choice should not infringe on my choice to NOT live like that.

    Next, your comment – “…when he tossed out comments on “How to Build a Village” and then was called on them by the author.”

    I had questions for the author, we had some rather interesting discussions. I do building inspections for a living and as such have a very good handle on building codes. He asked questions of me, I answered them. I had questions for him, he answered them. Once again, my opinion is that I would be VERY unhappy living in one of his ‘villages’ but I don’t think his villages should be banned nor should we be required to live in them. One thing that this country has always had is more freedom than is granted in other countries in this world.

    EMR’s vision of the world is interesting but much too confining for my tastes. He (seemingly) looks at all problems through the same prism and sees all solutions being cured with the same hammer. To me, that hammer is far too confining and takes away a LARGE measure of our freedoms. He, as many who comment here frame the future as though nothing/not-much will change. Things change every day. As the dynamics of energy and money change, things that once were too expensive start to pencil out and make sense.

    I have my two cents to contribute. My job, my local, my life and my circumstances are (I’m pretty sure) MUCH different than yours. I presently live in that 87 1/2 %. if I could I would live differently. I grew up with hunting, camping and fishing, something I hope my kids will be able to pass on and enjoy when they raise families (assuming they make it out of Iraq). I do NOT enjoy urban settings, I do not agree with much of what the urban government in my area comes up with as ideas.

    No less than you, or anyone else on this blog, including EMR – my ideas are my own and I feel they DO have something to contribute. When I read EMR’s postings it so often seems like more of the same. I do not share what I view as his pessimistic view of this country.

    But hey, thanks for the slam anyway.

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Accurate said:

    Hey, thanks for the slam Anon Zoro and Zona [Zora, please]- so let’s try to set the record straight.

    What is your definition of ‘tiny huval’? [“hovel, sorry]

    To quote one of EMR’s works (The Shape of the Future) “Accept the fact that Multi-Household Dwellings and Single Household Attached Dwellings will make up the majority of the housing stock in any Neighborhood, Village and Community.”

    That is an accurate quote but where do you get “hovel” Unit size from this.

    It is the sideyard / size of lot that Dr. Risse points out disaggregates settlement patterns.

    That is the problem with the space to park and drive what he calls Autonomobiles too.

    It is the root problem of large areas of mown grass.

    IT IS THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN, NOT THE UNIT SIZE.

    “So I don’t know what that means to you, but it certainly doesn’t mean living in a 1500 or 1800 or 2500 unattached SFH to me.”

    You need to travel more and understand better what you see.

    “I don’t really care if people like living in ‘attached dwellings’ that is their choice, they have had it in the past, they have it now, they should have it in the future.”

    That is what Dr. Risse suggests as well — as long as the occupant pays the full tab for location variabel costs — or there is a tranparent, democratically established subsidy for living space.

    Dr. Risse pointed out in a recent lecture that the Wealth Gap is no so large there is no choice but subsidies.

    The problem is now that the subsidies are hidden or denied (as most of his critics do).

    “But THAT choice should not infringe on my choice to NOT live like that.”

    That is what Dr. Risse says too. The difference is that you attack the messenger rather than learning the collective impact of human settlement pattherns.

    Zoro (Zora is still asleep)

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Accurate also said:

    “Next, your comment – “…when he tossed out comments on “How to Build a Village” and then was called on them by the author.”

    “I had questions for the author, we had some rather interesting discussions. I do building inspections for a living and as such have a very good handle on building codes. He asked questions of me, I answered them. I had questions for him, he answered them. Once again, my opinion is that I would be VERY unhappy living in one of his ‘villages’ …”

    You completely missed his core point of fireproof materials and he nailed you by asking if you had read his work or were just talking off the top of your head.

    “…but I don’t think his villages should be banned nor should we be required to live in them. One thing that this country has always had is more freedom than is granted in other countries in this world.”

    If you had strated your attack on Lewenz that way you would have gotten a lot more respect.

    If you had read his material you would know that perhaps 20 percent of the population of the Portland New Urban Region would sign up for a Parallel Village. That is a lot more than would be willing to pay for one, two, five, ten or 30 acre urban lots.

    “EMR’s vision of the world is interesting but much too confining for my tastes. He (seemingly) looks at all problems through the same prism …”

    Yes, the economic, social and physical reality created by existing human settlement patterns.

    “… and sees all solutions being cured with the same hammer. To me, that hammer is far too confining and takes away a LARGE measure of our freedoms.”

    With a democracy and a market economy one cannot rely on someone else paying the bill so you can overcome the impact of your own personal decisions. You could choose to be a subsistance farmer in eastern Oregon.

    “He, as many who comment here frame the future as though nothing/not-much will change.”

    Really? Most seem to think things will change a lot, the question is what way will they change.”

    “Things change every day. As the dynamics of energy and money change, things that once were too expensive start to pencil out and make sense.”

    True but also things that were subsidized do not pencil out anymore and they do not (and never did) make sense.

    “I have my two cents to contribute.”

    Your two cents are welcome as far as I can see, not your attacks.

    “My job, my local, my life and my circumstances are (I’m pretty sure) MUCH different than yours. I presently live in that 87 1/2 %. if I could I would live differently. I grew up with hunting, camping and fishing, …”

    Have you ever read or heard Dr. Risse describe growing up in Western Montana?

    “…something I hope my kids will be able to pass on and enjoy when they raise families (assuming they make it out of Iraq).”

    Who started the war in Iraq and to what end? Continue the flow of cheap oil for a few more years so that the “auto-centric” lifestyle could go on for a few more years and “some of Uncle Dick’s rich friends could make more money.”

    As noted above, your two cents are worth a lot more than two cents. You just need to stop attacking those who have given the current conditions a lot of thought and see the larger pattern that collective human proclivities create when there is an inequitable distribution of costs and benefits.

    “I do NOT enjoy urban settings, I do not agree with much of what the urban government in my area comes up with as ideas.”

    Clearly you must realize that Dr. Risse, Groveton and James Bacon do not either.

    “No less than you, or anyone else on this blog, including EMR – my ideas are my own and I feel they DO have something to contribute.”

    Good.

    “When I read EMR’s postings it so often seems like more of the same. I do not share what I view as his pessimistic view of this country.”

