MORE VOCABULARY

Feb 27, 2009

—

A Phrase for Larry’s Lexicon and a Cure for Major Mortgage Bail Out Defect

1) We are a bit late on this but here is a phrase for Larry’s Lexicon: “Green Sprawl:” An energy efficient industrial, commercial or residential building in a dysfunctional location. It is now in the lexicon of MainStream Media. A recycled Wal*Mart with ground effects heating / cooling and a solar array on the roof (See “Big Box Reuse”) or a LEED McMansion on a five acre lot or a 10 acre horse farm.

We have to sort out if the use of a Core Confusing Word (“sprawl”) in a phrase that is clearly defined is a Core Confusing Phrase.

2) Use of “Location Efficient Mortgage” criteria for any residential mortgage bailout would cure a major problem with giving money to those who made bad decisions. The phrase is defined, there are criteria. Implementation of a location efficient mortgage criteria would solve a major problem with the criteria-less mortgages consumed by Fanny and Freddie.

Location efficient mortgage criteria and prosecution for fraud at every stage of the development process from the original raw land sale to the final loan signing including all participating agents would save the public $ billions.

EMR

Share this article

(comments below)

Comments

102 responses to “MORE VOCABULARY”

E M Risse

February 27, 2009

Larry asked an interesting question on the GREEN TECH post below about Wrong Size House in Wrong Location. And then answered it from his perspective as a 12.5 Percenter wearomg rose colored glasses.

EMR thinks Larry is not looking far enough ahead or back.

Look what happened to mining towns in the west…

Look at what happened to North Fork homesteads in the 1910s…

Look what happened in the Dust Bowl…

Look at the drop in value of dwellings inside and outside Clear Edges around Urban Enclaves in the R=30 to R=70 Radius Band in the last 12 months….

When the true costs of goods and servcies are fairly assesed, dysfunctionally scattered Urban land uses in the Countryside will be of very little vaue.

Location efficient mortgages are a step in that direction.

One of the key conservation strategies EMR has advocated for over a decade is parcel reconsolidation.

After all, only 5 percent of the land in the US of A is needed for its 285,000,000 Urban citizens even at the “green leafy” density of Reston’s original plan.

We have now scattered Urban land uses across 15 to 25 percent of the land, depending on what definition is used. See Big (Gray, Brown)Sky Country.

Lets hope there is a business model for 10 acre subsistance farms and those McMansions with walk outs can be used by goats and sheep as walk ins when the weather get really bad.

EMR

Log in to Reply
Larry G

February 27, 2009

Oh I think EMR tee’ed up a fat one….

A guy works in a small town for a mill and gets himself one of them thar Location Efficient Mortgages since his house is within walking distance of his job.

Then the plant closes down…

now what?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

I sort of like the location efficient mortgage idea, but where does the money come from?

I assume the bank offers a lower rate for homes that are location efficient. That would mean the family saves on interest and saves (presumably) on transportation. (until their jobs change.)

But the bank is stuck holding the bag on money it might have made at a normal rate, so what is the banks incentive?

—————————–

I think there is less fraud in the develpment process than EMR suggests. I do think thee is a certain amount of fraud in the way EMR and other conservationists use distorted statistics.

EMR used to claim that anything outside of R-10 was dysfunctional, but now he is reaching out as far as r-30 to r-70 to find support.

—————————-

If we only need five percent of the land for 300 million citizens to live on, what do we do withthe rest? Conserve it? For what, how long, and at what cost, under whos ownership? How can you rail against the wealth gap on one hand and then propmote reconsolidation of large parcels on the other hand?

Those parcels already have valuable homes on them. After you reconsolidate the parcels, what about the homes?

What, after all, is so bad about an urban use that happens to have no urban neighbors? Particularly when that use is 200 years historical?

Assuming we could force people to cram themselves onto 5% of the land, what would they gain that would make them so much better off? How do they benefit from ‘saving” the other 95%?

EMR thinks we need a 10X rule to drive people out of the countryside, and then we need a location effcient mortgage subsidy to entice them to live someplace else. (And this is the same guy who thinkswe should eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction: that’s real consistent.) (Oh yeah, and he is in favor of a free market, as long as he gets to determine the prices.) He thinks that with proper policies in place we can decimate the value of scatteedurban uses nthe countryside.

I’m sure countryside dwellers will line up in droves for that bargain, but whether they do or not, that loss is a COST in his plan that he conveniently ignores.

————————-

My take is a little different. Assume you could get 300 million people on 5% of the land. There would need to be something in it ffor them. They, or someone, would have to put up the money to buy the other 95% of the land and abandon all the scattered urban uses. The cost of that exercise would be subtracted from whatever benefits they might get form living at 5% proximity levels.

And in order to enjoy all this 95% bounty that seems to be so important, urban dwellers would need to travel. The 95% boonies would need to have roads for that to happen, and who would pay for them?

And, putting 95% of the population on 5% of the land is in no way sustainable: that will require huge urban support regions that need an economy of their own.

In short I don’t see that what we have will lead to ruination any more or any faster than trying to “fix it” according to Dr. Risses prescriptions, whic seem mopstly to consist of bitter pills.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

February 27, 2009

talk about your location-specific costs:

…."…(Toilets can use up to 30 percent of a household’s water supply.) This paradigm is rarely questioned, and I understand why: flush toilets, sewers and wastewater-treatment plants do a fine job of separating us from our potentially toxic waste, and eliminating cholera and other waterborne diseases. Without them, cities wouldn’t work.

But the paradigm is flawed. For a start, cleaning sewage guzzles energy. Sewage treatment in Britain uses a quarter of the energy generated by the country’s largest coal-fired power station."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27george.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=urine&st=cse&scp=1

so what about that EMR?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

Sewage treatment in Britain uses a quarter of the energy generated by the country’s largest coal-fired power station.”

But if you have enough space, it doesn’t take any energy.

And that is just the enrgy to run the plant, not haul away the sludge.

To somplace with more space.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

“Although there are pockets of substantial declines, claims that overall housing values have tanked nationwide are exaggerated, they said. “In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, for example, prices have barely changed in the District of Columbia, Alexandria and Arlington County, and parts of Fairfax County in Virginia. The largest price declines (more than 30 percent in 2008) have been in Prince William County, Va., but even there, the range of price declines in its six zip codes ranged from 49 percent to only 6 percent.”

The number of foreclosures usually were lower in central cities than in some suburban counties, probably due to less demand in those suburbs, according to Lucy and Herlitz.

Part of this loss of demand can be accounted for by shifts in the age distribution in the population. The population segment from age 30 to 44, when the biggest increase in home ownership occurs, has been declining in recent years. Those are prime child-rearing years for families, so demand for houses with four or more bedrooms has declined and led to an excess of large houses in some counties.”

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=7838

Yep, those price declines are all about location.

——————————-

“most foreclosures have been concentrated in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and a modest number of metropolitan counties in other states. In fact, they claim that “66 percent of potential housing value losses in 2008 and subsequent years may be in California, with another 21 percent in Florida, Nevada and Arizona, for a total of 87 percent of national declines.”

“California had only 10 percent of the nation’s housing units, but it had 34 percent of foreclosures in 2008,” Lucy and Herlitz reported.

California was vulnerable to foreclosures because the median value of owner-occupied housing in 2007 was 8.3 times the median family income, while the 2007 national average was only 3.2 times higher than median family income “

Yep, and housing prices in CA were artificially inflated by excessive regulation.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

“Lets hope there is a business model for 10 acre subsistance farms “

Thee is, it is called subsitence farming.

Now, where is the business model for condo living, or ten persons per acre?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

Larry:

You are not doing you home work.

Location efficient mortgages require access to transport that get one to a range of jobs, not just one.

But here is an idea for you and your neighbors:

Let you grass grow and do not trim you bushes. In a few years you may be able to sell out to a group of ReWilders.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

“Location efficient mortgages require access to transport that get one to a range of jobs, not just one.”

Oh Goody.

A range of jobs is no better than one, if the one I am offered is not on the banks list.

I just had lunch today with a guy who formerly lived and worked local to Reston. Then he got a job that doubled his salary – In Georgetown: no good transit available.

The salary wasn’t enough to cause him to move, nor would he consider it in any case. His wife works in the opposite direction, at the airport.

The location efficient mortgage is a nice pie in the sky idea, but it is as practical as electric mayonnaise. If you focus only on location efficiencies you miss out on system efficiencies, which is where the bottom line is. This is the whole problem with EMR’s argument in a nutshell.

Anyway, what if you got a location effcient mortgage and then took a job you had to drive to? (as more than half the people in Arlington do, for example.) Are they going to take your mortgage away? How would they even know if you changed jobs?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

“What the “rewilders” want is nothing less than the reversal of thousands of years of domestication, returning vast tracts of countryside to the way they looked thousands of years ago.

They believe the best way to achieve this is by bringing back the biggest and fiercest animals of all — the elk, wolves, lynx and even bears that roamed Britain 10,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene era.”

Hey, if they can buy at market rates, at least they are more honest than the downzoners.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

“A child, nearly naked, stands in the doorway of a bark wigwam. A stony-eyed girl absorbs a lesson in how to handle a rifle. A well-muscled man aims his homemade bow at his prey. Rendered in black and white, these images would appear to date from the American colonial period. But in fact, the images were shot in recent years, by photographer Lucas Foglia, in blazing digital color.

Foglia’s subjects come from various backgrounds—they were college professors, punk rockers, Christians—but all share a desire to live a primitive lifestyle of self-sufficiency and independence, outside the trappings of modern American civilization.

While there’s no reliable census of homesteaders or rewilders, their numbers appear to be growing, fueled in part by the resurgence of interest in organic farming and concerns about global warming and peak oil.”

http://www.utne.com/Arts/Way-Off-the-Grid-Photographs-Back-to-the-landers-rewilders.aspx

All right. Now I’m confused. This is how EMR plans to re-use those urban use habitations in the countryside? Do these sound like people interested in a resurgence of new urban living?

They want to live outside the trappings of american civilization, and yet it is american civilization that has made such dreams possible. Many homesteaders are successful dropouts from the urban work ethic.

It’s fine to bring the countryside back to the way it was thousands of years ago, but you will probably bring back the same economy, too.

Catherine Bennett sarcastically suggests that we bring back the black rat, too, reminding us:

“Helpfully for rewilders, European law is on their side. Any Islington resident who opposes black rat reintroduction will be reminded of the 1992 EU habitats directive which requires member countries to reintroduce native species where desirable. And it must be desirable to make amends for the anthropocentric behaviour of our ancestors. Beyond that, as the RSPB regularly demonstrates, practical objections to an animal’s reintroduction can be easily countered. In the event, for instance, that the bubonic plague returned along with black rats, modern medicine means that this would no longer, or only very rarely, be fatal.”

Like I said, outside the “trappings” of civilization. kind of an Ironic way to describe rewilders, I should say.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

February 27, 2009

re: “Location efficient mortgages require access to transport that get one to a range of jobs, not just one.”

By that definition, many of the smallish towns across the US that have one primary industry are – not eligible.

“Location Efficient Mortgage (or LEM) is a mortgage available to people who buy a home in locations where they don’t need to rely on automobiles as much or at all for transportation. Location Efficient Mortgages allow people to buy more expensive homes than they normally would be able by factoring in the money they’ll save on transportation costs.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_Efficient_Mortgage

” In high density, transit-rich environments, the cost associated with transportation is greatly reduced. This reduction is, for example, $350-$650 per month in Chicago, Illinois. When this extra savings is factored in, the Housing to Income Ratio can be as high as 39%, and the Total Debt to Income Ratio may be as high as 50% to qualify for a loan. In effect, it allows urban dwellers who depend less on automobile use to purchase a more expensive home.”

Let me guess.

A LEM is not available where there is no transit.

