Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

LAURA SPEAKS THE TRUTH

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

At 8:50 AM on “The “Mega-State” and the Creative Class” post of 18 April by Jim Bacon, Laura said…

“Groveton, Most of your observations about Europe ring true. The one statement that does not, ironically enough, is about the United States. Human settlement patterns in the U.S. are no less an artifact of government intervention than they are in Europe. The only difference is that U.S. government mandates and subsidizes scattered, disconnected, low-density development, while European governments do the opposite.”

What a great statement!

We spend thousands of bites and do not make that point well enough to keep in check the blabbering, whining, filibustering and obfuscation by those trying to over-wash and ridicule advocates of common sense, democracy and market economies.

To put a bit of historical perspective on Laura’s statement:

The original (1775 to 1794) controls, policies, programs and incentives by Agencies (aka, government) favored a Yeoman, agrarian society and was codified in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This government sponsored world-view of human settlement might be termed the Jeffersonian Ideal.

The second generation of Agency controls, policies, programs and incentives was ushered in by the Andrew Jackson. Speculative exploitation of the land resource was added to the assumption that the US of A would be a agrarian society forever.

We explore this and the following points in THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND, forthcoming.

Following the Civil War, as the Industrial Revolution drove the urbanization of First World civilization, various patches (reflecting the insights of U. Sinclair, T. Roosevelt, R. Carson, J. Jacobs and many others) were applied to the Jefferson / Jacksonian framework.

These patches have never addressed urban reality. Witness the failure of The Rule in Dillion’s case, Home Rule, zoning, Corps of Engineers water projects, cotton, sugar, wheat and milk subsidies, REA, urban renewal, the Interstate Highway System (as contrasted with the Inter-regional Highway Plan), annexation moratoria and other well-intended and / or nefarious efforts to shape human settlement based on Myth, Winner-Take-All Economics and now “Supercapitalism.”

For those who understand what Laura is saying, here is a poster for your wall:

“Sub”urban is dysfunctional urban. It is not nonurban and it does not belong in the Countryside.

The Anti Jacksons

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Er, I have a confession to make. I am Laura. Actually, Laura is the name of my wife, and I accidentally posted a comment under her name. Don’t know how it happened. I didn’t notice until later, and other comments had followed, and I was too embarrassed to take it down.

    It would be nice if there actually were an unknown “Laura” out there who agreed with Ed and me… but there isn’t. (When it comes to politics, the real Laura doesn’t agree with a thing I say — which would probably earn her a lot of fans on this blog!)

    Sorry, Ed, I hope I didn’t take any wind out of your sails. Otherwise, I thought it was a great post!

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    DANG.. just as I was hoping to post a “Tanya” perspective… really crappy timing guy…

    🙂

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Not to quibble, but this is what I actually wrote:

    “Fundamentally, the population centers of Europe have better patterns of human settlement because the government forces those patterns. I have never heard anybody claim that it is the natural outcome of economic forces or enlightened free will. And that’s the problem with the arguments espoused on Bacons Rebellion. There is a misconception that people will magically move into sensible patterns of human settlement of their own accord. They won’t. In the US, people are living in the patterns of human settlement that they want (at least short to mid term). The only way to change that is to use legislation or nearly confiscatory taxation (another form of legislation). So the Republicans on this site have a problem – they don’t want big government or a nanny state but they want an outcome that can only be created by big government or a “nanny state”.”.

    I believe that people in the US basically live in the kinds of human settlement patterns that they want. Or, at least they think they want. These patterns may be unsustainable, unhealthy or short sighted. However, people in the US want to live in suburban single family homes on relatively large lots. They want to drive their cars down uncrowded roads to go to any event, purchase any thing or work at any job.

    Look at Naples, FL. Much of Naples is a retirement community. Much of Naples was built in the last 20 years. It was built to attract people. What was built? Walkable, pedestrian, “active life” communities? Not really. Lots of gated communities with lots of single family homes. The communities have golf courses but not supermarkets. When you want to buy something you get in your car and drive.

    Naples is a nice place. It was developed to cater to what people want (or at least think they want). Apparently, a whole lot of people want to live in relatively scattered single family homes and drive their cars to various places. And this is true in a community where most of the people have children who have long moved out on their own.