    I you had taken classes from him you would know he loves this country as much as you. He would like to help find a way so that your grandchildren could have something to love too.

    Zora. I am now awake and mad.

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I was watching a program last night on efforts to create a Fusion Reactor.

    It’s still down the road a few decades unless a major breakthrough is made but in the history of mankind – even 50 years is not forever.

    And it appears to me that plug-in hybrids are close to practicality, certainly by a decade or less.

    So, the question I pose here – is one I have posed before -which is – if gasoline/liquid fuels get replaced with electricity and personal mobility vehicles become ubiquitous … and here’s my question…

    will the RANGE of those vehicles have any effect on the size/shape/scope/scale of settlement patterns?

    this is one of the problems that I have with the 12 1/2% or the 87 1/2% concept and that is what are the fundamental forces that affect the percentages – and are those forces themselves – fixed or dynamic?

    Bonus Question: Is someone who rides on a commuter bus 100 miles roundtrip everyday a 12 1/2%ter and if so – why.

  39. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    “Attack the messenger” yup, that is what I felt and feel again.

    “Have you ever read or heard Dr. Risse describe growing up in Western Montana? ” Short answer no, I don’t live in your part of the country and am a long ways from going to school (anymore – beyond classes to further my career).

    “Clearly you must realize that Dr. Risse, Groveton and James Bacon do not either.” Can’t speak to Groveton, but the impression I get from Jim Bacon and Dr. Risse are that, yes, they don’t like the way urban living is presently set up but if they had their way, they would like us all (90% +) to be living in an urban environment (just my impression from reading).

    There are several other points but I’ll finish this discussion with this one. “Your two cents are welcome as far as I can see, not your attacks.” From my point of view you have taken an opinion (mine) and framed it as an attack. The more I read Dr. Risse the more I believe that, yes, he does want us living in high rises. He does (in my opinion) see the solution to 90% of our problems, solved with a solution that who’s major component is multi-family housing. My view of this country is quite the opposite.

    There are so many other points that I dispute, but I’m tired as I’m sure others are tired of this discussion. I’m not attacking Dr. Risse, I am strongly disagreeing with his ideas. Like anyone else, I admire that he has put a lot of thought into his ideas, but I don’t agree with his conclusions; and he seems rather inflexible in his conclusions. Which is why I say that to me, Dr. Risse is like the worker with one tool who views all problems as solved using that one tool, in that one way.

    Sorry if you’re mad, I’ll probably make you mad in the future. Have a nice day and this side of the discussion is done.

  40. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Accurate, My philosophy (and that of EMR) is that Americans should be free to live where they want to. I am totally opposed to social engineering. But there is one catch: I believe that people should pay their location-variable costs. If it’s more expensive to provide utilities, roads and public services to Location A than Location B, then people residing in Location A should pay higher costs.

    I also believe that there is a latent demand for more “urban” human settlement patterns. I could be wrong. But we will never know for sure because real estate in America is anything but a “free” market in which people get to act out their consumer preferences within the constraints of what they can afford. Human settlement patterns are the product of zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, environmental restrictions, housing subsidies of all kinds, the politics of zoning cases, and the politics of transportation funding.

    I advocate a state of affairs approximating a free market with a minimum of political meddling, where people are free to live where they want — again, providing they pay the costs associated with their decisions rather than foisting those costs onto someone else.

    In my observation, many people who favor the status quo do so because they benefit from the current allocation (or misallocation) of costs. Such people want to be “free” to live where they want — and to have someone else pick up the tab for the inefficiencies in providing public services.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jim – until we stop permitting the political process to be manipulated to devote public resources (i.e., tax dollars) to fund, directly or indirectly, the business plans of some real estate interests, no rational settlement/transportation results will occur.

    One can make a good argument that large-scale tax investments should not be made so that people can have mega-mansions 50-60 miles away from work centers and also have commuting costs equal to someone who lives 5 miles from work.

    But the very same argument can be made against the deployment of large sums of tax money to subsidize an urban lifestyle (or maybe that’s those who wish to construct and sell an urban lifestyle).

    Example number one — Tysons Corner. Taxpayers and DTR drivers are paying hundreds of millions and will pay billions more so that landowners can make billions (together) and purchasers and tenants can pay prices that do not necessarily recover the related infrastructure costs. The Tysons Task Force with the apparent blessing of Fairfax County is using so-called urban standards for infrastructure that, in many cases, minimizes the public facilities needed to support a large urban center.

    Is this any worse than subsidizing exurban development?

    TMT

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sorry – I meant to say “Is this any better than subsidizing exurban development?”

    TMT

  43. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    TMT, I’ve *never* said we should subsidize urban lifestyles. Never. Never. Never. I don’t believe in subdizizing *anybody’s* lifestyle.

    This is what I have said: (1) Make people pay the location variable costs of where they live, (2) loosen up the zoning codes (can’t say *abolish* zoning codes; we’ll always need to restrict a few things in the name of public health and safety) so developers can actually build the kinds of communities where people want to live, and (3) use public infrastructure dollars to create balanced communities with transportation systems scaled to match.

  44. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    P.S. My sense is that if we could do the three things listed above, we would get significantly more urban infill development and redevelopment, especially as the cost of automobile transportation continues to rise. But maybe not. As long as they’re not asking someone else to pay for their locational decisions, people should be free to maximize their own personal good.

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    suppose the home beside you was combined with 3 adjacent ones… and converted to .. oh… let’s say a 5 story apartment building ….

    Would this be the good result of doing away with “restrictive” zoning laws and regs?

    Would the resistance to this kind of relaxed zoning more likely come from planners or citizens?

    most BOS – when they hear planner proposals for higher “by right” residential densities are loathe to do it.

    Who would this benefit?

    More important, who will pay for the infrastructure up front – to have it in place for follow-on development?

    I’m not sure that planners or BOS consider such restrictions as unnecessary but rather fiscally irresponsible to not have them.

    If you want density – it’s not going to happen unless it somehow becomes an advantage to some combination of the developer, county, and citizens.

    Which, in Virginia – can leave us asking if there is something the State should do or is there something it is doing that it should stop doing to let density occur?