Correct?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

February 27, 2009

OOPS!

“Due to the demands for readily available transit and population densities necessary for the success of the program, location efficient mortgages are only available in certain markets. As of April 2006, LEM’s are available in:
Seattle, Washington
Chicago, Illinois
Los Angeles, California; and
San Francisco, California.”

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 27, 2009

http://www.locationefficiency.com/

http://www.locationefficiency.com/faq

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 28, 2009

I wonder how mny peopl et a LEM, and still have a car.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

February 28, 2009

I’m all for paying for one’s location variable costs.

That’s why I support HOT Lanes.

Of the various assorted costs associated with location – I think by far the largest one is probably commuting costs.

If someone moves from a solo car to a multi-passenger vehicles for the home-to-work-to-home, twice-a-day trips, I think they have effectively delt with that issue.

A person who rides in a 3-person carpool for 50 miles uses no more energy than a person who drives solo 10 miles.

So then.. what are the other location-specific costs that need to be addressed?

If you look at the LEM criteria, it appears to me to be based SOLELY on transportation costs.

so.. what are the other costs?

This question gets asked over and over – a request to the functional settlement pattern advocates – to provide a simple articulation of the location-specific issues – just to identify them – not to assign specific costs – just identify the other location variable cost areas.

I think the LEM criteria demonstrates that if there are other costs – that they are not articulated in their criteria.

So “Larry” thinks that HOT Lanes will be “Fundamental Transformation” because at that point – either folks will switch to multi-passenger vehicles or they will pay for their location variable costs.

Further, until the advocates of everyone “paying for their location variable costs” – actually provide an articulation of those costs – I tend to think that their advocacy is hollow… more words than substance.

if and when electric cars come online – what then will the advocates of people paying for their location variable costs – be advocating for?

And here is the kicker – if cars emit less and less pollution in the NURs… then the EPA non-attainment restriction of more roads – will – allow more roads.

then what?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 28, 2009

“Of the various assorted costs associated with location – I think by far the largest one is probably commuting costs.”

Actually the larest cost has to do with what you eat.

HOT lanes are going to do zilch for the vast majority of people “locational cost” because the vast majority won’t use the HOT lanes.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 28, 2009

“If someone moves from a solo car to a multi-passenger vehicles for the home-to-work-to-home, twice-a-day trips, I think they have effectively delt with that issue.”

The whole point of HOT lanes is to move people out of carpools so they can pay the toll. This is going to work backwards from what you think.

Anyway, commuting is only 20% of traffic: you don;t believe it, but we have been through that before.

And those 50 mile commuters are 5% of the total.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 28, 2009

“A person who rides in a 3-person carpool for 50 miles uses no more energy than a person who drives solo 10 miles.”

This is abolutely incorrect. It isn’t even correct to say that a solo driver who drives fifty miles uses five times the energy than one who drives ten. Believe it or not.

Anyway, the energy costs are a small part of the total cost picture. What is true that three solos will use three times as much road space.

Thank you, HOT lanes.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 28, 2009

“…either folks will switch to multi-passenger vehicles or they will pay for their location variable costs.”

No they won’t. They will pay for Transubans costs and transurbans profit.

This will do NOTHING to solve the real problem whichis too manypeole going to the ame place at the same time.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

February 28, 2009

if and when electric cars come online – what then will the advocates of people paying for their location variable costs – be advocating for?

When electric cars come on line a 2000 lb electric car will use just as much energy to go 50 mile as a 2000 lb gas car. The only difference will be that it is measured in kilowatts instead of gallons.

F still equals MA.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 1, 2009

http://www.vamegaprojects.com/downloads/pdf/I_95_395_FAQs.pdf

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 1, 2009

“HOT lanes maintain speed, i.e., manage congestion, by requiring
travelers to use multi-passenger transportation OR to pay a toll.

Motorcycles and emergency vehicles can also travel for free.
Drivers with fewer than three occupants can choose to pay a variable toll and use the faster HOT lanes.”

Which are expected to operate at 45 MPH.

“HOT lanes benefit those who use the lanes by providing a new transportation
alternative — the ability to pay a toll to ride in free-flowing managed lanes.”

Actually no, it only benefits those who now will drive SOLO. HOV was already available. And now we have to pay someone (Transurban) to provide the management.

“Motorists who choose to drive in free lanes will also benefit because there will be fewer cars in regular lanes as a result of motorists who decide to carpool or pay to use the HOT lanes.”

Not true. There is no benefit from current carpoolwers who decide to carpool. There is no evidence that the regular lanes will have feer cars, as a reuslt of the few who decide to py the toll. Remember induced demand?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

This site is hogwash from one end to the other.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 1, 2009

“HOT lanes projects will also create and expand HOV, transit and carpooling opportunities for residents throughout the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg areas.”

In other words this is ANOTHER way for auto drivers to help pay for transit they don’t use.

“people of all incomes
choose to pay tolls when they need a faster, more reliable travel time”

Yeah, well those with hiher incomes have a higher utility value, more abilityto pay,and feel the pain less. The fact that some lesser income tyes occasionally pay does not make this sytem any less regressive.

“A study of the SR-91 Express Lanes in California revealed that only 25 percent of motorists who choose HOT lanes fall within the highest income level.”

For crying out loud, only five or ten perscent of the population falls in the highest income level, but they represent 25% of HOT lane users. What does this tell you?

“tolls generated on the HOT lanes will underpin critically needed transportation improvements in
the I-95/395 corridor, including added capacity, expanded bus service and increased Park-and-Rides.”

There is a real paygo, user pays plan. Lets all pay for stuffwe don;t use IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF THE HOT LANES Is Transurban going to use their tolls to operate these improvements for us, too? How about if we just fire the government and hire Transurbn directly?

“Hybrid drivers, like all drivers, will have choices.”

In other words, no. We are going to take away the previous promises we made to those who invested their money in hybrids for us.

“Federal law dictates that motorcycles will be permitted to use the HOT lanes free of charge.”

But we will keep the promisesto motorcycles because the FEDS made us.

“Why are state governments building HOT lanes?”

They are not buildin HOT lanes. They are creating a franchise to Transurban to build them and collect tolls so that state overnments won;t have to be accused of creating new taxes.

“The average trip
cost is estimated to be between $7 and $9.”

So, if the average trip is 25 miles then that works out to a gas tax equivalent of $8/gallon. I’m sure gald we did this instead of raising gas taxes. And we don;t really know what the toll will work out to yet: we are buying a pig in a poke.

“toll-paying customers do not choose to use HOT lanes every day –”

Well of course, even the wealty people who patronize the toll lanes can;t afford tht every day. This means that the costs will be averaged out over the highway population do and don’ts every day. We could have achieved the same cost averaging result with gas taxes.

Gee, Larry, how bad would this have to be, what would it take to cause you to withdraw your support for HOT lanes? Or is that a hopeless cause?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 1, 2009

EMR:

I don’t suppose you saw the article inthis weeks TIME which describes how Paris is planning to greatly expand and revitalize it suburbs.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 1, 2009

HOT lanes are the transportain equivalent of cherry picking in the health insurance industry.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 1, 2009

“I don’t suppose you saw the article inthis weeks TIME which describes how Paris is planning to greatly expand and revitalize it suburbs.”

Only an idiot would imply this Time Mag story in any way contradicts Professor Risses postions.

Even if RH never bothered to read anything Dr. Risse has writen and did not know “suburb” was a Core Confusing Work, he would know from reading the Time article that it has nothing to do with Risse’s positons posted on this Blog.

The places named (who knows what this class of place is called in French) are totally dysfunctional places that need to be “revitalized.”

They were created as expedient highrise quarters for guest workers who decided to stay because even that was better that where they were from.

There is no Balance in those places.

They are all within the Clear Edge.

The list goes on.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 1, 2009

Perhaps RH could tell us why he posted the following.

Having heard of Lucy and his work there is no doubt his numbers are right. But so what?

He is talking about foreclousres thru Nov 2008. And how foreclousres per se are not the cause of the global financial meltdown.

It is also true as noted in a report filed the day after the UVA study release that “Prices Fall, But Home Saled Hit 12-Year Low?”

Here is the RH post:

“Although there are pockets of substantial declines, claims that overall housing values have tanked nationwide are exaggerated, they said. “In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, for example, prices have barely changed in the District of Columbia, Alexandria and Arlington County, and parts of Fairfax County in Virginia. The largest price declines (more than 30 percent in 2008) have been in Prince William County, Va., but even there, the range of price declines in its six zip codes ranged from 49 percent to only 6 percent.”

The number of foreclosures usually were lower in central cities than in some suburban counties, probably due to less demand in those suburbs, according to Lucy and Herlitz.

Part of this loss of demand can be accounted for by shifts in the age distribution in the population. The population segment from age 30 to 44, when the biggest increase in home ownership occurs, has been declining in recent years. Those are prime child-rearing years for families, so demand for houses with four or more bedrooms has declined and led to an excess of large houses in some counties.”

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=7838

Yep, those price declines are all about location.

(What does this Yep mean? In fact most of the price drop can be directly traced to location with respect to jobs.)
——————————-

“most foreclosures have been concentrated in California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and a modest number of metropolitan counties in other states. In fact, they claim that “66 percent of potential housing value losses in 2008 and subsequent years may be in California, with another 21 percent in Florida, Nevada and Arizona, for a total of 87 percent of national declines.”

“California had only 10 percent of the nation’s housing units, but it had 34 percent of foreclosures in 2008,” Lucy and Herlitz reported.

California was vulnerable to foreclosures because the median value of owner-occupied housing in 2007 was 8.3 times the median family income, while the 2007 national average was only 3.2 times higher than median family income “

Yep, and housing prices in CA were artificially inflated by excessive regulation.

(What does this Yep mean? Excessive regulation is only one of many causes of the high cost of housing in California.)

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“Only an idiot would imply this Time Mag story in any way contradicts Professor Risses postions.”

Only an idiot would infer that I had implied ANYTHING by a simple question as to whether he had seen the article.

Anyone who wants to can read the article and infer anything they like.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 2, 2009

I’ve never seen a good (honest and objective done by an entity without a dog in the hunt) study of the connection between regulation and prices that actually separates out the demand as also a relevant factor.

Also – there are those that claim that charging for infrastructure is akin to “regulation”.

Of course these folks never say how much the infrastructure should actually cost – as compared to what is charged – just that it’s “too much”.

But if wrong sized house in the wrong locations was central to the housing bust – it could be clearly shown with the data – and instead the data not only does not confirm any trend.. trying to make it “fit” the circumstances of wrong-size house in the wrong-location is an exercise in futility.

As usual.. those with agendas.. the various usual suspects – love to cherry-pick the data to bolster their agendas…

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“Excessive regulation is only one of many causes of the high cost of housing in California.)”

True, but you agree it is ONE cause.

And CA has LOTS or regulation. that isn;t the ONLY cause of foreclosures. At least one other cause is that CA has had an exodus of population.

————————-

“In fact most of the price drop can be directly traced to location”

– but part of it is due to other factors, as the article states. My own Alexandria home is in a close-in location but it took a 22% hit on assessment this year. Ouch.

—————————–
“there is no doubt his numbers are right. But so what?”

The numbers are there for anyone to interpret. At least we agree the numbers are probasbly correct. That is a start. All I would say is that location isn’t the ONLY cause of the global meltdown.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“The places named (who knows what this class of place is called in French) are totally dysfunctional places that need to be “revitalized.””

That apeears to be a matter of opinion. The article states that these places ahve many nice attributes, but they need improvement. One reason the city is doing this is to alleviate crowdin in the center sections, which are limited in building heght by zoning.

One of the improvements is Billions in Metro extensions including connections between the suburbs and a circular rail around the city.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

The point is that the French have decided that a) The city needs to expand. b) They have determined that their edge cities are the place to do it. c) They have a plan to make it happen d) The plan includes major transportation expenditures to link all these new centers of business and tourism.