    I question how the government “forced” this. I wonder about the conspiracy that “forced” people to move to Naples of their own free will and spend considerable sums of money buying housing they really didn’t want.

    However, I don’t question whether this is wrong in the long term. I think it is. The suburbs were built on a number of premises which are no longer true:

    1. Demographically – the number of job holders is not rapidly growing. Human settlement patterns which depend on constantly rising tax receipts are in jeopardy.

    2. Oil (and, consequently gasoline) is not cheap and will probably never be cheap again. Human settlement patterns which depend on single occupancy cars as a form of transportation are less viable than they once were.

    3. The effects of carbon dioxide on the planet are becoming a matter of fact rather than a matter of opinion.

    The full economic and environmental impact of our present human settlement patterns are poorly understood by most people. We need a campaign like the Surgeon General’s famous study of the health consequences of cigarette smoking. There needs to be public eduction. There needs to be rigorous analysis communicated in simple terms. There needs to be an awareness that we are on the wrong path. For years the government allowed smoking without any real constraint. For decades smoking was portrayed as glamorous. Then came the realization that smoking was very dangerous. Then came the advertising bans, the lawsuits, the age restrictions, the studies of second hand smoke, the restaurant bans, etc. We need the same thing with respect to settlement patterns. The government owes it to the people to define the risks of continuing on our present course. The government needs to advertise those risks and make people aware of the consequences of our current trajectory. The government needs to act.

    I do not subscribe to the belief that the American people always know best. Slavery, isolationism prior to WWII, smoking, the domino effect, etc. – history is replete with examples of where conventional wisdom was proven wrong. We are now well past the point where the structure of large scale surburban living can be seen to be in the long term interests of the United States.

    Waiting for the “free market” to act will not work. Eliminating all zoning laws will not work (it has not worked in Houston). Instituting a fairly complex tax system designed to discourage “sprawl” might work although American tax programs have been historically full of loopholes, special interest legislation and distortion by clever lawyers and accountants.

    I believe the answer is for government to follow the European lead. A ban on development of farm land in specified zones surrounding cities. Not a tax scheme that would allow the wealthy to live where they want while everybody else is required to practice functional human settlement – a ban.

    This ban would represent a confiscation of private property (i.e. the right to by-right development) for the purposes of the public good. Under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution it would require compensation to those who have had their property taken. This compensation would be provided through a transfer of taxes from those living inside the clear edge to those living outside the clear edge. In other words, the government would pay existing landowners for the right to down zone their property. This would be a one time payment and would only apply to those property owners who have existing subdivision rights and it would only apply to properties within 100 Km of the clear edge. The funding would be provided by a surcharge tax on those inside the clear edge. The surcharge would be dropped once the property rights buy out was complete. If Europe is any guide, those of us living inside the clear edge will find our property getting more valuable quickly. I believe the surcharge will soon be paid back by increased property values. To paraphrase Ray Hyde – the winners need to pay the losers.

    The European model for encouraging functional human settlement patterns works – at least for the larger cities. We should follow that model. Americans will not, at first, like this. Americans, at first, did not want restrictions on their “right” to smoke. Entrenched interests will, at first, fight this plan. Tobacco companies, at first, claimed that there was no proof that smoking increased one’s chances of severe health problems. However, elected officials pressed the truth that smoking was harmful. The American people came to see that truth and changed their habits. It’s time to do the same for dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Who ever “Laura” is, it was a well stated post.

    EMR

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    There is much truth in what you say and many agree with you.

    The problem is that, as Tony Downs has made a living saying:

    It is hard to get those in power to give up something they think is in their personal best interest just because it is not in the collective best interest of society as a whole.”

    That applies to subsidies and to more square foot for the dollar dwellings and settlement patterns that depend on Agency programs, controls and incentives for their existance.

    What makes our positon different is that I am (and I believe Jim is) convinced that if all location-variable costs were fairly allocated, citizens would make different choices as to what is in their best interest.

    Why do I say this?

    Two reasons: I worked for almost three decades actually building places the market demonstrates that citizens want to work, live and play. These are places that were designed to the extent possible to provide a Balance of Jobs / Housing / Services / Recreation / Amenity.