    Are density policies better done by Home Rule States rather than Dillon States?

    Is Dillon an impediment to more dense settlement patterns in Va?

  46. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Larry, Read the Wikipedia entry on form-based code.”

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “These folks did not have stellar credit to start with or else they could have gotten fixed rates instead of ARM rates.”

    Actually, I know people whose credit is as good as mine who willingly chose ARM rates. For years I watched as they paid less every month than I did. In the end, it caught up with them, but only because their job turned out to be more stable than they planned, and they stayed longer.

    Arms wer never for only those that could not afford fixed rates. it is only a different kind of risk to take, not necessarily a worse one.

    ————————————

    unless “more places” is lots of different job opportunities.

    Why coudn’t that happen?

    RH

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I believe that people should pay their location-variable costs.”

    I beleive ou are going to be in for a big surprise, if we ever find out what they actually are, as opposed to what EMR thinks they are.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Every week, in th e”middleburg Times” there ae ads for dozens of properties for sale. These are properties worth multiple millions and often tens of millions.

    Is this a sign of the fringes unraveling? Are these people moving in to town to save on gas?

    Who is going to buy such places and what will become of 20,000 sq ft homes with (4Ba 2 Half Ba). sounds like you could subdivide that into four pretty dwelling units.

    All you need is jobs.

    RH

  50. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    I can’t say that I have the secret decoder ring needed to decipher any of the EMR posts, but there is one concept that is crystal clear:

    “After a decade on this new consumption trajectory it should be possible to anticipate a one percent annual drop in total population. Both per capita consumption and total population declines are necessary.”

    In the abstract, I’m all for loosening zoning codes and might even be ok with charging the clear cost of bringing utilities to housing projects — although I’d want to see real numbers first. This all sounds nice. But if the real end goal is economic stagnation and death, no thanks. It’s just a bunch of fancy words to hide the same old anti-growth agenda.

    Europe indeed.

  51. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    JB – thanks for the tip on forms based code…

    okay – so you can “disguise” density to look like something else…

    but what TMT is talking about with density – and myself

    is .. something pretty simple.. and fundamental..

    You’ve got a sewer pipe.

    it was designed for a certain density.

    You can’t build a sewer pipe for one density and then turn around and hook up 10 times as many homes to it as it was originally designed for.

    Ditto for roads, libraries, schools, and other infrastructure and services…

    the folks who want to “loosen” the zoning codes seem to think that “redoing” the infrastructure merely requires re-writing some zoning words….

    or.. like with Ray and other property-rights folks…

    you.. add the new infrastructure and charge the current property owners for it – on the premise – that whether they like it or not – it will make their properties more valuable…

    .. there’s one little problem with all of this – elected government..

    a major fly-in-the-ointment complication…for retrofitting “density”.

    Who should pay for the infrastructure to densify?

    the only way to make such ideas “work” would be some state-level entity using State-level police powers to “order” certain areas to “densify” and to raise taxes on existing owners to pay for it.

    Despite the fantasies of both New Urbanists and developer wet dreams – you cannot wave a magic “densifer” wand over a plot of land that transforms the water/sewer and other infrastructure to larger sizes to for higher densities.

    Where does water/sewer come from in Greenfield development way back when an area was not watered/sewered?

    Well.. someone said “how many households are going to be developed”

    and someone else said 4 per acre.

    This is not an arbitrary restriction cooked up to restrict the rights of property owners.

    this is a real, physical decision that has real, fiscal impacts.

    Water and sewer to serve 4 units per acre is much smaller and less expensive than water/sewer to serve 16 or 32 units per acre.

    You just can’t stick this in the ground and 10 years later decide that you are going to “relax” your zoning rules and allow more density – at least not without major fiscal consequences.

    Where would the government entity get the money to upgrade the water/sewer as a consequence of “relaxing the zoning” ?

    I know.. this is a pesky concept that gets in the way of the best laid plans of New Urbanists as well as the property right folks but it is real and in the end – it’s more relevant as an impediment than perceived forces opposed to density.

    You just cannot take a place like Tysons and make it more dense by changing words on paper….

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry has it right. There are physical limits on infrastructure. See the following press release that was based on making Tysons only 114 million square feet. Now, it could be as high as 177 million, including development bonuses. Pardon me if I don’t cheer for this insanity.

    TMT

    GTCC QUESTIONS TASK FORCE RESPONSE TO SEWER CAPACITY CRISIS

    Fairfax County lacks the wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate any growth at Tysons Corner beyond the level of the current Comprehensive Plan, County staff reported to the Tysons Land Use Task Force. Only by cobbling together a scheme of purchasing additional sewage treatment capacity from nearby jurisdictions and a massive capital investment in infrastructure could the Task Force’s vision of a densely urbanized Tysons be supported.

    According to County figures presented to the Task Force on March 24, 2008, the infrastructure costs could range from $60 million to $142 million. The costs of purchasing additional capacity were not included in these figures, nor were increased maintenance costs for the expanded system.

    The majority of Task Force members did not allow this news to deter them from continuing to plan for massive density increases at Tysons, according to Greater Tysons Citizens Coalition (GTCC) members present at the meeting.

    Comments from some Task Force members suggested they did not consider the staff’s report an impediment to adding millions of square feet of development and hundreds of thousands of workers and residents to Tysons Corner. Instead, one proposed that the report might be overly pessimistic, because it didn’t account for possible future technologies that would reduce sewage output. Another Task Force member interpreted the staff’s message as saying that meeting the wastewater needs of urban density at Tysons was possible—“it’s just a matter of money.”

    “It’s a heck of a lot of money they’re talking about,” observed McLean resident Bud Freeman, who attended the meeting. “And who will be paying? If County bonds are used for the sewer construction, they would compete with bonds for school construction, environmental work, and recreation facilities. Our resources are not limitless.”

    The staff report began with a sobering piece of information: the “County is nearing [full utilization of] its allocation at the Blue Plains treatment plant, which serves the Tysons area.” This means even without any expansion of Tysons beyond the levels of the current Comprehensive Plan, Fairfax County will generate six million gallons of sewage a day more than its share of the capacity at the Blue Plains plant. Handling this excess amount, and meeting other growing needs, will require either the purchase of an additional allocation of 8.5 million gallons a day at Blue Plains, or a combination of purchasing capacity from Loudoun County and diverting flow to the Norman Cole treatment plant in southern Fairfax County.