What we have is the Virinia Legislature.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“there are those that claim that charging for infrastructure is akin to “regulation”.”

Of course it is, what else would you call it? Of course it does depend on how much you charge – and WHO you cahrge. Then there is the additonal problem of outrigt restriction.

That of course affects demand, as do the other regulations which affect price.

Your argument that you have never seen a study that shows the effect of regualtions on price without considering demand is silly because price and demand are always related.

Right now, there is almost no demand in CA and that’s why they have so many foreclosures. So we have effectively taken demand out of the equation. We can now look at the relative size of the losses and the number of foreclosures compared to other locations with either stricter or lesser degree of restrictions and regulation.

It isn’t the only cause, but there are multivariate analyses that can strip out the effect oof other cuases. This has been done by a number or researchers at different universities.

Does everyone you disaree with have a dog in the hunt?

Of course regulations and restrictions affect prices and ultimately foreclosures.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

How much should new residents pay for infrastructure? Good question, and I don;t know the answer, but here is an example of the problem as I see it………

In Indiana, state officials are drafting plans to spend nearly $122 million in federal stimulus money to clean up Indiana’s aging, overflow-prone sewers and upgrade its drinking water systems.

That money, a small share of Indiana’s estimated $4.3 billion slice of the stimulus package, will help finance projects ranging from sewer plant expansions to underground sewage storage tunnels that can hold the waste until it can be treated.

But it falls far short of what’s needed to fix the antiquated sewers that foul Indiana waterways with a fetid mixture of sanitary waste whenever it rains or snows…. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that fixing Indiana’s sewers will cost $4.5 billion, and the final price tag could go even higher.

Now, when a new resident signs up for sewer service, how much of that OLD $4.5 billion should he be expected to pay?

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 2, 2009

water/sewer is divided into two components – the capital costs for new stuff and the operational costs for the existing.

When a facility has to be upgraded/updated NOT as a result of growth but because it is outmoded or needs to meet new requirements then all of the people using it would have to pay their fair share.

And that’s actually the way it works for most all infrastructure – that the maintenance, repair and upkeep of EXISTING infrastructure is the legitimate responsibility of all users of it.

But the discussion was about how much NEW infrastructure should cost for NEW folks who need it – not whether or not it was needed but how much it should cost and how much of that cost – would be a legitimate share for existing residents.

And this would be true no matter if you were in California, or in a city or even…in a dysfunctional settlement….

the issue is separate and distinct from location costs but it gets thrown into the debate by those folks who have agendas about location costs AND so called “property-rights”.

which is a shame – because if we want to talk about location-variable costs – comparing those costs with various flavors of settlement pattern densities might be useful.

I’ve made the point that comparing electricity costs seems not relevant because few places generate their own on-site electricity but instead most locations, whether dense or not – have their power generated at other locations – a clear location subsidy.

And I’ve tried to make the case that long-distance commuting is also a clear example of a subsidized location as we tend to use everyone’s tax dollars to build commuting roads for less than everyone… and we give vouchers – subsidies to commuters whether they ride bus or van pool or commuter rail.

So that would seem to be location subsidy.

Most of all, I’ve tried to get those who claim that there are location subsidies – to enumerate them… and perhaps (if I get lucky) to RANK them.

If we could do that – then we could actually start to advocate some policies to have folks pay more of their own location costs – of which HOT Lanes would be one of them IMHO.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“water/sewer is divided into two components – the capital costs for new stuff and the operational costs for the existing.

When a facility has to be upgraded/updated NOT as a result of growth but because it is outmoded or needs to meet new requirements then all of the people using it would have to pay their fair share.”

But, as you can see from the example, that obvously has not happened.

APF is a way to make sure it doesn;t happen.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

And that’s actually the way it is supposed to work for most all infrastructure, but it obviously hasn’t, and that is why infrastructure repair is such a big piece of the current “stimulus” package.

Of course, it might have been just as stimulating had we kept up our stuff all along, but again, the whole point of APF is to prevent growth and prevent stimulus, by claiming something that is untrue – newcomers are responsible for increased costs of infrastructure.

APF is a conservation policy packaged in a trojan horse. Now, I have nothing against conservation as long as it pays its own full costs, but I have a problem with lying and deceit in an effort to avoid those costs.

APF makes a pretty strong argument, and it is a slick packaging effort, but this example clearly shows why it is either false or subject to being falsely co-opted.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“But the discussion was about how much NEW infrastructure should cost for NEW folks who need it “

in that case, if you limit the discussion that way, then I have no disagreement with your position.

My complaint is hidden in your observation that:

“water/sewer is divided into two components – the capital costs for new stuff and the operational costs for the existing.”

The problem being tha toperational costs for the existing are not and have never been sufficient to cover the capital costs of replacement. Then, that capital cost gets put with the rest and claimed as NEW infrastructure when it isn’t.

And who would know, anymore than someone would know how much new infrastructure AHOULD cost?

If you agree to limit your argument this way (NEW costs of infrastructure for new residents)

“Then water/sewer (all infrastructure) is divided into three components – the capital costs for new stuff and the operational costs for the existing, and capital costs for relacing existing and bringing it up to the same standards the new people have to pay for.”

And if you agree that is a fair statement and a fair way forward, then we can reach agreement.

——————————–

But I warn you, it will mean higher taxes for a lot of existing residents. So much higher that when you see the result you will wish we had all just split the bill.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 2, 2009

“we tend to use everyone’s tax dollars to build commuting roads for less than everyone”

What you call commuting roads are only used for commuting about 15% of the time. Whether they are commuting roads or not every road is available to anyone at any time.

It has nothing to do with location, unless you consider the location of housing and location of job centers simultaneouslly and carrying the same weight in terms of externalities.

———————————-

Toll roads and HOT lanes will change who is able to use what, and when, and not very favorably.

The problem with location subsides is that they are all different for every location. We get water from uphill and dispose of sewage downhill. Some people get more of one subsidy and some get more of the other. To figure it all out would require huge transaction costs, so we need some way to simplify things (and therfore blunt the effect of paying full locational costs).

One kind of “simplification” would be the Cook county bill that is the sum of all the service district bills. Even that is pretty crazy, but it still averages the costs for each service provided, therby giving some a subsidy for that service at the expense of others.

Frankly, I think you worry way tooo much about things you think you are paying for that you think you get no use from. You probably on;t pay enough taxes to cover the things you DO use, let alone those you don’t.

Then again, you might wind up using them someday, and THEN find out we had to set the individual tolls much higher than we might have, had we been more willing to contribute and share (otherwise sometimes called Tax and Spend).

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 3, 2009

The numbers, like 15% are not supported and they are not relevant if the issue is that there is not enough capacity – for commuting and the advocacy is for more capacity – to serve rush hour commuting.

The question is – who should pay for the capacity needed for rush hour commuting?

And here’s a good kicker – people are always trotting out the “costs” of congestion – that it “costs” people.

Well.. DUH… WHO is it costing?

Isn’t it costing the folks who are commuting at rush hour?

So.. who should pay for THEIR costs?

And HOW should they pay?

and WHO should NOT have to pay?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 3, 2009

re: location variable costs of water/sewer.

In fact, if you build a home with a well and septic – you have to pay the costs to equip that house with "water & sewer".

If, instead of well/septic, you need municipally-provided water/sewer – those are also your costs also just as well/septic is your cost for that option.

Yammering about the "unfairness" of charging people for infrastructure is akin to yammering about the "unreasonable" costs that the contractor charges you for installing a well/septic system – and somehow thinking that because the water/sewer is provided by a third-party instead of your own – that either it ought to be "free" or .. if there is a charge – that such charges are "rip-offs" no matter what the charges.

And the argument then focuses not on the legitimate costs that should be paid – but the entire concept of whether or not it should be charged for in the first place.

It's a dumb argument.

It makes the property rights zealots who claim that people are being ripped off from water/sewer charges to look not so smart.

It's almost as if they might also believe that when someone builds on a private lot – that their neighbors should pay for that guys' well & septic.

Because that's the essential argument with respect to proffers for infrastructure.

In other words.. they are charging too much.. therefore proffers and impact fees should be done away with altogether.

notice how the argument is no longer about how much is a fair cost but instead – any cost is wrong.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

"In fact, if you build a home with a well and septic – you have to pay the costs to equip that house with "water & sewer"."

And you have to pay for enough land to make private water and sewer feasible. If you have city water and sewer you can get by with a smaller lot, but now you depend on some kind of "urbans support area" to supplement your holdings.

But, you get to let your job out for bids among competing septic and well contractors. If you buy city water and sewer they set the price independently, and you have no options.

When comparing costs,you have to compare costs for the entire system, which you consistently fail to do.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

“The numbers, like 15% are not supported “

Actually,they are well supported, and we have been around on this before. You simply refuse to beleive the pertinent facts. 90% of our congestion occurs on 20% of our roads 15% of the time. This is a manageable problem if we choose to manage it, and if we use ALL the tools available. One thing it isn’t is an example of the free market at work.

“they are not relevant if the issue is that there is not enough capacity”

Yes they are. The question is who is suffering from insufficient capacity, and the fact is tht 85% of the traffic is not commuters: we all suffer from insufficient capacity. Therefore it is unfair to charge higher fees during rush hour on the basis that this is some kind of punishment fee for inappropriate housing location choices.

The DUH who is it costing answer is that it is costing everyone, and everyone should pay. No one whould NOT have to pay because everyone gets the same option: to go anyplace there is a road, whether it is congested or not. they can choose not to exercise that option, but that doesn;t mean they don’t have to pay for it.

You are opposed to cherry picking in schooling and healthcare, but you think it is all right when it comes to road use.

I am not the one who started the yamering about unfirness in infrastructure charges. EMR did that with his call for full locational charges.

My contention is mostly just the opposite: by the time you spend enough money to find out what is really fair, you could have built the thing and been done with it. I beleive there are some costs which we can fairly allocate, and others for which the transaction costs make the effort worthless, or less than worthless.

My observation is that there are plenty of examples like the Indiana sewers in which we have not paid enough all along and now we want to stick the bill to newcomers. In the case of highways “we” means the 85% of users who are not commuters. They just make an easy target, same as newcomers to a community. It is why we see the old members of a HOA now willing to charge an initiation fee to new mwmbers: they never paid enough to cover their expenses, an now they want to take it out of someone else’s pocket.

I call that stealing. It isn’t a question of what is fair, it is a question of fundamental honesty. If we are honest with ourselves we will see that what we are doing is shifting some of our burden onto others.

Your argunment has talked about operatng coats and expansion costs, but you have said nothing about capital replacement costs, or the costs of bringing old systems up to the new standrds we require for newcomers.

This is of particular interest in sewer treatment plants, because you may reach a situation where the plant needs to be expanded, but if it is, you have to meet higher and more expensive standards for everybody. Should the last new guy who hooks up and pushes the sytem past the limit have to pay for the ENTIRE upgrade?

Look, that VDOT site you posted was basically a string of lies. Each statement was technically true – as far as it went, but that is a far cry from simply coming out and telling the truth. The answer to the question about hybrids, for example was an outright evasion.

It is the ethical and logical equivalent of looking at one cost or one benefit, instead of the whole system, and it results in distortions in fact and in payment.

I expect better from my government.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

“In other words.. they are charging too much.. therefore proffers and impact fees should be done away with altogether.”

I never said that. I do think they are charging too much and existing residents have made it that way through self interested mob rule.

I believe some proffers or impact fees are appropriate – even if existing residents never had to pay them. But I beleive that the method of calculating them is entirely wrong. In fact, if it was done properly it is “possible” we would find that growth benefits existing residents more than it costs them, and therefor proffers SHOULD be done away with.