    I could have made a lot more money working for those who were building places like Naples, or parts of places like Naples.

    The second thing is if you examine the organic structure of functional settlement patterns you find that in the good old US of A, with “people deciding what is best for themselves” the places at the Unit, Alpha Dooryard and Alpha Cluster scale — and at the Alpha Nighborhood Scale too but there are not many of them in existance — the market demonstrates that citizens value most those places that have functional settlement patterns.

    These places would be components of Balanced Communities in sustainable New Urban Regions.

    The other side of the coin is that Agencies have set the context in which most of the Enterprise and Household decisions are made as the above post on Jefferson, Jackson, etc. suggests.

    EMR

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “I believe the answer is for government to follow the European lead. A ban on development of farm land in specified zones surrounding cities.”

    Well.. in a Virginia Comp Plan, the locality can (and do) designate large swaths of land as to NOT be provided with density-enabling infrastructure.

    In the same COMP plan, Va encourages localities to also designated where they WILL provide scope and scale infrastructure that WILL support higher densities and more intensive uses.

    But… EVERY property owner is taxed and the county, in turn, allocates MORE than the proportional amount .. to provide infrastructure for the designated development areas.

    The folks in rural Spotsylvania make this point all the time – that they pay taxes on their properties and then the county takes the money and spends it on the development areas.

    The folks in rural Spotsylvania say that their taxes should go to pave their unpaved roads and instead those taxes go for wider arterials and interstate ramps… etc…

    and the folks in WVa have their rivers polluted with acid and their air fouled from smokestacks raining down acid and mercury … so that the folks in the urban areas of Virginia can have electricity.

    long story short –

    .. if there ARE location variable costs – then they need to be enumerated, ranked and valued such that we can clearly understand the assertions made.

    It’s not at all likely that ALL of the location variable costs are on one side of the equation so again, we need to see them enumerated and we need to understand which of them are the real “biggies” and which of them are “nits”.. technically correct, but much less significant than the biggies.

    Groveton is right about Naples.

    You can have scatterization but as long as you don’t have home-to-work commuting.. you’re basically talking about folks putting on the order of 5000 miles a year on their vehicles verses 30-40K on vehicles doing 80 mile a day commutes.

    There IS a DIFFERENCE.

    Scatterization in and of itself does not result in increased location variable costs for ANY and ALL kinds of settlement patterns…

    those costs can vary if the majority of folks live close to where they work (or are retired, etc).

    Fredericksburg, Va does not walk, talk, or act in any way, shape and form to Naples, Florida.

    All you have to do to verify this is look at the AADT for the area roads.

    And the Fredericksburg Area has several gated communities but these gated communities are very different in functionality from Naples gated communities…

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Human settlement patterns in the U.S. are no less an artifact of government intervention than they are in Europe.”.

    I believe this is untrue.

    I believe most US settlement patterns are a testament to government inaction while European settlement patterns are the result of government action.

    I believe that European cities would exhibit the same sprawl as US cities if the European governments had not been interventionist in land management.

    I’d love to hear the 3 most important specific US laws or regulations that constitute government intervention in favor of dysfuctional settlement. And I’d like to know which special interests have been behind these laws or regulations.

    Mr. Risse says, “…if all location-variable costs were fairly allocated, citizens would make different choices as to what is in their best interest.”.

    Maybe. However, “fair” allocation is always going to be a matter of opinion. Even the best run companies spend a lot of time arguing over internal transfer pricing, distribution of overhead and other questions of “fair” allocation. So I ask – what are the steps that would be required in order to establish the identification of all location-variable costs? For it seems that the identification of these costs would be pre-requisite to finding a fair way to allocate those costs. I realize that many of the costs categories have been identified by you, Mr. Bacon, etc. I am not asking about the categories. I am asking how to add up the costs in the categories you have identified. Who would you expect to do this? VDOT? County governments? State government? University professors? How much effort do you think it would take (in person days) to define the sum of all location-variable costs (by zip code) in the state of Virginia? And when you say the costs should be “fairly allocated” – to whom should they be allocated? Individual people?

    Also, I find your contrasting of Jefferson and Jackson instructive. Jefferson was a man of words while Jackson was a man of action. With respect to human settlement patterns I wonder which we need more right now?