    The urban development of Tysons Corner would at least double this treatment deficit, generating 12 to 15 million gallons of sewage per day more than the County has capacity to treat. The staff reached these figures by calculating the region’s projected growth (based on Council of Government figures) and population estimates under the two “prototypes” for Tysons development being discussed by the Task Force at the time the report was prepared.

    To handle all this sewage, Fairfax County would have to replace up to 20 miles of pipeline to divert the excess wastewater from the Tysons area to the Norman Cole plant in Lorton, as well as to treatment plants in Arlington and Alexandria. The existing sewer lines running to the Difficult Run pumping station in Great Falls would be replaced with larger capacity pipes and the pumping station itself would be upgraded to handle the increased load. This would also require an additional sewer line from the pumping station to the Scott’s Run siphon.

    And after this huge investment in infrastructure, Fairfax County still would have to purchase costly treatment capacity at plants in neighboring jurisdictions. These purchases, along with the operation and management costs of the complex system, were not part of the staff’s cost estimates.

    The County’s wastewater treatment capacity has significant implications beyond the future growth of Tysons. Achieving all the costly increases proposed would only meet the needs of a high-density Tysons Corner. Jimmy Jenkins, Director of Public Works for Fairfax County, noted to the Task Force that any other development in the County, such as at Springfield or Franconia, would require yet more capacity—but he did not identify where this capacity might come from or what it might cost. According to County staff, expansion of the Norman Cole plant is limited by environmental restrictions on its output, so construction of a larger facility would not be a possibility.

    “Most people listening to the staff report would be alarmed,” said Ted Alexander of the Greater Tysons Citizens Coalition. “Anyone observing the Task Force’s response to it would be even more concerned. They seem to feel money was the only obstacle and that could be handled easily. We think taxpayers and ratepayers would not be as cavalier in these assumptions.”

    The Task Force is moving ahead with consideration of a “Preferred Alternative” for redevelopment that will bring 114 million square feet of office space to Tysons, and housing for 84,000 residents.

    The Greater Tysons Citizens Coalition, an umbrella group for citizens and civic associations in Fairfax County, was formed in recent months to give the surrounding communities a stronger voice in decisions being made about development and density in Tysons Corner. GTCC meets every 2nd and 4th Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the McLean Community Center. For more information, contact GTCC at: GTCitizens@yahoo.com.

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You can’t build a sewer pipe for one density and then turn around and hook up 10 times as many homes to it as it was originally designed for.”

    You should see the size of the new water pipe they are putting in Marshall. I’ve seen bigger pipe installed for watering troughs.

    Five years from now they’ll be denying growth due to lack of infrastructure.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “add the new infrastructure and charge the current property owners for it – on the premise – that whether they like it or not – it will make their properties more valuable…”

    Funny, that’s the EXACT SAME argument that is used by the anti-growth crowd around here: preventing growth and conservation easements will make all properties more valuable – like those ten million dollar mansions in Upperville. Whether you like it or not.

    RH

  55. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    The sewage problem can obviously be fixed by resorting to true free market principles.

    1. Install pay toilets inside every restroom available to the public. No more free rides and subsidies.

    2. Use cameras to strictly enforce laws against alternate attempts at relief.

    3. Instead of charging homeowners based upon the actual amount of water used, install electronic monitoring devices on every toilet. Owners would then be charged on a “per flush” basis, encouraging conservation. Because fat people obviously impose more strain upon the system, they would be charged extra.

    By limiting demand, this user pays system would clearly resolve all the difficulties raised by LG and TMT.

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    They don’t seem to have a problemm waving a magic wand when they want to reduce density.

    LARRY, I HAVE ONLY SAID THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS CUT BOTH DIRECTIONS.

    Major density increases do require contributions from developers, I never said otherwise. But the idea that developers should pay for, and make up for, long standing underfunded obligations by existing residents is just wrong. It is an evasion of property OBLIGATIONS that come along with property rights.

    But, when existing density is reduced, residents should expect to pay for that, just as they expect to get payments from those that increase density.

    Don’t pick on half of my argument.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Charge on a per flush basis.

    I love it. When I wanted to add a room to my house for an office, I was told it would count as a bedroom, and I would have to add on the the septic field.

    “What for?”, I said , “We are still only two people, we are not going to poop any more.”

    And there was a solution, staring me in the behind, flush less often.

    So, I go see the health department to find out how much more pipe I have to lay, and they say, “Oh, no, you can’t do that, you don’t have enough land and it doesn’t drain well enough.”

    “Look”, I said, there’s 180 acres, surely I can find someplace that will drain.” (My soils are described as droughty, and water goes through them like a sieve.)

    The answer was, forget about it. (Or hire an engineer and sue us.)

    Same day I went to another department to see about getting permission to re-dredge an old pond. “You can’t put a pond there, your ground drains too fast, it won’t hold water.” (Never mind there is water standing there today.)

    Maybe they would let me have it if I promise to keep half as many fish.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bob – Wonderful! I especially chuckled at the camera proposal.

    Ray, the facts are such that Fairfax County’s sewer system can handle everything that’s in today’s Comp Plan, but no more. So if I own land and am willing to build to right, but no more, I will not exhaust capacity. But if I want more density, I will cause the capacity reserve to be exceeded.

    Two developers — A & B. A seeks to build by right; B wants more. Between the two, who should pay for the extra capacity? A or B?

    TMT

  59. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    RH,
    Let’s not forget that larger sewage pipes causes more sewage backup!

  60. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    We cannot increase density by changing the number 4 to 16 on a planning document.

    We cannot replace existing water/sewer/roads/schools/libraries with super sized versions with monopoly money.

    These two things are what constitute “obstacles” to “relaxed” zoning rules not anti-growth NIMBYs and not planners.

    If you want higher levels of density:

    You’ve got to show how the infrastructure will be upgraded, how much it will cost and who will pay for it.

    If your “solution” to the above is to tell existing property owners (you know the same folks who have “rights”) that they will pay through higher taxes and lower levels of service and degraded quality of life – you better make sure they also can no longer vote.