But, until that happens, the highly defensive, poorly constructed, knee-jerk arguments I hear only make me more convinced the truth is not in them.

Conceptually I dont have a problem with charging exact costs, but in fact we don;t know what they are, and it is far too difficult and expensive to figure out – so we just split the tab.

for centries we thoughgt heavy balls fall faster than light ones. We might have taxed balls accordingly. But then what would we do when we found out different: when someone climbed up on the tower and made the facts known to us?

Would we then say the numbers are not supported, that it doesn’t matter because we have the votes?

No, so diide up the coats where you have facts, and quit worrying about it otherwise.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

the property rights guy just says that whether he putis in weel and septic or city water and sewer, his neighbors have no right to stop him. Particularly when they have invented new requirements which change his vested interests,but not their own.

They have no right to effectively stop him by charging outrageous fees, or by having him pick up the tab for costs they should have paid and didn’t.

they have no right to claim damages to their quality of life and their property without also subtracting out their damages to him.

I cannot claim that you are congesting me unless I recognize that I am equally congesting you. that is not a market externality.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 3, 2009

re:congestion

who should pay for it?

The 15% get to pay – right now in terms of time lost.

Or they can help reduce congestion by carpooling and not lose time.

Or , with the HOT Lanes, they can pay – to recover lost time – if the cost of paying is cheaper than the cost of the time lost.

Doesn’t that really offer more options for the folks who are causing the congestion – to get relief from it – without having other drivers who do not experience the congestion have to pay.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 3, 2009

re: water/sewer/septic/well

in all cases – you the landowner are restricted to what you can do, especially if it will result in potential harm to other property owners.

For instance, you cannot put any flavor of septic system anywhere you please.

The system has to meet certain standards and it cannot be located where the soil conditions are not suitable.

The same thing is true of third-party water/sewer systems, many of which are run by municipal governments and authorities but more than a few are private.

And you have the option of not buying a water/sewer hookup as long as you can satisfy the well/septic requirements in many areas.

There are two relevant points here.

1. – no matter what method you utilize to get water/sewer infrastructure to your home – the costs of it are your responsibility

EVEN if you think the water/sewer supplier is charging too much or even if you think the guy who drills wells and installs septic systems charges too much.

And you can continue to say that they charge too much but after awhile it just gets to be more yammering and blather about nothing particularly relevant.

What IS relevant is that infrastructure costs money … and that goes for the various flavors of infrastructure that new homes require…

and most localities and most taxpayers believe that those costs for NEW infrastructure belong to the new home owner and that operational & maintenance costs of all infrastructure is a shared cost for all property owners.

2. – Does it matter WHERE – locationally water/sewer/well/septic are located and as a result of that – the allowable density of settlement patterns can be affected by natural things – like soil conditions and receiving stream conditions?

Is there even such a thing as a location variable subsidy for water and sewer ANYWHERE?

You cannot have density greater than one or two (at most I believe) homes per acre unless they are served by water and sewer.

That affects, not only the value of the land but it also affects the type of settlement pattern that is possible.

Even in places like Arlington and Alexandria and Tysons – there is a finite limit to just how much water & sewer capacity that is "available".

At some point – the receiver stream -even one the size of the Potomac will have a limit – as recently formalized (as TMDLs).

So perhaps – one relevant question would be to look at how much water/sewer costs on a per capita basis in dense – balanced communities verses dysfunctional settlement patterns – served by well/septic.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

"At some point – the receiver stream -even one the size of the Potomac will have a limit – as recently formalized (as TMDLs)."

And that is what I have been saying about "receivers" such as Tysons. We don't yet have any way to formalize that limit, but if we did we could control congetion the same way we control pollution.

Why is it you can understand this from a streambed standpoint but not from a city or urban area standpoint?

The Cap and Trade policies used to control pollution esentially decalre a new form of property rights which can be bought sold and traded. We can do the same thing with development rights, or if you prefer, antidevelopment rights, the end result is the same. And either way you need a government that is willing to protect those rights.

Theoretically, Alexandria can clean their sewage perfectly and release or reuse pure H2O. It just takes a huge amount of energy. And Theoretically Alexandria can house and employ everyone who needs to live and work there. this would be the economic and social equivlent of 100% recycling of their water. And it would be just as stupid and just as unnecessary.

—————————–

"most taxpayers believe that those costs for NEW infrastructure belong to the new home owner and that operational & maintenance costs of all infrastructure is a shared cost for all property owners."

They can believe whatever they like. Most people once believed that heavy balls fall faster than light ones, but it just isn't true.

The fact is, as the Indiana example shows, the maintenanance costs have not been paid for decades. Upgrades to new standards have not been made for decades. And once the new residents pay for new infrastructure, everyone has access to it.

The result is that new residents get overcharged to the benefit of existing residents. This has been shown in studies time and time again at different levels in different locations. Another result is hyperinflated home prices with no underlying intrinsic value to support them: you pay for a house plus inflated "infrastructure" costs but when yousell you only sell the house. the infrastructure value you paid for evaporates, as in California, and the result is massive foreclosures.

I predicted this in earlier blog posts, and now we have the evidence. Don't let me confuse you with facts, I know your mind is made up.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

“if you think the guy who drills wells and installs septic systems charges too much.”

If I think he charges too much, I can get someone else or do it myself. With the county I don’t have that option, and I have to take their word for whatever they claim the costs are. That is why the government has a higher moral obligation than to set the rates at whatever the mob wants to set them at: for their benefit and to keep me out.

The government has an obligation to see to it that costs are allocated honestly and fairly, and not by mob rule. The government has an obligation to operate under waht amounts to generally accepted accounting practices. The government has an obligation to protect the minority. And all of this is spelled out at least in the EPA regulations: no one should bear an undue cost for the enforcement, nonenforcement or enactment of environmental protection rules. That includes the polluters.

So, we can argue about what the costs are, but we cannot argue about what the ethicalm moral, and financial obligations are.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

“one relevant question would be to look at how much water/sewer costs on a per capita basis in dense – balanced communities verses dysfunctional settlement patterns – served by well/septic.”

I’d object off the bat to a question that contains loaded words. Otherwise, if you can come up with a plan that adresses all the costs, if you can describe system boundaries that will close, and include all the same externalities over the same timeframe, then knock yourself out.

I suggest that what you will find is something like the case with transit. Theoretically it is more efficient and cost effective, but in fact it costs about the same as auto transport, per passenger mile.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

“The 15% get to pay – right now in terms of time lost.”

See. That is where you are wrong. Everybody who travels during rush hour pays. to get the 15% to pay for congestion relief for the other 85% is wrong. Especially since THAY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE RELIEF.

rh

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 3, 2009

“Doesn’t that really offer more options for the folks who are causing the congestion – to get relief from it – without having other drivers who do not experience the congestion have to pay.”

It isnt about options. It is about getting the most people to their destinations at the least cost. Cost includes time, money, pollution, comfort, and aggravation. Only AFTER you figure out what the lowest cost collection of answers or transport modes is can you determine how much each kind of user should pay. Because in the systems view auto drivers would pay SOME amount to support Metro – and vice versa each according to the benefits recieved from the actions of others. Because it is the system that provides the best benefits to all, not (for examle) just the HOT lanes which claim some benefit that does not exist in a vaccuum.

Your idea has it exactly backwards. Not only that, but the premises are wrong. You think that you can identify the people who are “causing me congestion” or “using my infrastructure” or “polluting my air”. Then, at the same time you make all those claims to my this and my that, you pooh pooh the idea of property rights that define and protect what you own, and offer you a way to trade your way out of whatever imbalance you choose to believe in.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

“in all cases – you the landowner are restricted to what you can do, especially if it will result in potential harm to other property owners.”

We agree on this.

The only difference between us is that I recognize that one of the restrictions you as a landowner have is on what you can prevent other landowners from doing.

You cannot restrict him if it causes herm to other property owners – meaning him.

Practically speaking, this means you MUST HAVE Pareto or Kaldor-Hicks efficiency in your regulations. If your restriction on their activites caused them more harm than their activities would have caused you, then you are stealing from them based on false pretenses.

You cannot make your statement and make it assymetrically: it applies to ALL property owners and ALL activities equally, including the activity of inventing restrictions.

I must be allowed to live. That means I must be allowed to labor in order to produce things to sell that I might live. Anything I do or produce will affect someone negatively.

By your reconing I have NO RIGHT to do anything that will damage someone else, so I have no right to live.

By my reckoning, you have no right to claim damages that are greater than the damages you cause me, and vice versa. My reckoning is fair and equitable and allows us both to live, and your reckoning is not does not, because you claim a superior property right. And we all know how you disdain property rights.

Here is whre my reckoning breaks down. It assumes a certain amount of damage that we both have to live with. But when there are three trillion of us, that would eventually amount to more damage than all of us can live with.

As EMR, says we need fewer people consuming less.

So who is going to decide? My reckoning has no answer to that. Yet.

But your reckoning does, because you claim a superior property right, just as the King’s of old did. With that right you can tell anyone yo ulike they can’t do anything you don;t like, and just let them die. Let them eat cake.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 4, 2009

re: ” ..but if we did we could control congetion the same way we control pollution.

Why is it you can understand this from a streambed standpoint but not from a city or urban area standpoint?”

because of reality rather than the reasoning you use that ignores it.

There are cities across the globe that are more dense than Tysons… that are not economically dead from gridlock but instead vibrant and healthy.

You presume that only free-flowing auto traffic is the path to economic vitality and that is clearly not backed up by – realties.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 4, 2009

re: “The fact is, as the Indiana example shows, the maintenanance costs have not been paid for decades.”

whether or not maintenance is done is a separate issue from who pays for new infrastructure.

By your logic – new homeowners should not have to pay for infrastructure because exiting homeowners have neglected maintenance.

the cost of water/sewer for new hookups does not go away or is excused because the sewage treatment plant itself needs repairs…

it’s a dumb concept.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 4, 2009

re: “If I think he charges too much, I can get someone else or do it myself. With the county I don’t have that option, and I have to take their word for whatever they claim the costs are. That is why the government has a higher moral obligation than to set the rates at whatever the mob wants to set them at: for their benefit and to keep me out.”

only in your own mind guy.

you just think that governments charge more than they should to start with.

Do you think that with roads?

or license plates, or anything else?

do you have objective facts to prove your point?

for instance, there are privately operated water/sewer systems.

Can you show that some systems are cheaper than others and that, in general the private systems are cheaper?

I doubt it..

so what do you actually base your opinion on if not facts?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 4, 2009

re: “See. That is where you are wrong. Everybody who travels during rush hour pays. to get the 15% to pay for congestion relief for the other 85% is wrong. Especially since THAY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE RELIEF.”

Were you not citing the 15% congestion number to start with?

No matter.

Pick your number and the answer is the same.

The folks who are driving when there is congestion are responsible for the congestion.

Get it?

They have choices.

They can choose to NOT drive when there is congestion.

Or they can move from a solo vehicle to a multi-passenger vehicle and get rewarded with less congestion and a faster trip rather than the trip that has congestion.

and with HOT Lanes, if you want a faster, more reliable trip and don’t want to car/van/pool, they can pay.

How much they are willing to pay is a calculation between how much the congestion delay actually costs them personally and how much they are willing to pay to recover some of it.

With your approach – everyone suffers the delay.. and then you whine about the lost time costs.

The folks who cause the congestion are the ones who should pay and should be part of the solution.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 4, 2009

re: “I must be allowed to live. That means I must be allowed to labor in order to produce things to sell that I might live. Anything I do or produce will affect someone negatively.

but you are not allowed to decide for yourself the things that you consider “necessary” for your life especially when those things can cause adverse impacts and harm to others.

Your ability to “pollute” is restricted and limited – NOT according to what you think is necessary but by what others think is necessary (or not).

