Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

READING TODAY’S WaPo

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

TODAY’S WAPO, REINFORCED BY A FEW ITEMS FROM THE LAST FEW DAYS PAINTS AN INTERESTING PICTURE OF THE WORLD:

On the Census report dealing with Stay at Home Moms:

Who knew that McDonnell is targeting primarily a lower income, less-well-educated, primarily Hispanic demographic? Not a traditional winner in the Commonwealth.

And speaking of McDonnell Tom Toles did a nice job on the McDonnell AntiPlan. Papering over the chasm.

Finally, a good ad from Allstate.

“Two out of three teens admit to texting while driving. Some of them will never be hear from again.” Now how about an ad from Allstate about the need to transition to more safer and more energy efficient modes of travel to support functional settlement patterns? Perhaps they could insure METRO riders.

And on the topic of ads, who knew that it was worth a multi-day buy of a 4 page color insert in section A to tout Siemens? Does anyone believe those Chevron and BP ads?

Under the category of “There is not a single dysfunctional activity that does not have a lobby group supporting it.” Try this headline:

“Air Safety Initiatives Run Into Opposition.” Yes, sir, keep flying those commuter planes into the ground because if more flying time is required to adequately train pilots, we will not make as much money.

Fairly distribute the full cost of alternative modes and let citizens choose the most efficient and safe mode.

Have you noticed that the news of the economic ‘recovery’ is illustrated with graphics that show “quarterly percentage change from previous year.” A shorter red bar looks less freighting than the full picture.

Today’s Metro section announces a “New Local Home Page” with the URL of washingtonpost.com/local. A perfect example of why “local” is one of the eight Core Confusing Words.

Go there and you see a rehash of the Metro page with links to “D.C., VA and MD” ‘news.’ Just ten days ago Ian Shapira pointed out (in WaPo) that MainStream Media outlets that tried to put out news based on municipal jurisdiction boundaries (much less by state borders) were dying like flies at the first hard frost.

A few days ago there was a headline “Suburb Braces for An End to Tranquillity” about a place that was being converted to? A “SUBURB.”

MEMO to MainStream Media: Stop using Core Confusing Words and understand the organic structure of human settlement patterns or keep dying like flies.

The big news for Bacon’s Rebellion is from the Metro section today under the headline “For Relief, Region Told to Go East.” That is shorthand for “move the Jobs and Services East so there is not so much East to West AM (and West to East PM) commuting. This follows a report on 29 September on the distribution of poverty within R=25. Poor East, rich West.

Stewart Schwartz gets a lot of good press. He is right on all counts. However, no one mentions the issue is really Balance within Clear Edges and Critical Mass.

There is discussion of the need for shared-vehicle system station-area development. There must be METRO system wide Balance as well as Alpha Village and Alpha Community scale Balance.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

107 responses to “READING TODAY’S WaPo”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Perhaps they could insure METRO riders."

    Maybe.

    I never had the authorities bring bomb sniffing dogs to check out my car.

    I'm not sure a lot of companies are competing to get the Metro insurance contract right now.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "“For Relief, Region Told to Go East.” That is shorthand for “move the Jobs and Services East so there is not so much East to West AM (and West to East PM) commuting."

    Cool, let's trade that for more West to East AM and more East to West PM traffic. Give Maryland the headache and keep it away from PEC territory.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "“Air Safety Initiatives Run Into Opposition.” Yes, sir, keep flying those commuter planes into the ground because if more flying time is required to adequately train pilots, we will not make as much money. "

    This is a bogus argument. The government does not have to care whether a regional ariline makes money or not, and it should not figure into there rule making.

    But the government does have an obligation not to make requirements that cost more than they are worth.

    We can reduce commuter airline deaths to zero by eliminating commuter airlines, but where does that argument lead us with regard to METRO?

    Lets say we spend $25 million in traing every year and, in spite of that we have 25 deaths per year. so we double the sending and get the deaths down to 12.5 per year.

    Double the spending and cut the deaths in half, pretty good deal, so lets do it again, now we are at $100 million in training and only 6 deaths per year.

    Except we have a little problem, we saved 12.5 lives for 25 million but the next six lives saved cost us 50 million.

    How do you determine whose life is worth $2 million and whose life is worth $6 million?

    You are the government, you have an obligation to protect everyone equally. So what do you do if you have another opportunity, not related to air traffic, and that opportunity will protect 50 people instead of six, for the same money?

    ——————-

    The commuter airlines have the right to go and argue that they will not make as much money, or any money, and the government has not only the right but the obligation to ignore them.

    Up to a point.

    If the government simply lets the commuters close down, then it saves 25 lives per year, at no apparent cost to the government. But lets say taht the external costs of this decision are worth $200 million.

    In that case, shutting down the airlines costs more than some other option we have already rejected.

    EMR's argument suggests that it matters not how much training time it takes: if it saves one life it is all worthwhile. If that is the case, then we should keep pilots in training forever and never fly a passenger.

    RH

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    With regard to the commuter airlines – the germane issue is that they have a worse record than the commercial airlines when, in theory, they use the same type of pilots and very similar planes – and the premise is that if they don't have the same pilot training requirements as the bigger planes – then that could well be the reason for more crashes.

    but you're wrong also about what the impact of more training costs would be.

    more training costs won't result in the commuter plans being shut down.

    it might result in some increase in ticket price – for the industry but the reason why people might take a commuter plane would not go away.

    When the commercial planes had to add TSA security to their costs, it was not an insignificant cost.

    again.. you end up with this:

    how much TSA security is needed and how much should it cost and how many planes can we allow to be brought down by terrorism because the costs of keeping that number to zero are too high?

    how do you compute the loss to the airlines of people who would refuse to fly if even one additional plane goes down?

    you'd have tremendous economic costs associated with people not flying… and tallying up those costs in an attempt to arrive at the "right" number would be an almost impossible task because if would require people to estimate what something "might" be worth as part of the calculations.

  5. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    when I got done reading "Reading Today's WaPo" my first thought was WTF!

    however, one must learn to find the smaller joys in life – at least it was not a 1000 word tome with the same ending assessment.

    just tweaking you EMR…

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The commuter airlines are essentially training grounds for the larger aircraft, and commuter airlines make a lot more takeoff and landings. If you compare the data per trip instead of per mile, they look different.

    I don't think there is any doubt that commuter pilots are underpaid and overworked. They also (until the recent acquisistion of a lot of regional jets) flew aircraft htat are older and not as well equipped than the majors. The last time I flew from Boston to Martha's Vineyard, the airplane was more than twice as old as the pilot.

    I just don;t think that the characterization that all of this occurs so the commuter airlines can make more profit is correct.

    When we were working on the commuter airline project, we recognized that we would not be able to keep pilots: as soon as they had enough hours, they would migrate up the food chain. Accordingly, our business plan incuded extensive expenses for training, including keeping a pilot in the right seat, even though none was required.

    EMR would be happy to see all airplanes grounded because he thinks they are profligrate fuel hogs, and his characterization of the facts was accordingly sloppy.

    If there is any industry with better statistics on costs and risks than the airline industry, I'm not sure what it is. But even in the airline industry you cannot take the approach that all risk will be eliminated at any price. In that statement resides the element of truth in what EMR said, but the difference is whether you are fighting to eliminate ordinary and necessary training, or training that buys you very little.

    And if you really want to have some fun try riding some of the overseas commuters, or as you have done, with some of the bush pilots.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " and tallying up those costs in an attempt to arrive at the "right" number would be an almost impossible task "

    It is a difficult task and yet people do it every day. The point being an attempt to arrive at the right number, recognizing you cannot have infinite training on the one hand nor zero risk on the other.

    Let's put it this way, the hull insurance for damage to a $250,000 airlplane is LOWER than the homeowner policy on a $250,000 house.

    RH

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " It is a difficult task and yet people do it every day. The point being an attempt to arrive at the right number, recognizing you cannot have infinite training on the one hand nor zero risk on the other."

    people do it for themselves an their own unique requirements which can be mutually exclusive to others and that's why a policy that includes and affects everyone would have to take into account the impacts to each person – an almost impossible task – even if it were a static environment which it is not.

    And that's the point I made with the FTA having a criteria for cost-effectiveness for transit.

    it's easy for you to make the calculation for yourself but it's a whole other issue for someone to figure out what is the sweet spot for thousands of people.

    that's why your advocacy of that depth of study is simply not practical.

    it's the essential never-ending argument with regard to roads being subsidized with externalities – of which no one will agree on what they are nor their costs…

    I basically support your approach – as long as it is bound by the practical limitations that cannot be overcome without a whole lot more study than you could ever accomplish on a reasonable basis.