    The answer to increased density is to have property owners AGREE that it is a benefit to them.

    I know ..this is such a pesky concept…

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    TMT:

    I agree that a developer who wants addtional density should pay for additional infrastructure. What I don’t agree is that making every developer pay (they are both increasing existing density, right) for “degrading our qulaity of life” is a solution to decades of underinvestment by existing residents, nor is it a valid way to give existing residents a free ride.

    What I don’t know, is what the correct mix of charges should be. I doubt anyone does.

    In any case, this was a plan that was born out of desperation as a result of a few years of rapid growth. If that has stopped, then you should hear the proposals to make deelopers pay through the nose decrease (because after all, we are not opposed to modest growth, just growth that causes huge, sudden, capital expenditures).

    I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    On the other hand, suppose some develoepr comes in and voluteers to pick up tones of slack – pre-existing plus his own. If it is only infrastructure involved, and not antigrowth sentiment, then why should he be refused?

    It is hard to imagine, in the Tyson’s case, that anyone could afford what this is really going to cost. But in my septic field example, I could have easily done what they asked, and paid the full tab. The answer was still, No. They wouldn’t even throw down a criteria for me to meet. The answer was simply no.

    The end result was nothing, which was exactly what they wanted.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The answer to increased density is to have property owners AGREE that it is a benefit to them.”

    In other words you can never increase density. You can show them all the certifiable figures in the world, you could be right, to the one thousandth degree, and they still would not agree. You could put real money in their pocket and they still might not agree.

    What you are saying is that the neighbors have veto power: that their rights EXCEED those of other owners, who happen not to have a structure.

    What I’m saying is that there must be some way to equalize those rights. Right now, it does not exist. They can vote to reduce density – but it only applies to places taht don’t exist yet. It is assymetrical.

    If the rights were fair, they would have to reduce their own density as well. (That would slow down efforts to reduce density, because then they would have to AGREE on who is going to leave.) Or pay those whose density is reduced.

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We cannot increase density by changing the number 4 to 16 on a planning document.”

    Agreed. That is a major flaw in EMR’s plans.

  64. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I don’t say that the European model is perfect – far from it. I just say the many countries of Europe display the attributes of an economy which has slowed to only a small amount of growth over time.

    Jim Bacon wrote:

    “I advocate a state of affairs approximating a free market with a minimum of political meddling, where people are free to live where they want — again, providing they pay the costs associated with their decisions rather than foisting those costs onto someone else.”.

    This is an argument that I’d call “Republican free lunching”. It just doesn’t happen. And, of all jurisdictions, Virginia is posibly the furthest from even attempting this. Here is a small, abbreviated list of questions that would have to be answered before anyone could pay “full costs”:

    1. How many cars travel on each road segment at different times? How much do they weigh? How much do the drivers pay in all transportation related taxes (including any taxes collected for transportation but diverted elsewhere)?

    2. How long will the road last? How much will it cost to replace? If expansions is likely, how much will the exercise of eminent domain cost? What are acceptable service levels? What are acceptable safety levels?

    3. How much does the road section take to maintain? How often will it need to be maintained? What are the expected inflation rates for both material and labor for road maintanence?

    4. What should a locality do if it believes it can get a better deal than it is receiving from VDOT? Who should set the priorities for road building and maintenance?

    And those are just a few questions about roads. “User pays” is just another Republican way of maintaining the status quo. Kind of like “conduct a performance audit” of Virginia’s transportation system. “User pays” and “performance audits” are things that people say when they don’t really want change.

    Jim – you may be sincere about “user pays”. But it’s just not feasible, especially not in Virginia. Part time legislators who can take infinite campaign contributions from special interests … a closed, opaque financial system that is full of abuse … a two year constitutional amendment process… governors that can’t serve two consecutive terms…

    Sometimes perfect is the enemy of good.

    Raise the gas tax. Move on.

  65. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Interesting dialog here, particularly the question of who pays for upgrading water/sewer connections when density is increased? I’d adopt the same logic I would with roads and rail: If a property owner asks for a rezoning that immeasurably increases the value of his property, he should offset an appropriate share of the cost of public improvements that are made necessary by the increase in density.

    In some instances (Tysons Corner, perhaps) the cost of making the necessary upgrades could be so prohibitive that there is no economic value left to the developer. Well, too bad. Maybe redeveloping Tysons Corner is a bad idea.

    In other instances, the increase in property value will more than offset the public expenditures incurred, in which case the developer makes a genuine profit. Wonderful. I’m all in favor of people making a profit. I’m just opposed to people making a profit while unloading the expense onto someone else.

    The problem, as everyone on this blog is well aware, is that we have a political system in which some (not all, but some) large land owners/developers manipulate the political system to do precisely that — capture the economic value of public improvements while dishing off the costs to the public.

    (Note to Groveton: Virginia is not the only place where this happens, or even the worst. Ever hear of Tony Reszko?)

  66. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, So… your alternative to “user pays” is to “increase the gas tax and move on.” That is perpetuating the very status quo that upsets you so.

    Perhaps you meant to say, “increase the gas tax” and “change the allocation formulas to steer more money to Northern Virginia.”

    While Northern Virginia as a region might get more money under such an arrangement, there is no assurance under your system that the money will be applied to benefit the general population as opposed to the special interests who lobby (and benefit from) particular projects.

  67. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    “we have a political system in which some (not all, but some)… manipulate the political system to do precisely that — capture the economic value of public improvements while dishing off the costs to the public.”

    Funny how when you take out the word developer, that sentence applies perfectly to Transurban, Macquarie, Koch, Flour, HDR, and “some” but not all of the other toll road companies.

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton is right.

    I’m in the business of answering and compiling the reuslts of just this kind of question (not in this field though). But the questions he proposes are symptomatic of what we would actually have to do.

    If we are serious about user pays, then I suggest we get started, because it is going to be the full employment act for cost analysts. BUT, if you ever accomplished the thing, you would have a compendium of answers. If the neighbors don’t AGREE that this is the answer, well they would have a hard time proving it isn’t. We would know (within some range), if the developers or the public benefit more.