That’s why pollution permits – are called “permits” and not “rights”.

get it?

you do not have a right to pollute – no matter how much you believe you must pollute.

Simple Example.

You might believe that you cannot live if you are not allowed to dump your sewage in a creek on your property.

The reality is – that you cannot do it because the folks that would be harmed by your actions downstream of that creek can and will prevent you from doing it – no matter how much you whine about not being able to live if you cannot pollute.

When we go through this.. you then often try to evade the basic question by claiming that things like breathing air is “pollution” which is bunk and you know it.

What is considered a “pollutant” by the way – is ALSO not determined by you but by others who will determine whether or not something is considered a pollutant (or not) based on criteria that you may not (and probably won’t) agree with.

None the less – the principle here is that such things are not yours to decide to start with – and never were because pollution law is not determined by the folks who pollute but instead by those that are affected by it.

HINT: That’s why they are called “laws” and that’s why you must obtain permission to discharge anything that has been determined (by others and not you) to be a pollutant.

On this mis-conception – you build – this wide array of wrong ideas about “property rights” and who should pay for infrastructure.. and congestion..etc..etc

You are not entitled to pollute nor to engage in activities that others around you believe are harmful to their interests.

That’s a pretty basic concept.

I’ll say again.

You are not – entitled.

I certainly think you are “entitled” to your ideas and you can and are quite vociferous about them but in the end – you have to convince others and the basics with respect to pollution “rights” are clear and unambiguous and they render your views – just flat wrong.

The reality is that you cannot pollute simply because you claim that you have no way to survive unless you do.

The reality is that society as a whole – your voice included but also many other voices get to decide for you and themselves as to what kinds of pollution are acceptable (for “survival”) and what are not.

The only reason I belabor this – is that you seem to base your ideas of property rights in general on this issue and I think the facts show otherwise.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

Hot lanes are a done deal. The experiment is in progress, and we will start seeing the results in about five years.

I predict we will live to regret this, and it will cost far more than it is worth. I predict that concentrating the costs an a few people is a losing strategy.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

I have the right to live and make a living. Anything I do creates pollution and affects other people.
They have no right to stop me. Their rights are equal to mine and no greater. Therefore all we can expect is to allow that the harm we cause each other will be equal and fair.

Tht in fact is written in the LAW that you talk about.

“No person or group shall bear undue cost due the the enactment, enforcement, or lack pof enforcement of environmental laws.”

That is the law, and you have NO RIGHT to claim a superior property right that causes me or anyone else undue harm.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

“you seem to base your ideas of property rights in general on this”

I have the right to live.

In order to live I have the right to the fruits of my labor, which is my property.

The government has an obligation to protect me and my property.

I have no right to expect UNDUE protection which would cause UNDUE costs to others, and neither do they.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

“your voice included but also many other voices get to decide for you and themselves as to what kinds of pollution are acceptable “

That depends on the costs, and as we have seen lately those are subject to continual change. What is unacceptable five years ago may well be acceptable today.

That is why property rights and the ability to trde rights is so important.

Despite what you think, there are no absolutes on what pollution is acceptable and what isn’t: it all depends on the percieved costs, as Hiroshima proved once and for all.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

“You are not entitled to pollute nor to engage in activities that others around you believe are harmful to their interests.”

Others are not entitled to engage in activites that I believe are harmful to my interests, then. One of the activities they engage in is restricting my activities and therefor my right to live. I think that is definitely harmful to my interests.

They have, by your own statement no rioght to do that, unless you think their property rights are greater than mine.

All I calim is equal rights and equal allowance for damages caused. No more, no less, but you claim I have no right to even that.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

“That’s why pollution permits – are called “permits” and not “rights”.”

Let’s say I go buy a pollution permit. Under the law the government has no right to charge me more for the permit than the damage caused by the pollution, otherwise I am bearing an “undue burden” for the cost of enforcing environmental laws.

Sorry, but that is written in the law.

Now, we could issue pollution permits for every kind of pollution according to the costs of damage they cause. Then the government (and by extension me) would get money from your for running your furnace, your car, and accepting your garbage and waste. I (the government) would benefit from yur pollution exactly as muchas it costs, and you would benefit from being “allowed” to live your life and pollute in the process.

Same as everbody else, including me. But you would have NO RIGHT to prevent me from buying a permit. In order to do that you would have to claim you have rights that I don’t. That the property rights in the dollars you spend for pollution permits are greater than mine.

Now lets say the government refuses to issue me a permit. They claim that my property is needed in its pristine state in order to protect the property of others, because others have already bought up all the available or allowable permits. (property in this case being the permits).

Fine. They can make that claim, but now they are efffectively renting my property for the public benefit and they owe me money.

Or, I can go buy a permit (freely traded proerty) from someone else if i think my use of my property is more valuable than they think their use of their property is.

But again, you would have NO RIGHT to prevent me from doing that, since I would be causing no more harm than exists at present.

This is exactly waht cap and trade does, and what it says is that anyone has the right to pollute, providing they are willing to pay the current price.

It ALSO SAYS that anyone has the right to prevent pollution. All they have to do is go buy the permit and put it in their pocket. But in order to do that THEY MUST PAY THE PRICE. They have NO RIGHT to prevent others from using their own pollution permits. Just as they have NO RIGHT to prevent others from using any of their other property.

So far, we only do this (or are planning to do this) with CO2. (So far as I know). But TMDLs will work the same way, and conceptually so could Mercury or anything else, including congestion in Tyson’s.

This much of what you say is true: under cap and trade there will be an intitial cap, but it will be tightened over time, which will raise the cost (and value) of pollution permits (property). As you say, this means that society as a whole will decide how much pollution is allowable (what the cost of pollution is).

But everyone will still have the same right to pollute and the same right to bid for pollution permits. You have NO RIGHT to tell me I have any less right to pollute than you have.

Now, why do we phase in the lowering of the pollution cap? Because it is our way of recognizing the vested interests of current polluters. We don’t just shut them down, we give them warning of the new rules, and a way to profit from them.

WE don’t just step in and steal their property, claiming they have NO RIGHTS.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

Remember when I say these things that I am a trained environmental scientist, and a practicing environmentalist. I’m out there every day trying to make the environment cleaner and make a profit in the process.

I want a clean environment as much as the next person, but the next person has no right to expect that I will pay more for it than they do.

Freely tradeable, properly defined, and enforceable property rights are essential to having and maintaining a clean environment at the least cost to everyone.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

Back to the HOT laznes one more time.

Suppose we built the HOT lanes with common money, and then we give everyone who paid for the roads (all of us) HOT lane passes. we would hand out the passes until we had met the capacity of the road.

Then anyone who wanted to use the HOT lanes could use their passes, and then buy more passes from others. If you are not HOT lane user, you could sell your passes.

And, if you think the HOT lanes are such a HOT idea, then you would have to believe that you could probably sell your passes for MORE than the additional tax you paid. (Which is what Transurban is going to do.)

Everyone would have all the same choices as you claim they will have with the HOT lanes, only the cost will be much less. It would be cap and trde for HOT lanes.

Surprisingly, this would be financially no different from my plan to toll the regular (congestion causing) lanes and use the money to pay carpool users: no one would have the right to expect benefits which are greater than the costs incurred.

It would be cap and trade for the HOT lanes.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 4, 2009

“There are cities across the globe that are more dense than Tysons… that are not economically dead from gridlock but instead vibrant and healthy.”

Wrong, not true.

They may be muddling through magnificently, but all of them are paying a high cost in waste time and pollution. They could be MORE healthy if we decided to fix congestion once and for all.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 5, 2009

re: “since I would be causing no more harm than exists at present”

as a “trained environmental scientists”, would you not agree that your opinion alone does not constitute the reality of the current and existing laws?

What you are actually ENTITLED do in such matters is the right to be heard at hearings and processes where decisions are made and a vote.

What you are NOT entitled do is to decide for yourself what you think is a “right” nor what constitutes “pollution” much less decide how much one should pay or not pay for polluting.

The same goes for your other perceived “property” rights that you actually do not have but insist that you do.

That’s because, in general, your “right” ends at your property line just as it does for other property owners and it does not matter whether or not you think you are entitlted to do something to “survive” or “earn the fruits of your labor” because it is other property owners who will decide if your activities adversely affect their interests.

What you can do beyond your property line is determined by everyone who owns property – via hearings, administrative decisions, laws and regulation – created and implemented after hearing from all property owners who might be affected.

Your views on what constitute pollution, for instance, may or may not be the same view held by other property owners and in the end, your view, along with the views of all other property owners will result in a decision that applies to all property owners – including you.

So.. it’s simply not up to you to decide what is considered “pollution” or not..nor what your “rights” are nor whether or not pollution law should be based on cap and trade for ALL classes of pollutants.

All I’m trying to elicit from you is an acknowledgment that whatever “rights” you have – are not determined by you alone and that they are even subject to change if new facts come to light that show harm resulting from an activity previously thought to not be harmful.

This is the entire basis for the government to:

1. – decide what is and what is not pollution.

2. – to decide if it is a pollution – how much is allowed

3. – the “right” to not allow it … and that “right” is the governments – not the property owner.

Stated simply – your rights are not determined by you no matter how strongly you feel they are justified.

this goes for pollution “rights” AND it goes for virtually all other property rights – to include development rights.

and the “government” is, in fact, your fellow property owners…..

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“your opinion alone does not constitute the reality of the current and existing laws?”

It isn;t my opinion. It is what I was taught and it is what the law says: No person or group shall bear an undue burden due to the enactment, enforcement or non-enforcement of environmental laws.

That seems perfectly clear and perfeclty fir to me.

Your position seems unfair and logically inconsistent to me, not to mention mean sprited and selfish.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“Your views on what constitute pollution, for instance, may or may not be the same view held by other property owners “

It doesn’t matter whatt he pollution is or isn’t. It matters whether one person or group bears an undue burden. DDT caused a lot of damage, but so did not having DDT. I’m not suggesting that DDT should not have been banned, but we should recognize that the ban itself may have caused millions of deaths. those people may have tken on an undue burden.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

I’ll say this: there are places where the practice of the law and the letter of the lw differ widely. The Constituion clearly says that if you take something for public use then yo must pay for it. The Supreme court and environmental groups both recognize the bundle of sticks analogy in property law, otherwise there would be no such thing as conservation easements or Supreme court ruling referring to it.

And yet, the practice is that no taking is deemed to exist unless almost all of the value of the propertyis taken. Clearly, if you take one of my sticks, then you have taken all the value of that stick.

And yet, procedurally it is next to impossible to get to court and have a case heard.

Then you have the superfund act: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). As it has played out the key word here was liability, and that liability has been assessed retroactively for acts that were legal at the time committed. That liability has been applied against those with the deepeest pockets and not the most actual liability in some cases. It has opened up chains of lawsuits that have wiped out billions in value for people who had no connection with the incidents in question.

All in all superfund, for all the good it has done, has been operated in violation of the concept that no person or group should bear undue burdens due to enforcement of environmental law.

I don’t claim to have any answers, I only suggest that we put on a lab coat that is painted FAIR before we go looking for answers, or even worse, culprits. We have policies and procedures that are part of law, and we have an obligation to apply them fairly. Government has a mandate to only enact regulations that show a true net social benefit, and there are procedures to decide what that is.

Instead, how it really works is this: there are periods of comment after a notification of proposed rulemaking. The rule itself is frequently proposed by a special interest group and they use their organiations to pack the comments. Their arguments are not based on what is fair, but on what they see as a gain or power for themselves.

The Sierra Club, for example see any attempt to strengthen property rights as an attempt to unwind environmental law. To me, this position clearly says that they are willing to steal to get what they want, consequently, I am not a member.