  8. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Well.. in a Virginia Comp Plan, the locality can (and do) designate large swaths of land as to NOT be provided with density-enabling infrastructure.”.

    It should be a national law and it should be a ban, not an absence of infrastructure (IMHO).

    “and the folks in WVa have their rivers polluted with acid and their air fouled from smokestacks raining down acid and mercury … so that the folks in the urban areas of Virginia can have electricity.”.

    Didn’t the Virginia SCC just refuse to allow the building of a new power plant in WVA? Didn’t the GA define the new plant in Wise, VA to be “in the public interest” (only, however, if it uses Virginia coal). Everybody uses electricity but not everywhere makes it. Ditto for steel, autos, printer ink, etc. What is the point here? That we should have self-sufficient villages like in the Dark Ages?

    “It’s not at all likely that ALL of the location variable costs are on one side of the equation so again, we need to see them enumerated and we need to understand which of them are the real “biggies” and which of them are “nits”.. technically correct, but much less significant than the biggies.”.

    Agree – see my post immediately prior to this.

    “Groveton is right about Naples.

    You can have scatterization but as long as you don’t have home-to-work commuting.. you’re basically talking about folks putting on the order of 5000 miles a year on their vehicles verses 30-40K on vehicles doing 80 mile a day commutes.”.

    My point about Naples was that the builders could have built whatever people wanted to buy – with employment considerations largely out of teh equation. Indeed, there are some high rise condos. However, it appears that what was demanded the most was single family residences. Maybe it’s because all the costs of this style of development are not paid by the buyers. That sounds possible but I’ve never seen it demonstrated let alone proven.

    “And the Fredericksburg Area has several gated communities but these gated communities are very different in functionality from Naples gated communities…”.

    Hopefully, there is still some room in these gated communities for a few of the more aggressive of NoVA’s developers.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ” A ban on development of farm land in specified zones surrounding cities.”

    Why would we do this? We don’t need the land for farms, unless we plan on growing fuel. An outright ban would have enormous opportunity costs, and jeopardize the ability to borrow the funds needed to run the farm – if it is an operating farm.

    Why would we do this? Because it IS a good thing to do. Because it offers enormous benefits to the urban area it surrounds, and to the people that live there.

    But, those people should expect to pay for those benefits, and not to get them for free by using a ban to steal.

    The people who own the property we suddenly covet deservet the right not to be permanently trapped or condemned in a world worth $200 per hard worked acre per year. They deserve a chance to participate in the additional land wealth that will be created for others when theirs is banned from the market.

    I agree that this should not be a tax scheme to benefit the landed rich, but I think it is a mistake to view it that way for several reasons.

    The purpose is to protect the land and gain the urban benefits that result. If someone wealthy owns the land, that is besides the point.

    What is presently seen as a tax “benfit” is not that at all, and this is poorly undestood. Those people pay the same tax as everyone else on their home and two acres. The starting condition is Par with everyone else. Then they also pay full tax on all their other buldings, which most people don’t have. Then they pay additional tax on open land that they are forbidden tp use for anything but the most base activities.

    And we call that a tax break. For the rich.

    Come over any Sunday and I’ll fix you a black bean hamburger, and we can talk about the reality.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if there ARE location variable costs – then they need to be enumerated, ranked and valued such that we can clearly understand the assertions made.”

    Well by George, Or Larry that is.

    I thought I would never hear that here. I think you are correct.

    (And when we do that, I think we will find some benefit to Farmville from NOVA. we wil find some other benefits from FArmville TO NOVA.)

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “However, “fair” allocation is always going to be a matter of opinion.”

    Well yes. But even the best run companies eventually develop policy on how transer costs will be assigned. presumably they do it based on analysis and long experience, and not Mr. Risse’s opinions.