    BUT, the task is so huge that the transaction costs would kill you. Sending money to other people to decide how to spend would look like a bargain. I don’t think it is impossible: it is probably on the order magnitude of making the space wars software work. I think there is some company in Texas working on a massive database of simple facts with the idea of creating a massively inductive calculator.

    When I see the “user pays” people advocating that we raise enough money to actually go do this, then I’ll think they are serious.

    “…large land owners/developers manipulate the political system to capture the economic value of public improvements while dishing off the costs to the public.”

    Easy to say, but how do we KNOW. I can’t believe that statement is complete. Surely there are SOME offsetting benefits to the public, but you NEVER hear about them from those that despise the “big developers” we created by putting the little developers out of business.

    RH

  69. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Bob, I am under no illusions about the motives of the private contractors and construction companies. (Reference my blog posts about Bechtel and Rail to Dulles.)

    If we’re naive, incompetent or otherwise fail to do a good job of negotiating our contracts with those guys, yes, they will take us to the cleaners. But if we are smart, competent and negotiate good contracts, such arrangements can be highly beneficial.

    Public-private partnerships are not a cure-all. They’re one piece of the financing puzzle. To make sure that there’s no inside dealing going on, we need to make the negotiation process and the final contract (before it’s approved) as transparent and public as possible.

  70. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: How do we know who should bear the costs?

    at the end of the Day – the folks who have not been convinced to share those costs – have the final say and if the answer is no – the answer means this:

    “No, I will not pay you money to do something that you claim will benefit me”.

    So.. you can make all the arguments
    you wish about how hard it would be to “figure something out” but at the end of the day, it’s not that complicated at all.

    You request a rezone. You present your case. The public has their say. And the elected make a decision.

    “by right” means that you have the right to do with a property what elected officials have agreed to provide you with – which is most cases is an access point and not a whole heck of lot more unless water/sewer is available.

    But you cannot order up 16 water/sewer connections just by saying that you deserve them.

    Ray, have the same problem with pollution.

    You are not entitled because you feel that, in your own mind, you believe that you are providing benefits in excess of impacts.

    Others, who will be impacted, at their elected are the ones who decide – and not on your terms but theirs.

    There is no need for a Supreme committee to go through an infinite series of calculations to figure out who really benefits.

    there will NEVER be such a committee.

    If you fail to convince others, that’s the end of it.

    If you want to come back with a better deal -that is your right.

    but at no point, do you get to appeal to a Supreme Arbiter to prevail over those whom you have failed to convince.

  71. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: user pays

    If you do not pay at Walmart – you don’t end up with anything to use.

    get it – “user pays” or no user!

    If you do not pay for a new road – you have no new road to drive on.

    We are literally at this point with transportation in Va.

    So we car argue about the gas tax being a correct or incorrect proxy for “user pays” but unless you are seriously talking about more than 5 cents – the issue is pretty much moot because you’ll need 5 cents just to pay the late charges (maintenance).

    The question – being arduously ignored – is how do we want to pay for NEW ROADS and how much do we want to pay?

    It’s like that Texas Poll where 80% want new roads and rail and 78% are opposed to taxes and tolls to pay for them.

    well.. that’s a big whoopee !!!

    so the answer is

    … raise the gas tax

    … err what about those polls?

    .. ignore the polls, raise the gas tax…

    gee.. it hurts when I do this

    ..then don’t do it…

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “at the end of the Day – the folks who have not been convinced to share those costs – have the final say and if the answer is no – “

    So, you think they have more rights, or more valuable rights.

    I say the rights are equal, and “not being convinced” is insufficient reason to give them more.

    There is a supreme Arbiter called the Supreme court, but to get there you first have to get to the other courts first. You must first have a case taht is “ripe” has used ALL of its administrative avenues of relief. And the zoning relief is so Byzantine that you are quite effectively denied access to the supreme arbiter.

    The fact that there is no fair unbiased arbiter (that you can get access to) is exactly the problem.

    THEY get to make the choice, and THEY are not unbiased.

    Who is the Supreme Arbiter who made THEM boss? Well, we did that at the election booth.

    Big deal. It is still Assymetric, because those excluded have no vote.

    We have deliberately built a system that is fundamentally assymetric, and unethical and unfair. You don’t see it that way.

    The way I see it, if you really beleive that no one has the untrammelled right to damage other people, then you cannot see this situation as anything but unethical.

    You want to support an unethical form of government, just because we voted for it? That’s a rational position, but it turns my stomach.

    It’s a game where one side makes the rules and enforces them, and changes the ruels and the enforcement on the fly.

    RH

    RH

  73. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You keep saying the gas tax is insufficient when you knoe the gas tax is only part of the funding.

    Raise the gas tax a couple of cents and raise all the other funding proportionately. Now tell me it isn’t enough.

    You think a five cent gas tax is out of reach, but we have endured several times that in payments to the arabs, and we are stil paying.

    Bottom line is we don’t need tolls to raise money (if needed, bob), and it is a stupid idea from square one. There are plenty of ways to do this without making Transurban rich.

    “No new taxes (except tolls)” doesn’t cut it with me.

    Recently Philadelpia announced that they are dismantling their experimant in privatized schools, after eight years. What do you suppose that cancellation is going to cost them?

    Gee, I’d hate to see THAT happen to Transurban.

    RH

  74. Bob Avatar
    Bob

    “so the answer is… raise the gas tax… err what about those polls?.. ignore the polls, raise the gas tax…”

    The opposition to tolls and gas tax in that poll is equal, within the margin of error. You can either assume the public is comprised of brain dead nitwits, or you can look beyond what the pollster wants you to see to what the public is saying.

    Other polls show the public doesn’t believe politicians when they plead poverty and a need to raise taxes for transportation. They believe most of the money is being diverted to other uses. Rightly so: money is being diverted in Virginia, and at least the Texas DOT has been caught red-handed lying. Here’s one — notice how USDOT does push polling… “imagine an alternate universe” to create phony support for their tax.