In fact one environmentally active supervisor in Fauquier told me directly that they had carefully tried to write their zoning laws such that they were just shy of creating a regulatory taking. This is a pretty common view among environmentalists (and developers) alike. If I can skate around the law to gain some advanage, well, thats OK. I’ll take as much as I can that I don’t have to pay for.

Fine, but it is still a taking and it is in violation of the precept than no party should pay an undue burden. it is ethically wrong, even if it is “legal”. And even if someone claims “most citizens” support it. It is still mob rule, it is still stealing, it is still taking advantage of a minority, it is still wrong.

And the fact is that we don’t have any mechanism to find out what “most citizens’ think. That isn’t how the process works, and it isn’t how it is intended to work. How it really works is to grant power to a few active people who are able to attend semi-public, ill-announed Wednesday morning work sessions. The government, in fact, makes no real attempt to draw the public into its activities. That’s why you often need a FOIA to find out what is going on.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“All I’m trying to elicit from you is an acknowledgment that whatever “rights” you have – are not determined by you alone and that they are even subject to change if new facts come to light that show harm resulting from an activity previously thought to not be harmful.”

I won’t submit to that. I have one right, and that is to not bear an undue burden. No one or no group has the right to take that away, and it is fundamentally connected to all property rights and the right to life itself. That right is not subject to change, period.

What youare talking about is changes in regulation. When we instituted prohibition we did not go back and fine everyone who previouslly produced hooch, nor do we do that in any area of law – except environmental law.

There for some reason we seemm to have no compunction in eneacting rules that take effect retroactively. In Fauquier county this has been done with zoning regulatons several times: you current zoning rights depend on conditons that existed and activities that occurred before the zoning law was passed.

Clearly, you cannot create a new criminal law and then throw someone in jail for something that happened befor the law was passed. And yet you think that is OK with respect to environmental law.

My position is that you can change the law, but no one should bear an undue burden because of it. So if 99 citizens decide to create an environmental law that will shut down one citizen, and it is going to cost him 100 dollars, then every citizen owes him a dollar, and everyone, including him, has an equal burden, and everyone including him can enjoy the new benefit equally.

For the life of me, I can’t see how you would even think any other course of action is ethically supportable. Not only that, but it makes people think about the costs of public policy eqully with the costs of what we see as the “bad guys who pollute”. Those guys are in fact, us, because we use the products they produce: we encouraged them to be polluters, qnd now we want to punish them retroactively.

OK, so be it. But now he goes out and buys a pollution permit or pollution control equipment, and he adds the cost of that to what we buy from now forward. So we pay for his product and we pay for clean air or water along with what we pay for his product.

But we also wnat him to clean up for years of previous pollution which we should have paid to prevent, just as we do now. We don’t pay him to clean up “his” mess which is really “our” mess. We claim ownership of “our” environment but we don’t take responsibility for it. We don’t offer to contribute for our part in creating the mess, and as a result he has to take on an undue burden.

This all boils down to confusion over our property rights because they are not properly and fully defined or protected. it is exactly as if we were reaching back in time and stealing his previous profits, because now we want something we didn;t pay for then and are unwilling topay for now.

So no, I reject your statement above in its entirety. If you want to change the rules, you can do that, but you must do it in a way that causes no one undue burden. And that right is not subject to change because your rights end where the next guy’s begin. This is entirely self consisten and fair.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“This is the entire basis for the government to:

1. – decide what is and what is not pollution.

2. – to decide if it is a pollution – how much is allowed

3. – the “right” to not allow it … and that “right” is the governments – not the property owner.”

This is all true, but none of that gives the government the right to make one person pay more for clean air or water than another. If we thik it is “our” air and “our” water then we all have equal responsibility to pay for its upkeep. Either that or we can divide it up into pieces and grant ownership, in which case each owner would be responsible for his share, which he could buy or sell at will.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

We have to recognize that there is no such thing as a perfectly clean environment, not at any price. So we have to decide how much dirt we are willing tolive with and how much we think we should spend to prevent dirt.

Those two quantities may not converge. We might not be able to get air and water as clean as we would like for what we are willing to pay.

No undue burden means no one gets cleaner air or water than the next guy. It also means that no one should have to pay more than the next, yet we do that all the time. We buy bottled water, believeing it is cleaner. We live in better neighborhoods (upwind of the paper mill).

And the fact that desired cleanliness and desired price may not converge sets the stage for conflict. The entire reason that the no undue burden clause was added was to set the stage for mitigatng these conflicts. And social activists have been quick to use for their purposes: poor, black or voter minorities should not have an undue burden placed on them by puttin all the pollution ora llthe pollution treatment in their neighborhood.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“You might believe that you cannot live if you are not allowed to dump your sewage in a creek on your property.”

Ultimately everyones sewage goes in a creek. I have the same right as everyone else, no more and no less. They are not entitled to dump theirs in the creek and prevent me, because that causes an undue burden.

—————————

“whether or not maintenance is done is a separate issue from who pays for new infrastructure.

By your logic – new homeowners should not have to pay for infrastructure because exiting homeowners have neglected maintenance.”

Never said any such thing, What I do calim is that what we charge for new infrastructure is used to make up for waht we haven’t paid in maintenance. I AGREE THAT MAINTENANCE IS A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT MY CONTENTIONAND THE EVIDENCE IS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED. We are attempting to adress it by sticking it to new citizens. This ahs been documented.

My position is that 1) new residents SHOULD pay for new infrastructure, but not for the parts of new infrastrutured that are enjoyed by or otherwise benefit existing residents. Existing students may wind up attending a new school, and even if they don’t the existence of a new school improves the value of existing homes. 2) new residents should NOT be expected to pay new capital costs required by previous lack of maintenance. 3) the accounting for all of this is not very transparent. 4) APF is often used as a device to keep people out indefinitely, as was the case in Marshall for the last 40 years.5) If it is really about costs,then we should set a price and accept anyone willing to pay it. (If no one is willing to pay it, the price is probably too high.) 6) I don’t believe for an instant that it is about costs: it is about exclusivity and exclusion. My supervisor told me as much.

In short, my position is the same as it always is: I don’t think we are being honest about how costs are allocated or what our motivations are. What we really want is 1) to prevent newcomers and 20 if they come, sock it to them. This is perfectly understandable, and it is wrong. In other words, if an APF “succeeds” the price is probably too high. Lower the price until you get 1% growth or whatever you think you can live with, but don;t sett he barrier so high no one can afford it for 40 years.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“What you can do beyond your property line is determined by everyone who owns property – via hearings, administrative decisions, laws and regulation – created and implemented after hearing from all property owners who might be affected.”

Yes, and it is done wrongly. Multiple property owners who might be affected do not have to prove the undue burden they claim, and they are free by virtue of numbers to impose an undue burden on a singel applicant.

The system is not set up to ensure equality economy and environment, it is set up to ensure power. all they have to do is claim they “Might be affected” and that is enough to keep a neighbor from putting a roof over his head – same as they already have. If they can have a roof then he can have a roof, and if that creates some additional burden in order to keep some level of amenity then everyone has to share the burden of keepeing that amentity based onthe claim that the amenity is “ours”.

The burden of sharing that amenity must be shared equally in order that the enjoyment of the amenity may be sahred equally.

But if all the people that show up at the meeting have a roof, and one person is turned away without one, then By itself, that would be evidence of undue burden. What youare suggesting, again, is that mob rule justifies inequalites, and it doesn’t.

We go round and round on the rights problem, and when you can’t get traction there you claim tht the system we have is mob rule, and that’s the law.

We have mob rule, sure enough, but that isn’t the law, it is just the procedure we use to maintain power over others. The law is that no one should bear an undue burden.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

If you ask me how we endure no one has an undue burden, I haven’t a clue. But first we have to agree that is the basis for everything else we do. And let’s not mistake undue burden on our part for excess opportunity on someone else’s part. (Windfall profits, blah blah blah.)

One way to do it is to make sure that EVERYTHING is owned and it comes with a title that defines rights and responsibilities. then people can buy and sell according to the burdens and benefits that exist at that time. Then no one can complain about a burden, because they knew what ti was when they bought, and they can always sell.

But of course in order to do that, you need strong enforceable, divisible property rights.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

“Obama’s stimulus package contains provisions to the tune of $100 billion in direct appropriations and tax breaks for green energy and energy efficiency. Even that number is dwarfed by the needs.

McKinsey estimates that the United States alone will require one trillion dollars in added investment by 2020 to guide it onto a low-carbon pathway and meet climate policy goals.”

Like I said, the desires and the price may not converge.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 5, 2009

Now, here is a comment from another blog onthe problems caused by biofuels production:
1. Global environmental destruction
2. Higher greenhouse gas emissions
3. Mass starvation
4. The loss of hundreds of millions of dollars
5. The prospect of a new trade war.

“Government started it, now has to see it through. Some years ago, they lured (maybe a strong expression, but nevertheless…) investors to the area by offering big subsidies. Now, it’s probably complicated to tell those investors “Sorry mate, bad idea!”.”

Read that again.

Now we think, and we claim, that allowing pollution without cost is a subsidy to manyfcturors and auto drivers, among others.

So how is that any different form the situation described above? We lure (stong word perhaps) manyfacturors to start up and invest their property, and when we don’t like the results we shut thme down with no regard for the investments (property rights) they used on our behalf and our behest? Suddenly they are the “bad guys”?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

Ray – we don’t pay for clean air – we are “entitled” to it.

That’s the law.

And anyone who degrades it has to get a permit or else they cannot pollute.

That’s also the law.

re: “Fine, but it is still a taking and it is in violation of the precept than no party should pay an undue burden. it is ethically wrong, even if it is “legal”. And even if someone claims “most citizens” support it. It is still mob rule, it is still stealing, it is still taking advantage of a minority, it is still wrong.”

You have a slight problem but it is your usual one that you refuse to deal with.

Who determines what is an undue burden?

Do you get to?

Do I?

How about all property owners get to agree on what it is or not – through government and law and exercising their right to vote?

You call this process “mob rule” because you don’t agree with the outcome.

How else would you have this done?

How else would you have leaders elected to represent the interests of ALL property owners?

and you’re totally confused about minority “rights”.

What the law says is that you cannot be treated DIFFERENTLY than other property owners – not that you have to agree with the rules.

So.. if a restrictive law is applied EQUALLY to ALL property owners then there are no “minorities” in terms of rights – everyone has the same rights.

All you get with a Democracy is the right to one vote and if you are outvoted – you are outvoted.

got a better system?

your “rights” end where my rights start – and that point is determined – not by you or me – but by a majority of property owners.

so no… virtually all property owners have decided that they are entitled to unpolluted air and don’t have to pay to not have it polluted.

It is not “stealing” for property owners to get together to agree on a set of rules that they all have to abide by.

It’s the way our system works.

You do not have indelible, inalienable “rights” granted to you forever by some long-dead King.

What you have is what the law and the Constitution of the country you live in – grant you and both of them can and are changed…. per representative government – which is – all property owners reaching a majority agreement – on what will apply – equally to all property owners.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 6, 2009

“Ray – we don’t pay for clean air – we are “entitled” to it.”

If you believe that, you are dreaming. Not to mention wrong.

A clean environment costs money. If you think you are “entitled” to it then you are making a property claim for which you have no title.

Every day you live, you do something to dirty the air. If the person next to you is “entitled” to clean air, then you are not entitled to live. “The Polluters” are only polluting as a proxy for your activities, and you are responsible for either the dirty air they create or the costs of having them clean it up for you.

Otherwise, it won’t get done. When you have to start paying the carbon tax on your home heating oil, you will see what I mean.

When we require that a business install clean air equipment or take other actions to clean the air, they send us the bill along with the cost of their product.

If we think we can require them to do that for free, because we are “entitled” then we are basically stealing from them. We are claiming that our use of the air has a superior property right than theirs and that we are entitled to impoose and undue cost on them, compared to us.