    I'd actually like to see what would be the most cost-effective method to better connect Tysons to Dulles.

    Why not just have a shuttle bus terminal at the last METRO station and use a two-lane dedicated shuttle bus road with high dollar tolls for the excess capacity to be used?

    the answer is that the METRO expansion is about more than just point a to point b transit.

    It's about developing that area in to a city landscape.

    and it's an honest discussion as to what justifies it and who should pay.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Interesting comments but:

    The item on commuter airline safety deals with pilot "universities" which will lose students who need more hours of flight training under the proposed rule changes than they now provide. It drives down profit of the "universites."

    The commuter airlines will lose profit when they must pay for more highly tained pilots but they are not the ones lobbying in this case.

    It is just a shame Dr. Risse did not make his post longer to make this clear.

    On PEC Territory:

    As I recall Dr. Risse has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the existing and future urban fabric would fit within the existing logical location of the Clear Edge. That does not impact PEC, East or West.

    I you expect him to do short posts, you need to do your homework.

    JZM

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    JZM, you caught me. I did not read the original article and did not understand it was about the flight training schools.

    Anyway, the flight simulators are so good now that a lot of training can be done there, especially training in emergency procedures which are too dangerous to actually fly.

    As for what EMR has shown regarding the clear edge, the facts of what is happpening on the ground since I started reading his material is a lot diffferent from what COULD happen.

    To be successful we should plan for what we have and what we are likely to get. Besides that, as I recall it, his motive force for making most development occur inside the clear edge consists of huge giveaways to those who do and huge additionalcosts for those that don't. Make rural land so worthless that farmers can make a profit farming, ignoring the fact that this will take millions out of their net worth.

    I believe that all he has shown without a shadow of a doubt is that he understands nothing of economics, personal welfare, or social equity.

    But, as long as he brought up the airpspace, consider that every 20 minutes an unmanned aircraft makes a fully autmated landing in the US.
    Before long you will be able to go to your local airport, board a tiney jet and it will take off, deliver you to your destination, and land fully autmatically – no pilot involved, and interecting aircraft will automatically detect each other and negotiate safe passing routes.

    In short, all the technology that is needed to support a shared vehicle system. All we have to do is combine that with zipcars, and his dream will be manifest.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " that's why a policy that includes and affects everyone would have to take into account the impacts to each person – an almost impossible task – "

    Actually, it isn't that hard. NSA handles harder stuff than that, eveyday.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Federal Transit Administration has no standards for funding projects. The FTA is as susceptible to improper lobbyist pressure as an other agency — state or federal.

    Recall that, in winter 2008, the FTA found the Dulles Rail project had serious problems that could well preclude funding. The lobbyists took over. The FTA, without addressing any of its prior objections in any substantive manner, magically concluded that the project was fundable.

    I'm not here to argue for, or against, Dulles Rail. The project is being funded and built. It's time to move on, but the project was truly funded despite any FTA standards. Mass transit decisions are no more pure than highway ones.

    Transportation in Virginia is about enriching a few well-placed landowners, developers and their agents — toss in Bechtel in this case too.

    Instead of Sic Semper Tyrannis, we ought to change the state motto to:
    "We are more sophisticated than New Jersey, but underneath, just as corrupt."

    Peter or Ray, you both strike me as having been fair Latin scholars in school. If I've guessed correctly, can either of you translate into Latin? After all, this is Virginia, we do need our motto in Latin!

    TMT

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – yes.

    but what I was pointing out was that FTA has a documented process:

    http://www.fta.dot.gov/publications/reports/reports_to_congress/planning_environment_3275.html

    as with any process for rail or roads or anything else – how close they follow the criteria or not is always an issue.

    Ray was advocating some kind of a process for determining the cost/benefit of rail and I suggested that there are viable paths… i.e. look at their current process – then offer substantiative comments to change it.

    All Federal Agencies are required to post their regs on the Federal Register and to receive public comments on the proposal AND they by law have to respond to substantiative comments.

    Substantiative comments can be explained this way.

    A comment that says " I don't like the way you do your evaluation"

    is not a substantiative comment.

    but a comments that says – your evaluation and rating process has some flaws in how they measure or calculate.. or they fail to take into account these factors….. etc..

    that is a substantiative comment and they must respond to it and defend their approach.

    Now the same is true for NEPA which is used for roads – and which more people are probably familiar with but the same rules apply.

    For instance, VDOT might say something like " a survey for the endangered humpback toad" was conducted and none were found.

    And someone could say.. " such and such a college did a survey 2 years ago and found these critters nearby"…

    they have to respond…

    I'm not saying that they can't and don't do the process – only that they do have one.

    and if someone like Ray doesn't agree with their process – he can assert changes…

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry,

    We would all be better off were government, at all levels, to try to make decisions based on measurable standards. This is not to say there is no subjectivity or that reasonable people cannot disagree.

    But watching transportation decisions being made in Virginia is like watching a septic tank being pumped.

    Another example, Fairfax County has identified major road improvements that would need to be built and funded for Tysons Corner to grow. I've posted them earlier.

    The price tag is expected to be huge, such that some will likely be unaffordable. So now a Task Force member (whom I will not identify) makes the argument that the county staff should not be proposing necessary road improvements because the staff failed to consider the impact of $10 per gallon gasoline. "We won't really require those roads and even if we do, we sure as all ___ aren't paying for them."

    If any Fairfax County high school student would have made such an argument, she/he would have failed the assignment.

    Why $10. If gas were $10 per gallon, what about the impact on other energy prices, including electricity that runs rail? What about the limited capacity of Dulles Rail to carry passengers to and from Tysons? The staff needs to continue its analysis.

    Clearly, we are seeing yet another attempt to have county decisions made in the face of facts in order to enrich a few people.

    Standards, what standards? This is transportation decision-making in Virginia. Fortunately, Tim Kaine's Chapter 527 study requirement is there. I have my strong differences about Kaine and his performance as governor, but he will always receive my laud for Chapter 527. It may well save taxpayers in Fairfax County yet.

    TMT

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – to put the 527 into perspective – would you have voted for Kaine if one of his promises was to create the 527 process?

    what similar kind of thing would appeal to you if offered by McDonnell or Deeds – adequate public facilities?

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My father taught Latin, and I was never allowed to take classes under him, so I took Spanish instead: Nos no tenemos la ropa excelente de New Jersy, pero sube la camisa hay lo mismo mugre.

    RH

  17. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    this one's for TMT:

    valetudo ut theoricus quod developers

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " it's easy for you to make the calculation for yourself but it's a whole other issue for someone to figure out what is the sweet spot for thousands of people."

    Yes, but most of the time I'm not responsible for making decions costing billions. For such a decision it is not unusual to spend two percent of the value to make sure you don't make a bad one. Just because this is difficult is no reason not to expend a reasonable amount of resources and document the effort.

    Next time, we build on what we learned last time. We are not going to hit every persons sweet spot: it will be a statistical answer, but we shoould be able to come up with meaningful answers.

    Like, this project (to repair a fishing pier in North Carolina) is projected to cost $16 million dollars but the maximum net present benefit expected in return is only $9 million plus or minus $3 million, based on historical data from the previous pier. The analysis includes travel, meals, bait and other fishing paraphenalia and the value of the fish caught, and it was conducted by an out of state entity using a discount factor of 3%.

    The answer has an error factor of 60% and yet anyone can see this is a raw deal. On the other hand the opposition now has clean target to shoot at.

    But what if the answer is $15 million plus or minus $5 million? Still not a very good outcome, but gee the pier has sentimental value to everyone who ever caught a big one there.

    Or the answer is $18 million plus or minus $2 Million? Now you are talking, except that at the other end of the state there is a proposal for an Appalachian concert venue that costs the same and returns $40 million.

    It is called decision under ncertainty and there are rational procedures for handling it.

    Instead, we have an essentially political procedure in which anyone can spout slogans and epithets until they come out on top.

    Every time we spend a big chunk of money we should have well defined pass fail criteria based on measurable events. And then we shoudl go back and measure.

    OK so we build rail to Tysons. The temptation is to consider it a fait accompli and never look back. Not only that, but being stuck with it we will subsidize it endlessly. But someone, ought to go back and do a retrospective analysis.

    Hey, we built the pier and it turned out that it was a success after all, and here is what we failed to consider…..

    My favorite example of this is the harbor in Oak Bluffs. It was a closed saltwater pond useful only for sell fishing. The town excavated a channel to the ocean and built docks all around the edge of the pond and filled the rest with mooring buoys.