    So if it’s pretty much a wash politically choosing tolls or gas tax, why the heck would anyone ever choose the option that:

    1. Increases accidents (unless barrier separated)
    2. Costs 20% more to operate; costs millions more to build
    3. Requires a spy-on-everyone infrastructure
    4. Requires non-compete agreements (EVERY private toll road has them — no exception)
    5. Makes political contributors filthy rich

    To Mr. Bacon:

    For the reasons above (especially #4), you could come up with the most honest deal possible and it would still be a rip-off. Even if you drop #5.

    RH: “Recently Philadelphia announced that they are dismantling their experiment in privatized schools, after eight years. What do you suppose that cancellation is going to cost them?”

    This happened in Orange County, California with the 91 Toll Lanes. County taxpayers bought out the private operators and ended spending tens of millions more than the actual construction cost to get out of the horrible deal.

    Transurban is dreaming of a similar pay day sometime between now and the year 2090. Assuming Transurban is still in business 80 years from now — which, if you follow the markets, is looking increasingly unlikely.

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you fail to convince others, that’s the end of it.”

    If the others are not willing to be convinced, then what you have is mob rule.

    No, you cannot provide 16 sewr onnections just like that, and I wouldn’t expect you to. But if I propose to provide my own sewer connections, THEN what is the aregument? If I tell you I want my by-right sewer connection now, and you say buzz off, we’ll just downzone your rights away, THEN what? If I say, I can wait, and ask how long it willbe so Ican make plans, THEN what is the answer.

    The answer is that there is no answer because one group is claiming superior property rights over another group. As long as they can get away with it, they can get a benefit at someone else’s expense. They can get away with it as long as we allow a government that is blind to discrimination.

    “You are not entitled because you feel that, in your own mind, you believe that you are providing benefits in excess of impacts.”

    I never said that, Larry. What I have said, consistently, is that NEITHER side has the right to damage the other just because in THEIR OWN MIND they are providing benefits in excess of impacts.

    You can never resolve that ethically by giving one party veto power. You want to support that kind of rule of law, you have that right, and you have the votes on your side.

    But you will never convince me it is right or ethical.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray — Existing residents ride free! Not quite.

    The existing Fairfax County CIP, which includes VDOT’s six year plan among others, for the years 2009-2013 is $8.118 billion. Most of these projects will be funded by bonds for which taxpayers on the hook. How is this free-riding?

    What it really is: is a massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars to new development projects? Of course, some of these projects are renewals of facilities and many of those costs should be borne (and are borne) by existing residents and businesses. But shouldn’t newcomers pay for some of these costs as well as a significant contribution to new costs? I’m not arguing here for a specific cost-recovery plan, just that there needs to be some balance.

    That’s what’s lacking in Fairfax County — balance.

    TMT

  77. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Bob raises the issues of polls. You say there is no supreme arbiter, but then you rely on polls to support your vision.

    Polls are one kind of arbiter, but they need to be carefully managed.

    I think we can do bettter than that, even if polls are PART of the answer.

    ————————-

    I went to a public hearing last week. The Public that showed up was ovewhelmingly opposed to the county’s latest new restrictions, seen by many as another downzoning. I’d guess the speakers were 250 to three.

    I’ll also wager the board will ignore them and do as they please.

    RH

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Existing residents ride free! Not quite.”

    I never said that. All I’m saying is that there is considerable evidence that a good portion of the problems we have are historical in nature: the result of insufficient spending and deferred maintenance among other things.

    Existing residents have a strong selfish incentive to stick it to the new guys.

    I seriously doubt taht we are striing the correct balance, and I don’t see that anyone really wants to find out. They would rather point fingers aimlessly, talk without conversation (Because we say so, that’s it.), and argue without facts.

    I’m seriously unimpressed.

    All I’m suggesting is that MAYBE we are wrong and MAYBE we ought to take a better look.

    The answer that comes back is highly defensive and dismissive. That makes me suspicious that I might be on to something.

    Arent Bonds gong to be paid for by all the new people who arrive, as well? Isn;t the whole purpose of bonds to shift costs to future residents (who will be here to use the stuff we build after we are gone)?

    What’s wrong with that?

    RH

  79. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “But if I propose to provide my own sewer connections, THEN what is the aregument?”

    Gated Communities that provide their own water/sewer would certainly have a leg up but most gated communities also need roads, security.. etc..and even then you will need new school seats at about 40K each.

    Existing residents already help pay for your infrastructure Ray.

    Take the school seat. 40K.

    A 300K house pays about 2K a year. It will take 20 years just to buy that school seat.

    Where does the 30-50 million that is needed up-front come from?

    Where does the up-front money for a new fire and rescue station come from?

    Existing residents already pay to help with this.

    First, the county expends it fiscal capacity – which is limited – to go to the bond market to get the money to build the facilities.

    Then all taxpayers pay off the debt.

    In fact, the loan is cheaper than if the developer tried to obtain it just for his development. He would not get to sell tax-exempt bonds for his project.

    So the existing residents are already helping to pay.

    the bigger question is are they paying enough and I would submit to you that the current Study commission on Proffers may actually shed some light on the issue but I’m betting that if an honest effort is made – the result is not going to favor those who think developers are not being treated fairly in the infrastructure issue.

    Just like with VDOT’s costs – the truth is that infrastructure is ungodly expensive.

    and when a new 1000 home development starts – you cannot say “sorry, the new school won’t be ready for 10 years”…

    someone has to pay to build that school so that it has available seats when the kids show up in those new homes.

    the folks who current ‘figure this out” – are the folks who actually have to come up with the money to build those schools – not some committee doing paper exercises about how much the developer should pay and how much the existing residents should pay.

    that school has to be there when the kids show up…

    there is no way that a study commission is going to look into this and decide that 20K or even 30K proffers are unwarranted.

    What they’re going to find is that localities that charge less than 40K per unit are eating the difference.. “eating” meaning the existing residents paying those costs.

  80. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “(Note to Groveton: Virginia is not the only place where this happens, or even the worst. Ever hear of Tony Reszko?)”.

    Isn’t Reszko going to jail? Doesn’t that mean that Chicago (or at least the federal prosecutor in Chicago) is serious about prosecuting people who violate the law? Doesn’t that make Chicago better at managing crooked developers than Virginia?

    When was the last time a highly visible Virginia developer was sent to the big house?

  81. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Groveton, So… your alternative to “user pays” is to “increase the gas tax and move on.” That is perpetuating the very status quo that upsets you so.”.