This violates your basic premise and the law.

A clean environment costs a lot of money. It needs a good economy and a fair distribution of costs, so that each of us pays a fair amount – and no more than that – for the quality of environment we insist on.

——————————–

“What the law says is that you cannot be treated DIFFERENTLY “

Wrong. What the law says, and I quoted it is that no one should bear an undue burden. This is exactly what you claim: no one has the right to cause undue costs to others. Since there is no such thing as no pollution, in practice this means that we agree to trade: I won’t damage you anymore than you damage me. That damage can either occur as the costs of pollution or the costs to clean it up.

And that matter of trading is what Cap and trade is all about. The cap sets the total amount of polllution we think we can live with, and the trade makes sure no one has an undue burden.

——————————-

“So.. if a restrictive law is applied EQUALLY to ALL property owners then there are no “minorities” in terms of rights “

How can a NEW law be applied equally? After the previous actors have already benefitied? You and eerybody else has a house on their lot, and then you decide “No more houses, it affects our quality of life”. This is fundamentally an environmental issue, no?

The only way this can be applied equally is if you compensate those who are negatively affected when the NEW law is passed.

Now, if it is something like the carbon tax that everyone will pay proportinate to their use, then you are correct. Usually, however there ARE winners and losers in any policy action. So your claim that if a laww is applied EQUALLY really means that when it is not equal, compensation must be due.

You are arguing against yourself here, in saying that the costs, restrictions or benefits must apply equally, which is what I have been arguing fom the beginning.

——————————–

“your “rights” end where my rights start – and that point is determined – not by you or me – but by a majority of property owners.”

Absolutely wrong, because what is to prevent a majority of property owners from claiming a superior right and imposing unequal costs on the minority, or taking unequal benefits from themselves?

If we begin by claiming that the environment belongs to us all then the majority can claim no special rights on this issue.

When the EPA opens a proposed rulemaking for comments the number of comments on one side vs the other SHOULD play no part in making the decision. That is not a majority rule function subject to a vote. It is an administrtive functon in which the government is required to look out for the minority.

That said, there is a big difference in EPA actions under different administrations. In fact, the Warren Copunty debacle under Reagan led to criminal charges against EPA personnel and eventually to the environmental justice clause I have cited.

We get to elect the poeple who run the EPA, indirectly, but we don’t have any direct majority rule in telling them (EPA) what to do. that is the right way to do it and that is the way is SHOULD work at the local level. To the extent it doesn;t work that way, it is a license for the majority to steal.

——————————

“It is not “stealing” for property owners to get together to agree on a set of rules that they all have to abide by.”

Not necessarily, but it can be and often is. And the reason is that so many people are as misinformed as you are about the facts of environmental costs and environmental justice.

They believe as you do that they are free to vote in anything they like, including zero pollution and zero growth, which are both impossible. Especially if you believe my rights are the same as yours.

——————————–

You do not have indelible, inalienable “rights” granted to you forever by some long-dead King.

I have the right to live, and the right to defend that right to the death. That is why we have governments: to protect people and property. You cannot deny me that right, and besides that, it is in the Declaration of Independence.

So you see I do have at least one inalienable right, and based on that one I also have the right not to have any other person impose undue costs on me – and I them.

Otherwise, the right to life itself is compromised.

——————————

If I’m out in the field and let one rip, no one cares. But if we are in an elevator, you are likely to be highly offended. The event is no different but the perceived costs are.

Even so, there is nothing you can do about it, and you have the same freedom to let one rip, so there is no undue cost.

When there were a million people on the planet, no one cared what the others did, much, but with three billion, the perceived costs are different and now we are engaged in trying to stake out territory: define property rights.

You are claiming at once that no one has the right to cause damage to another, unless they hold a majority.

That’s how wars start and people die, so we come right back to theone inalenable right: the right to live. That means you have to enjoy the fruits of your labor (your property) and it must be protected equally as anybody else’s.

No more, no less.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 6, 2009

“all property owners reaching a majority agreement – on what will apply – equally to all property owners.”

Thats fine, as long as it applies equally, but frequently (mostly) it doesn’t.

When it doesn’t, then either the majority is in the wrong, or else you rclaim that no one has the right to be damaged by others, goes out the window. Unless those who are damaged are compensated.

In fact, this is the basis for the frequent support here of user fees, user pays, HOT lanes, full locational costs, etc. etc.

Each of these boils down to a call for more granularity in property rights; more numerous rights, and ones which are more closely defined. And these in turn are defined by the options or trades they allow: you can pay the HOT lane fee or sit in traffic.

(Your fellow citizens help pay for the regular lanes but not the HOT lanes, suposedly. They are apparently willing to pay to let you sit and stew, but not to actaully help you get to work.)

But you cannot make a claim for new property rights where none apparently existed before, just because the rights and expectations were not written down.

That is how the range wars started.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 6, 2009

I understand where you are coming from. I didn’t get it for a long time either.

It is a head spinner until youget it right, and then suddenly you can see that it is the only way you can be internally self consistent, and fair.

You views boil down to a claim of superior and prior rights, or mob rule, either one of which is a power grab that conflicts with the idea of equal rights in the environment.

The reason many environmentalists hate the idea of proerty rights is that they know it means they wil have to pay their own full costs for the things they desire.

What they don’t realize is that property rights also protect their property (environment), once paid for.

Many environmentalists think they can get something for nothing, and if that wasn’t a problem we would not have property rights activists. I suspect that we will see a lot more than banks nationalized in the name of the public good, under the present administration.

If the democrats want to create a lot of new republicans, there is no better way than to take people’s property.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 6, 2009

When Obama cut funding for Yucca mountain he opened a whole new chapeter in environmental justice: who gets stuck with what.

Here is one example of what I have been saying. The east has lots of votes and lots of power plants but they do not have the right to make the west endure undue burdens. But, if all the people in New mexico get a big endough check every month, they might be willing to cahnge their minds.

“Most commercial nuclear power plants are East of the Mississippi. Actually Virginia has very stable geological sites but the “voters” East (lots of them) although they benefit from the power plants there want to ship the waste to the West. Great if you can get away with it – why should the West accept the East coast filth when dry casks are perfectly acceptable on site. McCain is a shill for the nuclear industry. An MIT Tech Review study advocates dry cask sites and there are two dumps already available (Oak Ridge and Savannah River). We will never out West take the East Coast wastes.”

Quote from Environmental Capital blog.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: “Every day you live, you do something to dirty the air.”

same old problem Ray.

the definition of “dirty” is determined by WHO?

not you – but the Government.

and the Government decides what is allowed and in what concentrations and what is not.

You do not get to decide what is “dirty” .

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: “When we require that a business install clean air equipment or take other actions to clean the air, they send us the bill along with the cost of their product.”

we get the bill because the Government which represents us agrees RESTRICT how much pollution can be released.

Each plant has a permit that tells it how much it can pollute and in what concentrations and if they violate the permit – they can be closed down.

If the Government decides that certain levels of pollution are acceptable – then they essentially are deciding how much we pollute and how much we pay – and if the pollution is considered too severe – we can – and have – completely outlawed it..

In other words – the Government decides what is “dirty” …what is “too dirty” and what is not – not you… and not other individual property owners.

That decision is made by ALL property owners via the government.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: “You views boil down to a claim of superior and prior rights, or mob rule”

nope.

you and I have the SAME rights and the SAME restrictions.

There is NO superior right.

What you object to is someone else deciding what those rights are if you do not agree…

and then you call it “mob rule” which is the way that Democracy works…

I ask you how else would you do it instead of Democracy/mob rule and you are mute on the issue.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: “What they don’t realize is that property rights also protect their property (environment), once paid for.”

Ray – they DO REALIZE it. They are, for the most part, as a group – no smarter nor dumber than you are.

They do know and they do understand – and what you need to know is that they simply do not agree with your view.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: “The reason many environmentalists hate the idea of proerty rights is that they know it means they wil have to pay their own full costs for the things they desire.”

Wrong again.

Basically they believe that the environment belongs to ALL of us and that pollution of it – is decided by ALL of us – not individuals claiming property rights.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: “Many environmentalists think they can get something for nothing, and if that wasn’t a problem we would not have property rights activists.”

wrong again.

They see the environment as owned by everyone and that no one can pollute it without permission of everyone.

No individual is entitled to pollute – without permission no matter how strongly they feel they have a right to do so.

this is the law Ray.

This is EXACTLY how the law currently operates.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

re: nuke waste

Ray – why don’t they just dump it in the ocean and take it up to the North Pole and drill a hole in the earth and inject it 20,000 miles into the earth?

Why not pay 3rd world countries like Mexico or Hati to take it?

Why not reprocess it for using over again like France does?

There are lots and lots of questions about what to do with nuke waste and virtually none of it has anything at all to do with individual property rights.

I can assure you of this. If you own property on which a nuke plant sits – you cannot decide for yourself how you will handle the waste.

You will be told – what you can and cannot do with it – just like all other forms of materials that are determined by the Government to be a pollutant.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 6, 2009

The examples that you give for pollution issues are valid in terms of the give and take of the tradeoffs to society between providing something that is needed verses how much pollution will be generated.

Were you go off of the ranch is that you seem to think that these decisions belong to the property owners that are doing the pollution and they don’t.

All of these issues are decided by the Government – which is the representative of ALL property owners – not just the ones who are polluting much less the ones that make the claim that THEIR pollution is necessary to society.

Society (Government) decides what is necessary, what is allowed and what is not – based on Society’s criteria – not individual property owners needs.

This is why – the property owner is not allowed to decide …what is or is not a pollutant nor how much of it can be discharged.

ALL of it – every bit of it is not decided by him but by other property owners – “society”, “Government”.

that’s where you go off the deep end .. making really foolish claims that individual property owners have the right – to pollute – because – society needs the things that come with the pollution.

We do make these tradeoffs – “We” make the trade-offs, not the individual property owners.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 7, 2009

“”We” make the trade-offs, not the individual property owners.”

You mean like this?

“Selling carbon permits will raise electricity prices 40% in some markets where Duke energy operates. Duke Energy Customers —in the southeast and midwest—will be underwriting tax breaks for electricity consumers in places like California, which doesn’t rely on coal for power.”

I assure you, when they see 40% rate increases people will be screaming about environmental justice.

If “WE” make tradoffs that make some people bear an undue burden, then “WE” are stealing.

—————————–

“making really foolish claims that individual property owners have the right – to pollute – because – society needs the things that come with the pollution.”

This is not foolish. First an individual property owner might be Proctor and Gamble or GE.

Society needs the things they produce, not the least of which is jobs.

There is no such thing as production without pollution. Period, it cannot happen, it is physically impossible.

SOMEBODY is going to have to decide how much we produce and how much pollutioon we can live with.

We will necessarily permit those producers to pollute. We can either do it tacitly as we so with all the little pollution we have ignored for centuries, or explicitly as we do with EPA regulation.

But we will have no choice but to permit the pollution if we want the product. We can get less pollution if we pay enough, but we can never get zero pollution.

So now explain to me what the difference is between a right and permission that MUST BE GIVEN.

———————————–

“the property owner is not allowed to decide …what is or is not a pollutant “

I never ever suggested any such thing. Only that whoever decides is required by law to ensure that no one bears an undue cost or advantage. That is the basis for your argument and it is the law.

You just want it applied unequally.

I felt the same way when I was a young, greenhorn, idealistic environmental scientist. It took a few years of being steeped in the cesspool of what passes for environmental law for me to appreciate how far wrong it can go.

The old saw is that a liberal is a conservative whose son just got drafted, and a conservative is a liberal whose son came home in a box. By analogy, it works the same way when it comes to paying the environmental bill.