    After it was built there was downturn in the economy and it wasn't a huge success, initially. Eventually it became a big drawing card and lots of harborfront businesses sprang up, generating tons of money for the town.

    But, a Harvard study done years later showed that the town would have been money ahead if they had only done nothing, or spent the money on something else, and continued to harvest bay scallops there.

    You probably could not have predicted that. It turned out that many communities did the same thing, which reduced the area availble for scallops and raising the price. The Harvard strategy, therefore would have worked for any one of those communities, but not for all of them, and the flip side would be that dock space would be at a premium.

    So the optimum answer would be that some communities build docks and some communites catch shellfish. Everyone is better off with this answer, but only the communities that build docks have big upfront expenses.

    How do you balance the costs between the winners and the losers?

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "that is a substantiative comment and they must respond to it and defend their approach."

    Right. I don't disagree that we have some procedures, but e can and should do a whole lot better than we do.

    What we have now is still essentially a political process. And that is fine, but then we need to go back and measure the results and compare them to the politicians promises. Wemay still be stuck with a mess, but at least we have a casebook to use as a measure next time.

    The
    Greenway failed in its first personification. After restructuring (blowing off much of the debt) it is a success. The nxt time we build a toll road we should not allow the debt to exceed the restructured value of the Greenway, otherwise we can expect another failure.

    RH

  20. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I think you confuse things that people want for amenities that are acknowledged as amenities and never was intended to make a profit or even have a positive CASH cost/benefit.

    but even things like police or schools or libraries or parks & rec or other services – I have yet to see the type of analysis that you advocate.

    I agree with you on the theory and the need to measure – and to compare but the kinds of analyses that you are talking about here are more macro in nature… and you'd be studying things that have external linkages with their own distinct dynamics.

    Let's say you want to build a community building – and the county decides that that building in addition to being a place for the community to meet that they also want to build it more expensive – with a big backup-generator and a large stand-by water supply – etc.. for a disaster shelter.

    using your approach to determine the cost/benefit would require more study than could be reasonably afforded – and worse than that – how do you figure whether than building will be used once or twice or twenty times in the future – and for what other purposes not conceived of at the beginning?

    Or ..paying to put laptops in every police car.

    tell me how you'd do a cost/benefit for that…

    to do what you advocate – you'd have to expand the CBO to a 100 times it's current size, make it a cabinet level position and rename it to be the Department of Studies.

    At some point – you need to build the fire house and stop trying to figure out whether it should cost 500K or 750K…because you'd end up spending another 200K to get all the answers that you'd need to find the "sweet" spot.

    besides – the sole reason for all these studies in the first place is for you to prove that some folks don't get paid and they should… which is not really an agenda for more cost-effective government methinks.

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And then there is the underlying story in Oak Bluffs. The scallop fisherment were poor and owned no property around the pond. They had no proporty rights to the scallops they would never harvest.

    The landowners/developers held a lot more political clout. But the people of the town as a whole, lost money on the deal, at least until many decades later. The plan probably eventually turned around, and if the Harvard study was done today, the conclusion might be different. Nevertheless, the decison made at the time with the planning horison in effect, turned out to have ben wrong.

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "to do what you advocate – you'd have to expand the CBO to a 100 times it's current size, make it a cabinet level position and rename it to be the Department of Studies.

    At some point – you need to build the fire house and stop trying to figure out whether it should cost 500K or 750K…because you'd end up spending another 200K to get all the answers that you'd need to find the "sweet" spot."

    I agree, you cannot do a study that costs more than it might save.
    The studies themselves have to obey the same cost/benefit rules as any other project.

    Total Costs = Cost of the study + external costs (delay of project) + government costs (savings). Considering only one third of the amount of money some claim is wasted, we could do a lot more study.

    And, you bank those studies so you can draw on similies in the future. Right now, "studies" are frequently done by think thanks with an agenda, and the results of the studies are as predictable as the contents of Peter Schwartz's next news conference.

    RH

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " that are acknowledged as amenities and never was intended to make a profit or even have a positive CASH cost/benefit."

    If there isn't a positive net benefit there is no reason for the government to do it. CBO would tell you that right off the bat.

    What possible incentive can the government have to make its own people worse off?

    Someone needs to explain that to those that think we can't afford to do anything about transportation. If we do nothing we will be worse off. If we do something we may still be worse off, but not AS worse. IOf we do too much or the wrong stuff we will be even far worse off.

    Same goes for global warming. What do you do when someday we wake up and discover that we now have conslusive point we are past the tipping point and nothing we do matters? Well, you stop spending on global warming and start on plan B.

    I don't hear anyone talking about plan B yet.

    RH

  24. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " If there isn't a positive net benefit there is no reason for the government to do it. CBO would tell you that right off the bat.

    What possible incentive can the government have to make its own people worse off?"

    some "benefits" cannot be easily quantified in terms of dollars.

    it's more about priorities not about making people worse off.

    Should you spend the money on a bridge rated at 50% sufficiency – right now – or should you spend the money on a new bridge and wait to fix the other one?

    you make the same choices in your own home.

    do you replace your furnace this year or get the tractor and hope the furnace lasts another year.

    how do you quantify the cost/benefit when you have choices and have to prioritize?

    Do you replace the school furnace or buy new textbooks?

    new stop light or new left turn lanes?

    which will give you more "benefit"?

  25. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    this one is for Ray:

    " Seduced by a Model"

    " Economic and financial models have come in for a lot of criticism in the context of the global financial crisis, much of it deserved. Among the primary targets are models that financial institutions widely used to (mis)estimate risk"

    David Colander made this point about economic models: The sociology of the economics profession gave preference to elegant mathematical models that could describe the world using the smallest number of parameters. “Common sense does not advance one very far within the economics profession,”

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/seduced-by-a-model/

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "some "benefits" cannot be easily quantified in terms of dollars."

    Money is th usual way we quantify the value of things, no one says it is easy, but it is the ONLY way we have.

    The courts do it every day.

    They don't do a very good job of it bcause they do not discover the appropriate price through the market. Even worse, prior agreements are often sealed in secrecy, so we don't even have a consistent record of prior activitiy.

    But if your argument is that we should not or cannot do it because it is too hard is falling on deaf ears.

    What this argument boils down to is a claim that some property is worth so much it cannot be valued. It is beyond value.

    It is a claim of superior property rights, as if they were granted by God, or whatever. But this claim violates the principal that everyone's property should get equal protection.

    It is a claim that either some people are superior to others, based onthe kind of property they own, or else it is a claim that a majority is able to claim superior protection for their property through mob rule.

    Sorry, I don't buy it.

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If there isn't a positive net benefit there is no reason for the government to do it. CBO would tell you that right off the bat."

    You can look it up on the CBO website. This is not subject to debate, it is a matter of established government policy.

    RH

  28. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    well then.. why do we still have rail.. and schools and subsidized flood insurance and ethanol?

    Education especially is a huge money sink.. with absolutely no direct cost/benefit calculation.

    how about up-armored Humvees and MRAPS? if the CBO said they were not cost-effective, would we stop making them?

    your "theory" Ray – has a few loose parts to it…

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "how do you quantify the cost/benefit when you have choices and have to prioritize?"

    You do it according to well established procedures, and you do it the same way every time: devoid of political agenda.

    —————————-

    "it's more about priorities not about making people worse off."

    If you pick a bad priority when a better one is available, then you ALWAYS make people worse off.

    A bad feature of our political system is that we pick one topic, say healthcare, and argue that to death in a vaccuum, as if Afghanaistan and Iraq were being paid for by an entirely different populace.

    ———————————

    Should you spend the money on a bridge rated at 50% sufficiency – right now – or should you spend the money on a new bridge and wait to fix the other one?

    Lets read that to mean there is a 50% chance the existing bridge will fail in five years, and the probability is that given its traffic load it will kill five people when it fails.

    The bridge that isn't built yet won't kill anyone when it falls down. But if you build the new one then the existion one won't be repaired for an additional five years, doubling the probability of fatalities.

    Say the statistical valueof human life is $6.5 million dollars. That means the new bridge carries an addional cost penalty of 32.5 million dollars.

    Now all you have to do is add up the exected value of the use of each bridge, Subtract the value of the cost to repair or build each bridge, and add 32.5 million to the new bridge cost.

    One of them is going to have a higher net expected value than the other.

    Why is that so hard?

    Here is why.

    Because it assumes you can put a price on human life, and having once done that you must use the same value for every analysis.