    It is a hard task and some of it is subjective. That doesn’t mean we can’t work at it. It will take a lot of man hours. But more than that, it will take a social political civic construct that we do not have now. Some kind of contraption dedicated to distilling facts more than spinning them.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “This ban would represent a confiscation of private property (i.e. the right to by-right development) for the purposes of the public good. Under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution it would require compensation to those who have had their property taken. This compensation would be provided through a transfer of taxes from those living inside the clear edge to those living outside the clear edge. “

    Bingo. My feelings exactly. Wehave as tiuation where people were first downzoned without compensation. And subsequently, when that turned out to be insufficient, the government and others acted to buy the reamaining development rights. The mere fact of attempting to buy the few reamining rights now makes the ethical bankruptcy of previous takings pretty obvious.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You can have scatterization but as long as you don’t have home-to-work commuting.. “

    And,in todays world we can easily accomplish that by scaterizing the jobs. We simply have not decided to do so, yet.

    If we did, it would entireley change the argument about needing to preserve open space, which is mostly a diatribe against commuting. It isn’t as if we had snow leopards in Virginia which nmeed hundreds of miles in which to roam. Besides, if a snow leopard was human we would accuse him of being a profligrate land hog.

    RH

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I believe that high density development, on a per capita basis, is more efficient than low to mid density development. The only way to get high density development is to motivate people to keep building in the urban core (or, inside the clear edge as I understand the term). To do that, I would forbid increasing development outside the clear edge – beyond what is already developed. Given that the population is growing, the density where development is allowed would go up while the density where development is not allowed would stay the same.

    I don’t really care if the farms within 100 Km of the clear edge are efficient or not. If they are – great. If not – so what? There are lots of farms more than 100Km from any city’s clear edge to take up the slack. My plan is to force higher densities within the clear edge. Period. Fairness (and the US Constitution) require that those deprived of the right to subdivide be compensated for the loss of that right. Nothing requires that these people be compensated for any economic activity beyond the loss incurred in the confiscation.

    In many ways I admire the European philosophy here. They know this is the right thing to do and they do it. In America we argue for another study to conflict with the last study, etc. In the end, I think we know it’s the right thing to do as well. All this suburban driving has us enriching the very people we should hope to impoverish – violent, Anti-American monarchies and dictatorships with oil. We are sewing the wind and we shall reap the whirlwind.

  15. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    OK – Since I am just back from Asmterdam let me put forth a real “free market” proposition. I will call the high density development near today’s cities “inside the clear edge”. I will call the 100 Km from the clear edge area of forbidden additional development “the green zone”. I will call everything else Farmville.

    Legalize marijuana and allow its legal cultivation only within the “green zone”. It can be sold anywhere but only grown within the “green zone”.

    Why legalize hootch?

    1. It is no worse (or better) than alcohol.
    2. Today’s decriminalization of possession means it is essentially tolerated anyway.
    3. Criminals and smugglers are making all of today’s profits – tax free.
    4. Reduce the number of people in prison by freeing all those incarcerated for what is now a legal activity.
    5. It is a plant.
    6. Generate taxes that can be used to improve the education system.

    Why only allow it to be grown in the “green zone”:

    1. To comply with the 5th amendment by providing compensation to those who have lost property in the public good.
    2. To provide jobs where too few jobs exist.
    3. To contain this to an area where it can be carefully managed, regulated and taxed.
    4. Keep it outside the clear edge. Inside the clear edge is for high density mixed residential and commercial – not for pot fields.

    What are the downsides?

    1. One more substance to be abused.
    2. Slippery slope to much worse substances (I think this is a bit overplayed – especially once it is legalized and controlled).
    3. Farmville will howl. They will think they should be able to grow dope. However, they didn’t lose anything in the core development plan so they do not need to be compensated. Maybe make the “green zone” exclusive last for 50 years – then anybody can legally cultivate the stuff.

    Now, this is a conservative idea:

    1. It’s already being grown and used.
    2. New government revenues with no new taxes required.
    3. Fewer criminals.
    4. Part of plan to foster more functional human development patterns.

    I need to go buy some calls in the Zig Zag company.

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Sorry – what were you saying about having a black bean hamburger, RH?

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    geeze Groveton… I’ve searched and searched and cannot find any references to “hooch” in EMR’s vocabulary.

    to say nothing of the problem that we would have with elected officials use of same… the “clear” edge would become the “fuzzy” edge… or the “whatever” edge…

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Black bean hmaburgers are one of my attempts to conserve and stay green.