————————-

“All of these issues are decided by the Government – which is the representative of ALL property owners – not just the ones who are polluting “

Let me get this through your head once and for all EVERYONE is polluting. It cannot be any other way.

I agree these issues are decided by the government.

The government has a responsibility to protect minorities. And it is written into law that the government must obey that no person or entitiy shall bear an undue burden or take an unfair advantage.

The History of government administrations and their management of the EPA clearly shows that they have not been evenhanded, depending on which administration is in power.

It is even worse at the local level.

And this history has developed precisely because we have creeps out there who wish to claim, manufacture, or enforce an unfair advantage over someone else. They are actively trying to break the law in this regard, and “WE” should not tolerate it, whether we think it is to our advantage or not.

Because the lowest cost, most production solution is necessarily the one in which NO ONE gets an undue advantage or pays an unfair cost.

Any other solution than that one results in MORE pollution and MORE waste, not less. This is a guaranteed result.

And, by the way,the Repulicans and Democrats are battling it out over economic issues right now. But at the bottom of every economic issue it boils down to energy and resource issues. Whoever winds up withthe most money will wind up using (and probably wasting) the most resources. That is why EMR berates both the elephant clan and the donkey clan.

———————————-

The property owner is not allowed to decide and for the most part he can’t even get to court to make his argument and let others decide.

———————————

“why don’t they just dump it in the ocean and take it up to the North Pole and drill a hole in the earth and inject it 20,000 miles into the earth?”

I dunno, I just do explosives. Maintaining something for 20,000 years is above my pay grade.

“Why not reprocess it for using over again like France does?”

No reprocessing is perfect. In the process you wind up with MORE waste and MORE contaminated material. I beleive France soes dump in the ocean and Italy has basically put off limits a part of their country, which is contaminated. We have Hanford and other swell sites.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NO POLLUTION. The cleaner you get your paintbrush the more solvent you get dirty. Theoretically you could go backwards, if you had an infinite amount of energy, but if you had that you wouldn’t need a nuke plant to begin with.

“You will be told – what you can and cannot do with it “

Maybe, maybe not. We are 30 years and $9 billion into Yucca flats and we still can’t reach a decision.

What is true is that if youa re told you cannot do anything with it, then there won’t be any prodduction.

And thirty years is a problem too. The Supreme court has already ruled that extreme indecision can result in an undue burden. If someone wants to ‘Postpone” my desired activity for thirty years while they make up their mind, they maight as well be honest and just steal from me or kill me now.

No individual is entitled to pollute – without permission no matter how strongly they feel they have a right to do so.

You are entitled to live, no one can live without polluting.

“the environment as owned by everyone and that no one can pollute it without permission of everyone.”

I do not need the permission of everyone to live, and therefore to pollute, because no one has veto power over my life. No one can demand that others submit to more control than they are willing to submit to, otherwise they have an undue advantage.

Owned by everyone means that everyone gets to use it eqaully. It doesn’t mean that any group or individual has more control than the next, because that would mean they have a higher order of ownership. Neither does it mean that one gets to pollute more than the next, because that would give him an undue advantage or a higher order of ownership. But at some level, pollute he will, as we all do.

You cannot claim it is “ours” and at the same time claim that some have more control than others, even by virtue of numbers. If you do that you and your mob have just taken away what you just said was mine.

It is stealing.

If I am not allowed to use it, how is any part of it mine? If we are not allowed to use it eqally, how is that “ours”?

“This is EXACTLY how the law currently operates.”

If you want to live in fantsy land, knock youself out. I guarantee you that Obama’s initiatives will come down to price, not prohibition.

“Basically they believe that the environment belongs to ALL of us and that pollution of it – is decided by ALL of us – not individuals claiming property rights.”

don’t see the circularity in that? If WE own it then WE must have property rights to go with it. When we decide what pollution is allowed, we are defining property rights as to how it may be used. WE are setting an allowable amount of pollution, and therfore the price, because pollution has a value in that it allows you to produce something and therfore to live.

Bu
t in doing that we do not claim that any of the “WE” get a higher allowance to use polltion, nor can we create a situation where some absorb more of the damage it causes. The environment is ours eually, the pollution is ours equally, the damage from the pollution is ours equally, and the right to produce and live that it confers is also ours equally. ALL of those things are part of the environment that you claim is ours.

So, once we have set all those values equally then I must have proprtional rights to everyone else, including the right to pollute, the right to live, and the right to breath moderately dirty air. No more nad no less than the next guy.

You start off by claiming group property rights and then turn around and claim there are no individual rights – even as part of the group.

I think we have a name for that.

Democracy and socialism are both about who gets to control the resources: who has ownership. In our democracy there is a law that says no one can control environmental resources more than the next guy. No one, and no group. No entity can gain undue advantage or bear undue hardship.

You want to claim we all own it, but then you want to manage the committee that sets the disposition, which is that some people have no rights. You are welcome to do that as long as you find a disposition that causes everyone equal gain, equal access, and equal cost.

If some people have no rights, and all of us have equal rights, then no one has rights and we can stop breathing and farting now.

It is your idea, you go first.

Yo think I am kidding about flatulence, but there is already serious consideration of how much methane ( a stong GHG) is produced by animals, and an antipollution tax on flatulence may very wll be in the offing. A trial balloon went up last year, to many guffaws.

That tax is going to increase your perice of pork chops, the carbon tax will increase you heating bill.

You may not be starving and freezing in the dark, but some (more) people will. That will be evidence of undue cost or hardship, I should think.

Hydra

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 7, 2009

“Let me get this through your head once and for all EVERYONE is polluting. It cannot be any other way.”

Nobody pollutes based on their own idea of what is or is not pollution nor an excuse that they “have no choice” because they “need to survive”.

It’s total B.S.

And that is what you’ve been claiming as “property rights”.

Society and the Government decide collectively through a public process – that is not perfect but way better than having every individual property owner decide.

Further – the process is ongoing – and decisions change – as more information becomes available and things that used to be considered acceptable are – no longer or they become more restricted.

And no property owner is “compensated” when changes are made – again – a decision made by concurrence of most property owners.

There are a world of different issue and circumstances that are always under discussion – like further restricting power plant emissions… or nuke waste storage or even flatulence but the point made – is that ..yes we have lots of different opinions – but in the end – no individual property owners.. and not even a group of like-minded property owners make the decision.

The decision is made ..in essence.. by ALL property owners through representative government and law.

It’s totally true that further restrictions may increase the price – but if that is the decision after the tradeoffs are publically debated and decided – then that’s the way the laws will work.

We have hundreds, thousands of restrictions on substances and activities that used to be deemed acceptable and were outlawed/restricted and..yes it led to higher costs but those costs were considered less than the costs of the harm caused by not regulating.

We will not freeze in the dark – for the same reason – because all property owners will not agree to restrictions that would cause that to happen.

Having an individual decide that pollution is “farting and breathing” in his opinion .. and therefore.. it’s a fact.. not to be ignored is dumb RH.

you don’t get to decide what is pollution and what is not.

and that’s the entire point here.. you’ve got your opinion but it does not make it factual…

and in your case.. you cannot seem to differentiate between what you want to believe and the fact that others – a majority of others would not agree with you.

That is why our Government has NOT classified farting and breathing as pollution.

re: “You want to claim we all own it, but then you want to manage the committee that sets the disposition, which is that some people have no rights.”

I don’t want to manage any committee.

I point out that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the process.

That’s why we have hearings and that’s why you can sue in court if you disagree or lobby your representative to oppose a law, etc.

What you do not have the right to do – is decide for yourself what is or is not nor pollute with the excuse that, in your opinion, you have no choice.

That – you cannot do.

You can believe that GHG are not a threat.

But if a majority of other property owners think it is – just as they did with other pollutants previously allowed and not outlawed – the same outcome could come about.

re: “You start off by claiming group property rights and then turn around and claim there are no individual rights – even as part of the group.”

I’ve stated over and over – that the individual rights of all members of the group – are decided by the group – through government.

They are the ones who decide, for instance, whether or not you “have no choice” but to pollute – not you and not a smaller group of you that are like minded and call yourselves “property rights” advocates.

“Property rights” are determined by everyone who owns property – not just smaller groups who essentially believe that they have rights that cannot be changed.

They can be changed – as we know.

and we also know that when rights are changed – that it’s done as a public process where all property owners have the opportunity to participate – and at the end of the day – concurrence of a majority of the property owners – despite the objections perhaps of smaller groups.

Call it “mob rule” or call it “Democracy”…

give me a better approach if you don’t like it.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

“Nobody pollutes based on their own idea of what is or is not pollution “

But everyone pollutes, or pollutes by proxy, there is no other way. You pollute. Are you telling me that your pollution is better than mine, ot that you think your pollution is not pollution?

You have to pollute or you cannot live. That is NOT BS.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

“And that is what you’ve been claiming as “property rights”.

I have the right to do SOMETHING to make a living. Anything I do willcreate pollution. Second law of thermodynamics, First law of economics.

Whatever I produce to make a living is my property, and I CANNOT do that without creating some kind of pollution.

That is my right.

It is not my right to impose the damage of that pollution on others, nor is it their right to impoose their (necessary) damage on me.

The ONLY way around this is if we agree to ignore each others damage equally, or we agreed to pay eachother for damages equally: which amounts to the same thing.

Live and let live.

Yes, I claim that is a property right.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

Further – the process is ongoing – and decisions change – as more information becomes available and things that used to be considered acceptable are – no longer or they become more restricted.

Strong groups are able to claim property rights were none existed before. That does not give them either the right or the legal authority to steal from minorities. WE can make new rules and become more restrictive without stealing. We just cannot do it without recognizing ALL of the costs involved. Including the costs to minorities. We have to consder the entire system.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

“Property rights” are determined by everyone who owns property – not just smaller groups who essentially believe that they have rights that cannot be changed.

They can be changed – as we know.”

Yes, they can be changed. I never have suggested otherwise. They do not have to be changed ina way that involves stealing.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

“when rights are changed – that it’s done as a public process where all property owners have the opportunity to participate – and at the end of the day – concurrence of a majority of the property owners – despite the objections perhaps of smaller groups.”

You have gone back to square one: it is all right for me, or me nad a bunch of my frinds to simply declare a superior property right, based on numbers of voters alone.

We know that this is not true. We know that the law has an obligation to look out for the interests of minorities, so that mob rule does not boil down to stealing.

The important part of this is to recognize that if you justify stealing by the majority, someday you may find yourself in the minority.

Brown people in America will soon outnumber white people. By your argument they would then be able to disenfranchise whites, and expropriate their property.

Now, I do not know whether you are brown or white, but it makes no difference to my argument. Either you agree that brown people should eventually be able to take our rights,or you are a brown person who hopes to be able to take my rights.

We are all safe only when ALL of our property rights are defended equally. Brown or white. Polluter or pollution user consumer). Farmer or urban dweller. Pink or Green.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

Call it “mob rule” or call it “Democracy”…

Mob rule and Democracy are two differnt things.

Democracy recognizes that there is no “Superior property right” based on numbers alone.

Democracy recognizes that government ha an OBLIGATION to protect minorities, no matter what the majority thinks.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 8, 2009

“Those who supported Lincoln were ardent capitalists. “Free Soilers”, who believed in the dignity of labor and a man’s right to the fruits of that labor. “

The “right” to the fruits of that labor.

There can be no fruits of that labor without some form of pollution, therfore ther must be some right to pollute.

You have something against Abe Lincoln?

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. “

Abraham Lincoln.

“That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. “

– Abraham Lincoln

There is no obstruction between the ability to become rich and the ability to do so fairly. Mob rule is not required.

RH

Log in to Reply

Bacon's Rebellion

MORE VOCABULARY

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

102 responses to “MORE VOCABULARY”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

MORE VOCABULARY

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

102 responses to “MORE VOCABULARY”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read More