    We would much prefer to put an infinite value on assets for projects we like and zero or negative value on assets for programs we don't like.

    But this is a direct assault on the idea that everyone's property (and everyone's life) should be protected equally.

    If it turns out that you could save an equivalent five lives by buying a hundred dollars worth of mosquito netting, then you should not build/repair either bridge: your priorities are all wrong.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Economic and financial models have come in for a lot of criticism in the context of the global financial crisis, much of it deserved."

    A model is not much use if it cannot be validated: used as a predictor, and then follwed up with an examination of what actually happened.

    The models we use to predict the number of hurricanes each year are terrible, but they are still a lot better than they used to be, and a lot better still than a guess, and better still than just ignoring the question, and assuming that the damage done by hurricanes is fate.

    I've argued here that traffic prediction models that reach 20 years into the future cannot be validated. At least not in a time frame that does us any good.

    Rather than criticize our global and economic financial models, as if they are forever unworkable, what we have here is a remarkable chance to add new features, as soon as we understand what went wrong with them.

    As far as I know, no one ever predicted Avogadro's number, or Planck's constant. Those numbers evolvld empirically, as the result of thousands of experiments. They had to be what they are or nothing would work as it does.

    Models are frequently wrong or improved upon, but the failure of a model is not the same as a total falure of all modeling.

    RH

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "why do we still have rail.. and schools and subsidized flood insurance and ethanol?"

    Because we don't do our homework, and because we make political decisions instead of rational ones.

    We do not have subsidized flood insurance. The government took over flood insurance so that they could enforce where people are allowed to rebuild or not, along with a host of other riparian issues. Government calculated that by not rescuing the same familes decade after decade, they would save money: a net positive social benefit.

    Rail pays in some places, but politically we seem to want it everywhere, whether it pays or not. If it doesn't pay we will just change the rules so that whatever gets built will make it pay. This is a hidden subsidy, but if the true costs of doing this were evaluated in such a way thet everyone's property was equally protected, then we would see there is no net social value to this approach (in my opinion).

    The jury is still out on ethanol, but what is clear is that we could have ethanol a lot cheaper without the tarriffs required to make it happen here. Sugarcane makes ethanol a lot cheaper than corn does.

    In each case it is a matter of WHOSE property is protected most. Take that away and the issue is much clearer.

    REbuilding that NC fishing pier was a dead loss, and people in the rest of the state were worse off as a result: their property did not have equal protection.

    And once again, this isn't my theory, go beat up on the Nobel prize winners.

    RH

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    with any model – there are error sources – sometimes dozens, hundreds – each with a 2 sigma distribution for probability and impacts and for many systems – these error sources can number in the dozens, hundreds.

    Validation is paramount – I agree but having observed in a ballistic missile environment the fact that each scenario with generate a CEP (circular error of probability) that will not match the actual impact and validation becomes a very expensive and still not as premise as wanted – exercise.

    But you can use a model for missiles because you can continue to shoot them.. analyzing the results and using that info to further tweak the model.

    But you can't do that with a financial model if you're trying to figure out how to model a housing collapse if the only way to find out is to actually test the various scenarios.

    that's why using financial models is a rather dumb endeavor in some respects if you really don't have a good idea of what catastrophe looks like without it actually occurring.

    So.. yes.. we have a gazillion "indicators" on Wall Street but how to you combine them in some intelligent way so as to produce a reliable predictive model?

    We can be wrong with hurricanes because we don't really cause them and we can't really stop them so there is nothing but upside in using models.

    there is very little upside in using the kinds of models that the mortgage companies were using to predict – essentially that the housing market would never collapse.

    that was their basic premise.

    they never looked at what their model would do if the housing market collapsed.

    Now why.. perfectly intelligent people who are CEOs and CFOs of multi-billion dollar companies would do this is pretty clear.

    the model didn't matter – because they knew they were too big for the govt to let them fail.

    so the models were scams.. for whoever wanted to participate in the scam… and there was no shortage of folks willing to do so.

    and I have a prediction.

    I bet we're not going to see those models used much anymore.

  33. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " And once again, this isn't my theory, go beat up on the Nobel prize winners."

    theory Ray. How many Nobel prize winners actually use those theories in practice to run national economies or even smaller enterprises… like Mortgage securities.

    we agree on the usefulness of cost/benefit, the use of models, measuring and validation but your stand-at answer that everything can be reduced to a simple dollars and cents proposition is horse puckey and not even very good quality horse puckey.

  34. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – the theory says that the essential trade-off is Guns vs Butter but what theory tells you what the right proportions should be?

    Should we have 10 aircraft carriers and 50 submarines

    or 20 aircraft carriers and 30 submarines

    or 100 aircraft carriers and 200 submarines?

    how does the cost-benefit help you make these choices?

    What do the Nobel Winners say is the right answer?

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "How many Nobel prize winners actually use those theories in practice to run national economies or even smaller enterprises… like Mortgage securities."

    I don't know. My interests are primarily in environmental areas. We know that these "theories" are in use and in proactice in many places.

    Trading in sulphur pollution credits, fishing rights, all of the commodities markets, recycling credits, and many others are based on these theories.

    Even you pretend to tout the value of the market in equalizing costs fairly, bastardized as your vision is, it is essentially correct. All I'm arguing is that the same principles be applied equally to everyone and every kind of property.

    —————————-

    The Nobel prizes are not awarded on theory, but on proofs and pplication of theory resulting in actual benefit to mankind.

    "the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. "

    RH

  36. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Wall Street's Math Wizards Forgot a Few Variables"

    http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107722/wall-street-math-wizards-forgot-a-few-variables.html

    the theories that are proffered by Nobel Prize winners can and are misused by many folks who seek credibility for things that are "based on" ….

    then you have this problem:

    " Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal and former Swedish minister of finance Kjell-Olof Feldt have also advocated that the Prize in Economics should be abolished.[26] Myrdal's objections were based on his view that the 1976 Prize in Economics to Milton Friedman and the 1974 Prize in Economics shared by Friedrich Hayek (both classical liberal economists) were undeserved, on the argument that Economics did not qualify as a science. Friedrich Hayek stated that if he had been asked about the establishment of the Prize before receiving it he would "have decidedly advised against it."[26][27]
    Some critics claim the selection of recipients for the Prize in Economics is biased toward mainstream economics."

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

    sounds like I win this round .. eh?

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    but what theory tells you what the right proportions should be?

    How many people do you save with guns vs how many starve without butter.

    ————————

    "Should we have 10 aircraft carriers and 50 submarines

    or 20 aircraft carriers and 30 submarines

    or 100 aircraft carriers and 200 submarines?

    how does the cost-benefit help you make these choices?"

    How do you think those decsions ARE made? Cost and benefit analysis, operations research, risk analysis. The military wrote the book on tese topics, precisely because it IS so important.

    The DOD budget process is an elaborate dance of threat evalauation, risk analysis, survivability, maintainability, training, force sustainment, and genrally, bang for the buck.

    And it is specifically set to cycle seperately from the presidential election to keep politics out, as much as possible.

    There are reams of people figuring out how many m-14s or equivalent weapons equal one aircraft carrier. It's a good thing that most of our opponents are stuck with m-14's or equivalent.

    RH

  38. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    if that's true then why do the determinations of what is needed – vary according to who you ask?

    this is no formula Ray.

    there is a log of analysis but there is no formula that you crank data into and out pops the same answer – every time you put in the same data.

    there are nonstop turf wars inside of the military to one day argue that we need more carriers – and another group will argue that we need less – at the same time – using the same data.

    and if that equation was universal -it could be used by every country – just plug in your data and get your answer.

    there is no universal cost/benefit equation.

    if there was – the answers would be as simple as you claim and you could tell me how many carriers we need simply by populating that equation and you can't.. for carriers and you cannot for rail and you can't for schools and you can't for property rights.

    and the CBO will tell you this also – that you are misunderstanding how cost/benefit is used and for what purposes – and what it is not used for – because there are way too many variables involved, estimates required instead of hard numbers,

    you could not begin to tell me how much a Trident Missile SHOULD COST… much less whether the existing costs are too high are not high enough.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "there is no universal cost/benefit equation."

    Sure there is. When the marginal cost is greater than the marginal benefit, then your benefit to cost ratio is going down, and it is time to stop digging.

    If my destination is directly upwind, I can get there in less distance by sailing closer to the wind, but at some point that heading will be slower, even if it is a shorter distance. I will have lost the benefit of going less distance because of the cost of going slower.