    RH

  19. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    LG:

    Yeah, maybe a 50 year exclusive right to grow saw grass for biofuel electricity generation would be more palatable.

    Since I don’t understand our elected officials at all I can only imagine they would make more sense of they spent some time in the green zone.

  20. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    RH:

    I see. I have often wondered how much more “green” we would all be if we became vegetarians. I have never read anything on this but it seems like a lot of time, money and fule is used to create a pound of food way up the food chain vs. well down the food chain.

    The black bean hamburger sounds good.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton, (EMR as well I think)

    If we buildout inside the clear edge

    Two big issues for me

    1. Supply and demand. Are there enough people that actually want to live the condo lifestlye without a yard no privacy. (You might be saying not all places will be condos but the majority will be) Then there is…

    2. Cost. Are people going to be willingly to pay 300k+ for a condo
    (I guess if you eliminate the townhouse and single family homes options that cost 300k based on being built outside the clearedge then you don’t have an issue)
    Townhomes say 400k and SingleFamily homes at least 500k built inside the clear edge will be even more expensive.

    NMM

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you think Black Bean Hamurgers are bad:

    “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wants to pay a million dollars for fake meat — even if it has caused a “near civil war” within the organization.

    The organization said it would announce plans on Monday for a $1 million prize to the “first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012.”

    Suppose a meat substitute was discovered, how much would methane gas emissions decline by? how much rainforest would be protected because of this discovery?”

    From Environmental and Urban exonomics.

    “I don’t eat vegetables because I love animals, I eat them because I hate vegetables.”

    Black Bean Hamburgers are on the menu and Chili’s.

    RH

  23. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    NMM:

    Supply and Demand – I think it should be supply, demand and price. If you want to live in Manhattan you are either in an apartment / condo or you are shelling out some serious money for a brownstone. I do not think people generally want to live in condos. I think they want to live in single family homes in the suburbs. However, I think these single family homes in the suburbs are unsustainable at the rate they are being built.

    Cost. Yep. Everything inside the clear edge is going to cost more. By refusing to allow building outside the clear edge we are artifically constraining supply. Assuming demand grows the prices will rise. However, I think the big question is the part about “assuming demand grows”. I can imagine a world where escalating home prices inside the clear edge in combination with better collaborative technologies have people leaving their homes inside the clear edge for virtual jobs in relatively remote small towns. Sort of “the Detroit effect” on steroids. Under this scenario, the escalating home prices inside the clear edge would crash rather badly.

    I still think we need higher density inside the clear edge and no higher density outside the clear edge (for a distance of 100 Km). However, there could easily be “unintended consequences” from this change.

  24. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Black bean hamburgers sound fine to me. Put ’em on thick buns, slather them in ketchup, melt on a few pieces of gooey cheese and maybe throw in a jalepeno or two. Then, you can’t taste the bean patty and everything is fine.

    I eat vegetable hamburgers on occasion. Usually just after January 1.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What Groveton has proposed is actually occuring in realtime in
    Loudoun County

    As the tech corridor and Reston continue to grow/develop it will be interesting to see what occurs

    This would need to be a truely regional policy to work.

    Currently many people who can’t afford to live inside the clear edge of Eastern Loudoun are living in West Virginia. Since Western Loudoun has what amounts to a Fauquier county type no or limited build plan.

    When the intermediate space isn’t being used sprawl is just being pushed out further. A similar situation has occured with the greenbelt between Reston and Tysons. Instead of that area being properly developed as a great location within the clear edge of DC the devleopment was transferred and sprawled further out in the form of Ashburn which is outside the DC clear edge.

    NMM

  26. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    NMM

    You are 75 percent of the way home.

    With a rational governance structue, the Clear Edge would adjust to provide at least the minimum sustainable density / intensity inside the Clear Edge.

    With a fair allocation of location-variable costs, modest, workforce housing would be Affordable and Accessible INSIDE the Clear Edge.

    Check out the Saturday WaPo to see what $1 Million will buy.

    In 1998 there was a $100,000 difference between a same builder, same unit at R = 6 (Falls Church) vs R = 24 (Ashburn).

    Now you can buy three “same houses” in the R = 25 to R = 50 Radius Band for what you will pay for one in the R = 2 to 6 Radius Band.