    Actually, if ALL of your points regarding user pays were to be implemented – I’d be happy. But this would mean a vehicle miles traveled tax, constitutional amendments to protect transportation tax receipts by “congestion corridor”, etc. So, the question is not whether I think “user pays” is a good idea. The question is whether I think raising the gas tax is a better idea than the current Republican GA version of “some users pay a lot”. Jim, your idea of “user pays” is not being considered by the GA.

    So, I am confronted by a choice of the Democratic controlled Senate (raise the gas tax) or the Republican controlled house (bastardized “some users pay a lot”). Given that choice – I’ll take the statewide gas tax. Unfortunately, I believe the GA is too beholden to special interests (and lacks the institutional intelligence) to consider your proposed “user pays” ideas.

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Existing residents already help pay for your infrastructure Ray.

    That’s right. And people that own vacant land help pay for infrastructure a lot more.

    It is also true that we have leaking sewer lines, exploding manholes, breaking water mains, and a bunch of other old crappy stuff beause we have not paid enough along the way.

    I don’t doubt and have never claimed that existing residents don’t pay.

    They do pay, and they do benefit from growth, probably.

    My argument is only that we do not know the actual values or relationships, and no one wants to find out. It might upset their politics.

    Yes, I see some of the hideous mistakes builders make, but they still manage to sell them. I understand and agree with your arguments, but I still suggest they are one-sided.

    The truth may not be anywhere near as black and white as you think. But, if you are unwilling to even look, and find out, then the odds are that you are most assuredly more wrong than you might have been, and not necessarily any better off.

    All I’m saying is before we tax the pants off of people, we ought to know the result.

    What I hear you saying is that een if you meet the sewer bogey, we’ll throw up a lot more. It is the tired old AFT argument that development costs voters money because it raises taxes. I’m not convinced it is a good, complete, or persuasive argument.

    Look at Fauquier, and look at Loudoun. they were once equal. Now loudoun has higher per capita incom, and higher per capita assessed wealth. And higher taxes.

    But if you only point at the taxes, you are telling half the story, and a half truth. You cannot ever convince me that way. I want to see a well thought out argument that says, here is waht developers do for us, here is what we do for them, this is how much the difference is, over what time period.

    Here is what would tip the scale.

    Now, you are going to tell me that what tips the scale is no loss of service, just as you believe in zero pollution. “As long as you don’t screw with me in any way wahtsoever, which I decide, then you can do whatever you like.”

    Sorry, it goes right back to the belief you can get something for nothing, you are entitled to it, and your entitlements take precedece over anybody else.

    Which basically means you want more property rights than the next guy.

    And you think I’m the one with property rights issues.

    I’m pretty sure if you make a one sided argument it will wrong half the time, and half wrong 80% of the time.

    But, if you make a two sided argument, then you are free to gracefully accept whatever the other guy brings to the table. Enter it in the fact book, and adjust the equations. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    With both sides bringing things to the table, you will eventually converge on the truth.

    We don’t argue about whether 2 plus 2 equals four, because we have a system we agee on. We could have equally valid systems for a lot of others fact based systems if we choose to.

    We just have not evolved that far. We are still like the hummingbirds, spending more time defending what is “ours”, even when it is given, than feeding.

    One sided, stake in the ground, line in the sand arguments are a waste of time and energy, as the GA has proven once again.

    RH

  83. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – I’d strongly support an honest and non-biased look at the impacts (positive and negative) of real estate development. But we’d never get one — at least not in Fairfax County.

    TMT

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yep. Our mind is made up, don’t confuse us with facts. Too much money and power involved.

    The art of a deal is when both sides win. With no deal, both sides lose.

    RH

  85. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Tysons Task Force could have elected to take the 94 Comp Plan for Tysons and make incremental changes that would have made improvements and probably increased density slightly. But it elected not to so. Moreover, the Task Force has attacked both county staff and the consultant for daring to point out practical limits on density. About 90 million square feet would likely send Tysons crashing and burning, according to both staff and the consultant.

    But the Task Force decided that sensible growth (probably still beyond what many local residents would want) was unacceptable. It is shooting for absurd numbers that are so high, the Task Force is afraid to let them become public.

    The Task Force earlier proposed a “pushing the envelope” scenario (greater than 120 million square feet) that it told the public was not going to happen because it was too big for any affordable infrastructure. For a while, it looked as if there would be a proposal somewhere between 110 and 114 million square feet. (Still well above what the staff and consultant said was possible.)

    But that is not enough density. While actual numbers have not been released, knowledgeable people who regularly attend Task Force meetings think that the final proposal could be c. 177 million square feet. That’s more than 50% of the total commercial space in Manhattan right after 9/11.

    Think of the infrastructure in Manhattan and then think about Tysons Corner. There is no way that, under any circumstances, Tysons Corner will ever have 50% of the public facilities deployed in Manhattan after 9/11.

    The battle lines have been drawn. This is not about a reasonable deal where everyone gets something. It also explains why many residents of Fairfax County strongly oppose most development. The development is not reasonable under any fair definition of the word.

    TMT

  86. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I see in today’s paper that Fair lakes is upgrading and (probably) expanding. It has become the alternative to Tysons.

    Too bad they didn’t put the Metro station there instead of at Vienna in the median strip.

    RH

  87. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It’s pretty obvious that what is going on in Tyson’s is a whole different deal than me building a guest cottage on the farm.

    I’d say the Tyson’s landowners have a better chance of getting at least part of what they want than I have.

    RH

  88. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – That would probably be true in Fairfax County as well. I’ve known a number of smaller builders who have gone through Hades with the County. But they generally don’t fill Gerry Connolly’s campaign war chests to the same degree as the Tysons boys and girls.

    And it’s not just Connolly. Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Tom Davis and Frank Wolf have all received money from the Tysons crowd.

    TMT

  89. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Home buying practices adjust to high gas prices”

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gdFE0AUt5PAsJvPD9miPznk3jlCwD91CKTDO3

  90. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Absolutely it is not county related. All small builders have been hurt by recent changes in regulation and practice.

    RH

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Funny what a difference 8 months makes.

Leave a Reply

Read More