    So, what is the best course, and how do I know at any given time? I constantly alter my course, and after a few seconds of interval the GPS will calculate my new speed and direction, and compare that with my desired direction and it will calculate and display a new VMG (Velocity Made Good). If VMG goes up, then I made a good correction and if it goes down, then I goofed: my incremental costs are higher than my incremntal value.

    VMG takes into acount dozens of variables, like current, leeway, speed, and direction, and it does it in a very short interval of taking new data. Between where I start and where I am going there is only one optimal course and it is the sum of all the optimal courses at each interval, as determined by VMG.

    So, don't confuse the fact that we do not know or cannot/will not agree on how to go about it with the fact there is, in fact, only one optimal solution.

    Every month or year we invest our resources in an attempt to get the best possible return: individually we try to maximize our benefits/cost. Just as every few seconds we adjust our heading while sailing. The interval of time is different but the goal is the same: gain the most actual headway at the least cost.

    Government, in turn, takes its piece of the action based on activity (user fees and sales taxes), value (property taxes), or Profit (Income Tax). On the boat the feedback is VMG and here it is gross quarterly or monthly revenue.

    Therefore government has no interest in doing anything that will lower the overall benefits/cost, because that lowers government's revenue. You don't add deadweight ballast to the boat without good reason.

    For each cycle you only have so $X revenue, and you have Y competing things to spend it on. Each Y has its own cost and benefit values. The length of the test and review cycle on the boat is a lot shorter, and the feedback is more immediate.

    But whether you are navigating boat or finance there is only one way that sum(y benefits)/sum(y costs) that can equal = MAX Sum(Benefits/Cost). That isn't a theory, it is elementary math that holds everywhere.

    You are right in saying that we do not know what the answer is, but we do know how to go find out what it is, or at least to close on the solution incrementally. for myself, I'll take incremental gains over saying this is too hard, almost every time. Sometimes it really is too hard or too expensive: transaction costs are too high.

    And the reason we don't do it is because it is not in the vested interest of the political parties. The owner sometimes prefers to sail with the fleet and be average than to risk excelence or failure.

    Political parities thrive on feeding misperceptions like yours: that you have some innate special property rights that others don't have, that your dollars are worth more than other dollars, that the ones with the most votes have the power and authority to do anything they like, that the "bad guys" should pay so you can have more good stuff for "free, no cost".

    They will promise you the moon to get your vote even if they cannot deliver. They will promise you the moon even it means stealing from others, acting unethically, or acting against the most benficial benefits/cost ratio. it is as if all they had was a speedometer on their boat, without any compass or destination, and certainly with no VMG.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Advanced navigation.

    As you consistently point out, the rules of solution change if there a major unknown change ahead (like gobal warming or mass poisoning).

    If I KNOW that the wind is gong to shift 30% to the west at 3PM then I can plan my long range course in two pieces. How much it will change depends on how long it is from now until 3PM and how long I will have to sail after 3PM to reach my destination:
    how long do I have to defer my short term profit in order to make better long term profit?

    Afternooon wind shifts are very common, but solving that problem is very difficult and requires considerable decision making under uncertainty. Will it be 3Pm or fifteen mnutes either side of that? Will the new wind speed be greater or lesser, and how much will the angle change?

    Most skippers won't even try to solve this, and the conventional wisdom is to never split from the fleet. But, I have won a number of races by tackling that problem and convincing myself (and the owner) that even the worst solution is sufficiently better than no solution, that the risk and effort is well justified.

    Basically you have to solve for the seond leg fiirst and then see how close the end of the first leg gets you to the start of the second leg. If they don't match, then you have to suboptimize BOTH legs until they do match.

    In doing so you may well give up most or all of the benefit of running two legs. That is why the conventional wisdom is never split from the fleet. or as I put it to EMR you cannot have long term profit without short term profit.

    —————————-

    Only if multiple Y's have the same benefit/cost ratios can you have more than one solution to the cost benefit problem. But in that (highly unlikely) case you are constrained by the idea that everyone's property is protected equally. If Multiple Y's give you the same benefit to cost ratio then you wold have to fund them all equally, and this additional constraint means there is still only one solution.

    The boat analogy is there might be multiple waypoint choices that theoretically get you to the same endpoint at the same time, but one of them will obviously be a lower risk.

    You are right, we do not always know the "best" answer. But we know what the equation is, and we know how to approach the answer.

    All we have to to is agree to try.

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " there are way too many variables involved, estimates required instead of hard numbers."

    All that means is you get ranges of answers with ranges of probabilities.

    One chance in a million with a payoff of one million is pretty much the SAME probable cost or value as a million chances to one with a payoff of a dollar each.

    The Trident missile problem is actually pretty easy: think about it.

    RH

  42. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you talk a lot about property.

    How about this. My county takes several thousand dollars a year of my property to pay for schools.

    In fact, about 70% of all of our property taxes and almost 40% of our State Income taxes go for schools.

    Now – you have one group of folks who say that this 70% is cheap and oh by the way – not enough.

    Then you have another group of folks that say it is way too much and is what amounts to 'stealing' of people's property.

    Now – it would seem to me that if you are correct and there is a proper cost-benefit equation that we'd not have all of this disagreement because we'd all know the truth and could move on to other things to disagree about.

    Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds would simply agree about the amount needed for education and move on to transportation.

    right?

    so Ray – what about it?

    what's the right amount for schools?

    so how do we know what the right amount is to spend on schools so that we don't end up "stealing" people's property (their money)?

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    why do the determinations of what is needed – vary according to who you ask?

    1) Vested interests.

    2) Different viewpoint or vision of need.

    3) Ability to pay.

    4) Failure to understand that everyones property is to be protected equally.

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "do you replace your furnace this year or get the tractor and hope the furnace lasts another year.

    how do you quantify the cost/benefit when you have choices and have to prioritize?

    Do you replace the school furnace or buy new textbooks?

    new stop light or new left turn lanes?"

    ——————————-

    I don't see nay problem with those, and you answered the question yourself:

    "which will give you more "benefit"?

    RH

  45. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    if you really did have such a thing as a universal cost/benefit equation – then it would be available to all those folks who can't agree – right?

    funny.. I never hear any of them saying "why don't you pay attention to the universal cost-benefit results"?

    So you would have to pay a whole bunch of folks at the FTA to figure out if Metro from Tysons to Dulles was cost-effective or not.

    You'd just whip out the old cost-benefit equation .. get the cost data and move on to other issues…

    so where is that Transit Cost-benefit equation?

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Theories proposed by Nobel Prize winners can and are misused by many folks who seek credibility for things that are "based on" ….

    ————————–

    OK, and that makes the theories wrong or unusable exactly how?

    If you insist on trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer, it doesnt mean the screwdriver is no good: it is the operator that's a problem.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " populating that equation and you can't.. for carriers and you cannot for rail and you can't for schools and you can't for property rights."

    You could, but first you have to decide how to measure and then what to measure. as soon as we put in SOL's teachers figured out ways to cheat on them, and statisticians figured out how to catch them.

    If you have a pile of data the outliers stand out like sore thumbs.

    But first you have to have a pile of data that was measured consisently. You can't compare performance based on Net income vs gross income vs EBITDA, vs operating income vs gross revenue to start with: you need a consistent measure. And then, as you point out, EMR or someone might well complain that performance means more than income. I might make the same income and use far more resources to do it.

    But in the short term it is pretty easy to compare even gross statistics and look for change. You did this yourself recently by comparing Massachusetts vs VA spending on education as compared with results.

    More moneyin education will produce results up to a point. Thenthe Benefits vs cost probably drop off. But if you had infinite money, then schols could take over all the things parents are supposed to do, and you might find another cost benefit maximum out there.

    But, you are solving a different problem.

    But if you can measure, then you can simply spend a little more or a little less, and see which direction things change.

    Loudoun County and Fauquier county once had similar populations and similar individual wealth. Loudoun county now has the highest family income in the nation. Fauquier counties bucolic nature has a certain value and charm. Anyone who wants to leave can move to Loudoun.

    For everyone else the question is whether the benefits are worth the cost. For some of the leaders of Fauquier county it eveidently is, but then, these are the sort of people who have a collection of Rolls Royce's.

    And that sort of begs the question concerning what is the distribution of winners and losers here, and how are the losers compensated.

    RH

    RH

  48. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    as the article points out – even economists who have themselves won the Nobel Prize will tell you that economics is not a science with theories that can be proven.

    and that's before such theories ever get to the people who will tell you that what they are doing is "based" on theory.

    when someone tells me not to blame them but instead the Nobel Prize winners – I'm on double triple warning…

    you know like.. when someone tells you that there's a new carburetor that get 100 miles to the gallon and is based on a scientific "discovery" by a famous scientists.

    that was the point of the NYT Economix article.. that you had all these guys on Wall Street trading derivatives willy nilly because they had this "equation" that told them that it was perfectly rational to do – really stupid stuff.