    Do the math, within R = 25 there are almost 420,000 acres within Virginia. At minimum density that is room for 4.2 million.

    Some of the most valuable land is already at higher intensity.

    Recycle stale settlement patterns to create open space and functional settlement patterns.

    Not by controls or taxes but by fair allocation of costs.

    Apply the 10X rule and see what you find.

    EMR

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Last week the post had a graphic which showd affordability as a function of home prices and travel costs.

    I was, frankly, surprised to see that Arlington ranked well. And that parts of DC did not. But there were also islands of low cost areas surrounding various outlying job centers, like Dulles.

    However, the data used for the graphic was stale, and after resetting the housing market recently, and with higher gas prices it might change.

    Also, the graphic made no comparison of the type of housing, just the cost.

    RH

  28. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    When gas hits $4 a gallon and tolls hit 30 bucks a day.. you’re gonna see even more dramatic changes…especially if those two events occur before the housing market fully recovers.

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yeah. You are right about potential changes.

    I just got hit by the housing crunch. My tenant was able to afford a home in foreclosure, so she moved out.

    She will be closer to her work though, by about 1%.

    I’ll get a lot more rent from the next tenant, because they won’t be able to afford a home.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m surprised no one picked up on the Post graphic that showed the combination of housing cost plus travel expense.

    However, I’ve found and even more interesting graphic, from purdue University. It shows in considerable detail the amount of CO2 released by area. Incedibly, I think the data is good to within 50 sq meters. I have no idea how they do that. And it does it hourly.

    When it was published, there were complaints because it looked exactly likea population density map: dark red in the Eastern Megalopolis, light green in north Dakota.

    So, Purdue went back to the drawing board and divided the output by the population density. If metropolitan areas werre really more efficient due to density, you would expect the graphic to be partially reversed.

    Instead, what happens is that it becomes mostly uniform, with a few exceptions. Everywhere East of the Mississippi CO2 emmissions per person is almnost uniform. There are hot spots in Northern Maine, Upstate New York and the Northern Peninsula in Michigan, and along the Florida Seashore. Some of these might be places that are cold or have a lot of manufacturing, or both.

    Otherwise, it is remarkably uniform. There is no way from this view to identify major cities that acording to legend are much more efficient.

    But, as you go west, looking at Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma you see a slight increase. I suspect this is because of high energy farming operations.

    Then you look at Texas. Instead of seeing hotspots for sprawling Houston and Dallas there are huge hot regions north of the bend in the river and from San Antonion South to Brownsville. These are not heavily populated areas, so shy are teh emissions so high there? What’s going on there? Oil refineries, maybe?

    Los Angeles is heavily populated, and it is pale green, lowest emissions per person. But once you go north, From LA to SF emissions are higher, and again low for SF itself.

    This is fascinating stuff.

    “…Gurney says. “However, what Vulcan makes utterly clear is that CO2 emissions cannot be exclusively affixed to SUV drivers, manufacturers or large power producers; everybody is responsible. We need to look for real solutions, and have a deeper discussion about energy use. It’s not about politics. It’s about doing good science and solving the problem, and we can all be a part of that.”

    “…this is the equivalent of three years of global emissions in the atmosphere that isn’t where we thought it was. This will be important for policy-makers and is enormous from a scientific point of view. It’s shocking.”

    “http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/new-high-res-ma.html”

    RH

  31. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Fascinating map, Ray. I would recommend that everyone take a look. What fascinates me is that there is a cluster of contiguous states — Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, that appear to have the lowest CO2 emissions per capita. Virginia stands on the edge, with slightly more — but lower than most states. Perhaps we owe that to the contribution of nuclear power to our electricity supply.

    The big surprise is California — the epicenter of the green movement in the United States. What is wrong with this picture?

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    They do look slightly better, except for the Shenandoah Valley. Again I would attribute that to farming, maybe, Or 81 running down the valley.

    Looking at it again, New Jesey and Connecticut look pretty good too. But, over all there are not the big glaring differences you might expect from the hype.

    People are going to mine this for a long time.

    You can also get this map in motion over time on U-tube, but it is not the population adjusted version.

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You’d think the poor states would use less, but no.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More