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Some would argue that you cannot put a price on bucolic beauty and charm. I would argue that we already have: after 30years of differng experiments between Loudoun Policies and Fauquier Policies the price is equal to the difference in family net worth and family net income. Loudoun still has bucolic areas, also, so you have to make some adjustment, but that adjustment would make Loudoun policies look even better.

    I realize some people find this incredible: there you have a forty year experiment and dollars measured consistently and independently by a third party.

    How do you argue agnast facts?

    Well "those people" are the enemy, they are subhuman, have no pride in ownership, kids use drugs, they are using up "our resources"…
    you cansee whee that goes.

    OK, so fine, bring in all the externalities you like, but do it equally for every case you study.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " will tell you that economics is not a science with theories that can be proven."

    At one time the speed of light could not be proven, either. Once it was done it turned out to be remarkably simple.

    You don't have to prove a theory to show that it has value, is workable and predictable in the real world, and makes people better off, like the Nobel prize requires.

    You do not have to prove a theory to find myriad examples that suggest it works; when the market is flooded with hay, I have to sell it for less.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The next Nobel Prize in Economics?

    "Each choice that you make as an individual is decided by a society of billions: namely, the billions of neurons that populate your brain. Economics, being the science of choice, has until recently treated the human being as a black box rather than looking inside. That has changed with the advent of neuroeconomics, a branch of science which examines what those cells are doing when people are making choices.

    Neuroeconomists have studied blood-flow to find where the brain measures uncertainty; measured hormones in subjects’ saliva and their effect on impulsive decisions; and worn conductive caps to measure brain activity while they make a purchase."

    RH

  52. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Yes, neuroeconomics is a hoax. And I'm "mad as hell" about it. Call it whatever name you want, they're all the same: Behavioral finance, psychology of investing, behavioral economics, the "new science of irrationality." Let's call it "neuroeconomics." And yes, it's a scam, a con job, propaganda, a big fat hoax."

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/five-reasons-neuroeconomics-is-a-big-fat-hoax

    anyone who "cites" economy "theory" as the basis for anything other than idle thoughts while sitting on the throne is smoking something illegal.

    Anyone who claims it as the basis of their own decision-making needs to be institutionalized before they hurt others.

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    😉

    Whew, I would have loved to see a map of which decision making neurons that post fired off.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Now that we have dispensed with all of economics, what was the rationale for congestion pricing and HOT lanes?

    RH

  55. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    we haven't dispensed with economics.

    we've only admitted that economic theory and economic practice are not linked to the point that the first insures that the second will work.

    which has been and continues to be the problem that you have with a lot of this stuff.

    The theory in even pure scientific endeavors is what works under tightly controlled laboratory conditions.

    How something like that works (or not) in practice is done by a discipline known as R&D and then System Engineering…

    which some folks totally misunderstand and misuse -like those fellows on Wall Street.

    Nothing will humiliate an engineer more than blithely thinking he/she can engineer something based on "proven" theory.

    Congestion Pricing and HOT lanes do NOT work exactly according to theory.

    That's why they are called PILOT projects … look here:

    http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/value_pricing/

    relying on theory alone is not smart.

    that's why I always ask you for some practical examples that are actually in use.

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, System Engineering, now you are barking up my tree.

    You are right, you cannot design something based on pure theory, but you cannot design something that violates the laws of physics, either.

    In physics and chemistry you cannot get something for nothing.

    The governments ost basic and foremost job is to protect persons and property, but for that to happen all must be protected EQUALLY. This is the social/economic equivalent of "you cannot get something for nothing."

    In practice that means that people have to be protected from murderers, and murderers have to be protected from lynch mobs. It means your proeprty starts where mine stops, and if you claim additional rights that extend into my property, like setbacks, then you expect them to apply equally to your property.

    ——————————-

    So here we are all 100 of us with 25 ft setbacks, except the 5 of us with vacant lots. Now someone gets the bright idea that we need 100 foot setbacks to help protect us from runoff, or provide better sightlines, or some other social benefit.

    And the result is that five people lose their (prospective) homes and most of the value of their lot, because those five lots are no longer buildable. For the other 95 people the cost is zero, because they are grandfathered (until their house falls down).

    Now it is patently obvious to me, (but it won't be to you) that government did not protect people's property equally. It has failed in its most basic job and some people got something for nothing, or more precisely, at someone else's expense.

    The obvious fix is for the people who got the benefit to pay those who take the loss. How much should they be paid? The five who are taking a loss cannot hold out for an infinite amount, because that would be claiming more than equal protection. And likewise the 95 cannot hold out for zero amount because then THEY get more than equal protection.

    But that is what happens because at 95%, they can vote for mob rule and just take what they want. Which is why individuals and minorities need more protection from the very government that is supposed to protect them to begin with.

    So, how much should they be paid? There must be some way to let the market (or the courts) decide, except in zoning matters the courts are pretty much, not going to be involved, because you cannot get standing.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    So my workable example is building rights. Let the government figure out the appropriate growth rate and allocate building rights accordingly. Divide those into shares and give every citizen a share accordingly. Those citizens that don't want growth, don't have to sell thair shares.

    Developers know that IF they can buy enough shares, their project will automatically be approved. Such a plan is fair, transparent, and predictable.

    A similar practice already in use is allocation of fishing rights.

    Good project appraisal is done by people with their own incentives, and that is a fundamental basis of my position.

    The Federal Navigation Act of 1936. This act required that the U.S. Corps of Engineers carry out projects for the improvement of the waterway system when the total benefits of a project to whomsoever they accrue exceed the costs of that project.

    It wasn't long before the obvious problems with this edict surfaced, and Corp of Engineers has taken abuse ever since.

    That is why:

    There Must Be a Common Unit of Measurement

    CBA Valuations Should Represent Consumers or Producers
    Valuations As Revealed by Their Actual Behavior

    Benefits Are Measured by Market Choices

    Some Measurements of Benefits Require the Valuation of Human Life

    The Analysis of a Project Should Involve a With Versus Without Comparison.

    The Discount Rate or Cost of Capital affects the projects worth.

    Given that Net Benefits exist, they must be Distributed Equally.

    —————————–

    Simply put, if you cannot satisfy those simple and obvous requirements, how can you justify the work?

    I'll agree with you that it is unfortunate that in real world examples, those that seek to gain will attempt to bastardize the process, as in claiming that HOT lanes are a free market that adequately measures peoples choices.

    I just think we can do better than that, but the basic rule has to be understood: equal protection of rights, and no more than that.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A model, put to use.

    More news from the Nobel prizes.

    "These models are now used by scientists in order to develop new antibiotics, directly assisting the saving of lives and decreasing humanity's suffering," the academy said in its announcement.

    OK, so this is chemistry, not economics. does that mean it can't be done in economics? No, only that economics is a lot harder: chemistry is nuts and bolts, by comparison.

    RH

  59. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – you need to read more about how Virginia deals with land-use.

    It would help you better see that property rights are different things to different people and that virtually everyone that owns property has rights …

    .. but more important .. the state and the govt has rights also – and responsibilities

    I found this report to be illuminating.

    I'm quite sure you'll not agree with some or perhaps much of it but it does explain how much transportation and access to property plays in land-use policies.

    I also explains how Virginia decided to change course when places like Fairfax began to develop higher densities.

    I'd be interested in hearing your opinions after you read this

    http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/91-r10.pdf

  60. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – the theory and the model are the first steps in a long and involved process:

    http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/resdev/test-approve.htm

    and even after all of the above – you still have to run endless trials documenting all anomalies.

    what I have objected to is the idea that you have that is a theory or a model exists – that it means you can use it as-is in practice and virtually none of the time can you do this

    and the folks who do – do this – like the folks on Wall Street and others who claim you can – are – virtually always wrong – and downright dangerous.

    for many, many theories, I suggest that you start with Wiki because – it usually discusses the practical limitations of such theories in actual use.

    Nobel Prize folks usually break ground on something fundamental and it takes years and years for it to lead to anything useful and in some cases – the practical limitations relegate it to a an exercise in thinking with little actual benefits.

    Did you realize that Al Gore got a Nobel Prize?

    Would you sign on to what Al Gore was advocating because he was awarded a Nobel Prize?

    You're totally not understanding the purpose and use of awarding the Nobel Prize.

    Some end up being fundamental breakthroughs while others end up not being quite the earthshaking revelation that it was originally thought to be.

    but in virtually all of these cases – the path from the prize to widespread practical use is not quick… but requires many, many steps to engineer it into something practical.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…it takes years and years for it to lead to anything useful "

    All the more reason to get started.

    I have seen (and even built) some financial models that turned out to be remarkably accurate, and which are in everyday use.

    The exotic wall street models you refer to apparently had a failure in recognizing cumulative risk. It is apparent to me that for decades, we adopted strategies of very low risk – cash payment or 50% down for homes, and still with high interest rates – and we suffered very low growth as a result.

    For years I could realistically invest in only the most mundane and low paying of investments, because higher yields, (and more risk) were closed to me.

    New investment opportunities changed all that and our growth increased dramatically because of it.

    Clearly we went too far, but it would be a mistake to return entirely to the old rules, and try to avoid all risk. Even considering the whacking we have taken, most of us are STILL better off than we would have been if we were still limited to Guaranteed Investment Contracts. (Which actually sound a lot like Credit Default Swaps).

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…but in virtually all of these cases – the path from the prize to widespread practical use is not quick… but requires many, many steps to engineer it into something practical."

    Thats one reason the prizes are often awarded for work performed decades earlier. The criteria is taht the work has actually benefited mankind, although, as you point out, the economics prize in particular has been open to debate.

    RH

  63. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    50% down? When was that?

    there was nothing "exotic" about what happened on Wall Street.

    It did the same thing that caused the 30's panic – just a more modern version.

    basically allowed people to invest on Wall Street – with borrowed money and not their own equity.

    works every time

    the only thing different is that these fools said they now had a model that proved they could do in 2000 the same thing that was proved that you could not do in the 1930's

    why would any person in their right mind – buy a mortgage where the person paying the mortgage had no documented income or assets?

    but we had all the whizbangs on Wall Street saying that they had figured out a theory to allow them to buy such mortgages at – no risk.

    and the rest of us?

    how many folks did I hear – in this blog – talk about how important the housing industry was to our economy?

    how many folks here – Ray – argued vociferously that the value of their land due to housing demand was a 'right'?

    there is nothing at all wrong with risk – as long as you own it – and not taxpayers.

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    there is a reason why the awards were for work done decades earlier.

    it's because it took that long to find truly practical uses for paper theories.

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My model is pretty simple: everyone has an equal right to protection of self and property.

    In order to protect property, we need to know what it is worth.

    What it is worth is what people will pay for it one the open market.

    Some will argue that the right price isn;t being paid in many cases because of "externalties". But allthat means is that someone thnks they are not being paid enough for some rather undefined "property".

    —————————–

    Consider this example: check out the rental rates being paid for windmill towers or Cell towers on private land. Wind turbines especially carry all kinds of incentives to get them built.

    Now consider what happens when those wind towers need a transmission line. We put up similar towers for a transmission line: you get a one time payment for what used to grow under it: no negotiation possible.

    If you are lucky enough to get a wind tower, you get a check every moneth, but if you are unfortunate enough to get the power tower it needs, which is just as important, you are screwed.

    Just as you believe more out of pocket expense would reduce demand for health care, I believe more out of pocket expense for transission towers would reduce demand for them, and increased payments would also reduce the oppositon to them.

    And wherever those two curves cross, we will find the least expensive total option for everyone.

    That is the theory, at least, but it is one that is pretty well tested and understood.

    RH

  66. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "basically allowed people to invest on Wall Street – with borrowed money and not their own equity.

    works every time"

    OK, so leverage works both ways. We know that. But it is no reason to do without.

    We just need to rcognize the economic difference between raising a jack and winding up a trebuchet.

    RH

  67. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "It would help you better see that property rights are different things to different people "

    Oh, I see that, all too clearly. it is why some people get new rights for nothing and other people lose value for nothing.

    Here is what a property right is: one dollar. You have to have a common unit of measure, in order to make sure that property rights are NOT different things to different people. If you can't put a dollar price on it, then there is no way you can buy it, own it, or expect to have it protected once you do.

    THAT is the root of much of our disagreement. When we know what property is, and we know what the price is, there is no disagreement.
    We know what a gallon of gas is and those willing to sell go out of their way to tell us the price.

    Your argument once again boils down to "Well, this is too nebulous to measure, therefore its value is either free (if it belongs to someone else) or infinite (if it belongs to me).

    It is a weak excuse for greed and theft.

    RH

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Wall Street's Math Wizards Forgot a Few Variables"

    Remember the rocket scientists who forgost to convert from feet to meters and wreched a 250 billion dollar Mars lander?

    RH

  69. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – you have every right to show the "true" market value of property – no one is stopping you.

    and I have yet to see the government say that you cannot sell your land either.

    You don't agree with the govt right to determine land use nor how they go about doing that job.

    join the club.

    virtually no one will fully agree to the way the govt does it's job but that's the system we have.

    The Constitution that you say should decide the issue – DID – it granted the power to regulated land-use to local elected government.

    end of story guy.

    you are allowed to participate – as one guy – who must convince others of the "rightness" of your views.

    there is no dictator behind the screen that you can influence.

  70. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: mistakes – yes Ray – all the more reason to doubt the Wall Street folks…

    their track record is not a proud one IMHO.

  71. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I don't think it is too nebulous to measure at all. I'm saying that if you disagree with the way it IS measured then the onus is on you to show a better way – that others will accept.

    and saying that the current way is "stealing" won't gain you support… will it?

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ballsin"VTRC specializes in basic and applied research to support VDOT, its primary customer."

    OK, what business doesn't? But this, in particular sounds a little like the chickens guarding the henhouse. They have self interest at heart, rather than meeting the goal of having chickens.

    And they may not have the horsepower to get the job done.
    This is one of those gods or death committes you complain about. The real horsepower comes from market input, of which I see none.

    I'd feel a lot better if VDOT hired the Colorado Transporation Research Council.

    —————————-

    VTRC promotes advances in:

    Structures
    Materials
    Pavements
    Safety
    System operations
    Traffic engineering
    Transportation planning
    Environmental issues
    Business practices

    How does any of that make them an expert in land use? Let's call this what it is: it is demand side control. This is NOT transportation planning it is planning to AVOID transportation.

    That might be a valid goal but it should NOT be in the transportation department. If you are designing a rocket or an airplane weights and balance are not the problem of the propulsion group: their problem is to fly whatever gets sent to them.

    Over arching them is a SYSTEMS group whose job it is to meet ALL the requirements at lowest cost, and to coordinate the requirements.

    At the state level, that systems group is, unfortunately, the legislature, which Groveton properly classifies as retarded part time circus clowns.

    The separation of land use control and transportaton is not only not unworkable, it is in fact desirable. This structure has served the commonwealth for 50 years but now new (political) pressure is putting it under stress.

    If the structure fails it won;t be because the structure is nherently deficient. It will be because of additional stress caused by political forces that in fact WANT it to fail, like EMR.

    That is just my opinion of the title page.

    RH

  73. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    it's a historical perspective Ray.

    it was written in the early 90's and provides a framework for how many legislators and transportation people viewed the issue.

    It should help you to better understand why we have the policies we have now – where they originally came from and the basis for the policies.

    Mostly what it points out is that VDOT's approach to transportation is schizo where they essentially argue both sides of the issue.. first saying that since they are in charge of roads that they are responsible for insurance that land-use melds properly with roads then turn right around and say that land-use is the localities prerogative – granted to them by the State's Constitution.

    they point out the difference in how land-use and transportation is done in a Dillon Rule state verses Home Rule jurisdictions..

    it's a historical perspective for FYI only and it's a proactive approach to heading off revisionist history concepts about how we currently do business with land-use and transportation – and why.

    I'm surprised that you did not read enough of it to get to the "beggar thy neighbor" part though.

  74. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Haven't had time to read it, yet.

    RH

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "and I have yet to see the government say that you cannot sell your land either."

    Well, you just come on over and I'll show you the letters and the ordinance changes that said I cannot sell my land. After they promised otherwise.

    Now that they have taken much of the value out of it, I could sell it – all in one huge lump to a single buyer if I can find one with that much money.

    I can sell it to someone who knows it can never be used for anything but agriculture, which is guaranteed to lose money.

    I can sell it to someone who does not mind paying taxes at twice the rate it receives services.

    I can sell it, but not in a free market, only in one narrowly proscribed by the government, which realistically has probably cost my wife millions worth of her inheritance. And we are not talking major development: just the same stuff our neighbors have.

    It is not my problem really: I didn't have it before, never counted on it, and don't have it now. But I'm close enough to it to see the effects first hand.

    If you really want to risk having your eyes scratched out, just say that within reach of Margaret. I assure you, my tirades are MILD compeared to waht she has to say, and some of her neighbors in the same boat.

    As my previous supervisor said to us (during one of the meetings where weree told we cannot sell)
    "My plan for your property is to have someone rich buy it, so they canput a conservation easement on it."

    And that is what he has achieved: it is pretty much the ONLY way I can sell my land. That buyer will eventually get it at a huge discount to its intrinsic worth, and then hell slap a worthless piece of paper on it for an easement, and take a huge tax write off – courtesy of you and I.

    If my property is a bundle of sticks,the government has taken them, all but one. And all the ones they took, are the property that I can no longer, but once could have – sold.

    Margaret and her family would have been a lot better off had they taken their short term profits long ago. But because they were fortunate enough to conserve their property the longest, (despite TWO rounds of eminent domain takings) they now get punished the most.

    I'm not a violent person, but when I see what happened to her, it is no wonder to me at all when some nut case gets agitated enough to grab an UZI.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…and saying that the current way is "stealing" won't gain you support… will it?"

    I believe it will gain support among those who are honest enough to call stealing what it is.

    Everyone else can shade the truth, paint it pastel, wiggleword with someone else's money and property. The ones who have the most power and wo are really bold can lie outright, go for outrageous landgrabs, use the penalties associated with minor environmental infractions as blackmail to gain conservation easements, and generally portay themselves as environmental balderskates.

    That will continue until enough people have been stolen from. Then they will realize that they can expect only as much protection for their property as they provide to others.

    So, if you want to create an army of honest people who will stand up and call stealing what it is, then just keep right on stealing from them.

    I know there are people like you who had a building lot stolen (even if you never planned to use it) and apparently don't mind, or don't know, or don't realize that they should have been paid for it.

    Maybe they think the meek will inherit the earth.

    I think my former supervisor is probably closer to correct: the rich will get it.

    And they will get it at a huge discount, thanks to the misguided idiots that run the environmental movement mouthpieces.

    A good (and also honest) environment is going to have to be bought and paid for. Overall the cheapest way to do that is to be sitting on that point where you get the most protection for the fewst dollars, the most productivity for the fewest dollars, and the most evvective government control for the fewest collars: in other words minimze

    Total Cost = Production Cost + Environmental (External) Costs + Government (Regulatory and Monitoring Costs)

    You start by protecting people's property. Everyone's property, of all kinds, and you do it equally with market guidance.

    RH

  77. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " …you have every right to show the "true" market value of property – no one is stopping you."

    No, I do not. They are stopping me, have stopped me. And many others.

    If I did that right, I could build four homes here similar to those that surround me and get millions, for each one: the true value of my property as exemplified by my surroundings.

    But simply because of the history of the property, I'm held to a lower standard. What is happening here has no correlation to today's market value.

    Anyone who actually thinks the way you describe above is kidding themselves, and spreading untruths. They don't know the facts, and don't understand the damage they cause to innocent people like my wife.

    And, before EMR jumps allover my case and says "See, I told you all he wants is windfall profits at the expense of the community.", let me say this: I'm perfectly happy the way things are here, physically. Apparently, so is the rest of the community.

    But then, they didn't have to pay the price. If they had paid the price, then I would not be on my soapbox every week. Then I could be happy withthe way things are here physically, monetarily, and equitably.

    By my bookkeeping, county policies have sucked 20,000 hours and $200,000 dollars out of me and the farm, not counting lost property values. At best, I break even on my effort and investment, which neveertheless has to be done, or else they get it out of me by charging residential tax rate on the whole place – even if I do nothing with most of it.

    So, not only are they stopping me from showing the true markt value of the property, they are holding me as a virtual serf until such time as I grow old and cave in.

    RH

  78. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – someone who owns vacant lot in a residential area might think that the intrinsic value of that property is much higher if they can build a skyscraper on it and they would correct.

    But if the county has decided they don't want skyscrapers on that land – you see it as a rule saying that you cannot sell that property and that's simply not true.

    What's true is that you cannot sell it for what you want to sell it for.

    and Ray – all the folks who own residential around that lot are not going to consider the restrictions on you to be "stealing".

    they are, in fact, going to be the ones telling the country to restrict you to the uses that it can be sold for.

    The Constitution and Code of Virginia delegate land-use decisions to the locally-elected government – and they are elected by a majority of property owners – and the land-use rules passed in the county are supported by a majority of property-owners who are also affected by it – or else they change their representatives and then change the land-use.

    if you read that doc – you'll see how this rule of law came about in Va.

    the pure essence is that more intense uses of land require more infrastructure and the way that Va law works – if you are granted subdivision rights 3 bad things (in some people's minds) happen.

    1. – you will overload the infrastructure around your land

    2. – other property owners will have their taxes raised if they want the infrastructure improved because the law will not allow you to be billed for it via impact fees.

    3. – If the county allows you to subdivide – they are required by law to offer the same deal to every other property-owner in your neighborhood.

    If you put this situation in a context where other property owners have to pick up the costs – and the potential is for far more than one parcel of land.. what is their ultimate tax liability for the required infrastructure?

    I've told you before – if Va counties were allowed to use impact fees – then the subdivision issue would not be near the issue it is for other property owners.

    If you actually want change – instead of approaching it from the point of view that others are stealing form you – if you approach it from the point of view of advocating for impact fees – I think you have a much better chance of succeeding.

  79. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If the county allows you to subdivide – they are required by law to offer the same deal to every other property-owner in your neighborhood.

    Horse manure. Every other property inmy neihborhood HAS been subdivided. I am still stuck on the woods and always will be until a major political change happens.

    I don;t have anyproblem with impact fees, and I will happily support them as soon as those supporting impact fees agree that they WORK BOTH WAYS: if you are going to downzone me then YOU OWE ME an impact fee and if I get upzoned then I OWE YOU an impact fee.

    You do not deserve any more protection of your taxes and your property through impact fees than I do.

    If I thought that I should get impact fees for beng downzoned, but not have to pay impact fees for upzoning, then I WOULD BE PROMOTING unfair protection of property and THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO STEALING.

    It works BOTH ways. and anyone who does not promote it BOTH wyas is essentially promoting stealing.

    I'm in FAVOR of impact fees, but, ihave serious reservatons about how they are calculated. First of all I'm not convinced that any shortage of infrastructure isn't PARTLY caused by too little investment all along. To now stick ALL of those costs in the impact fees pot would be unfair and it would amount to STEALING.

    Impact fees are going to inccrease the value of existing homes, and that should be accounted for in the calculations for impact fees. Otherwise existing owners ae getting something at others expense, AND THAT IS STEALING.

    At one time the mantra was that developement was good because it increased the tax base. But that pendulum has apparently swung too far the other way: now every development is an economic and environmental catastrophe. You can barely rototill your garden without a soil disturbing permit. A vineyard or farmers market is a commercial enterprise, and a kiddie horse show causes "too much traffic".

    Yes, the previous situation of a free ride for every developemt was wrong, but the current situation is just as wrong.

    So, I'm in favor of impact fees, but I'm suspicious of how they might be calculated and used. I'm in favor of a rule based permitting proscess: you meet the rules, you pay the fee, you get the permit.

    Public "participation" ends when you set the rules and set the fees. After that is is an administrative matter, otherwise, every hearing is another rulemaking.

    RH

  80. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    All of that development fees thing is fine is fine, I have no problem with any of those things, provided it cuts both ways.

    But no one is ever going to convince me that what happened to my wife, and my brother, and many other people I know, innocent people who are not developers or speculators, is anything but gang land rape. they were robbed and the people who robbed them are thieves.

    They may be well-meaning thieves who THINK they are protecting the environment, the public budget, and their community, but that is because they have been educated or brainwashed by liars and environmental blatherskates. And on top of that, there is a strong undercurrent of readily acknowledged self-interest: one pwerson said to me recently "I don't care what they build,as long as it is nowhere around here."

    I'm going to continue to call that kind of crap as I see it. Toe to toe, eyball to eyball, nose to nose I'll continue to call anyone a liar and thief to their face, and in public, if I think their activities will cause anyone the kind of undeserved and uncompensated harm I have seen happen to people around me.

    If that makes them uncomfortable, good. If it makes them insulted, too bad. When I had county board members and other officials writing to the newspaper and publicly suggesting that I move out of the county, I took that as a compliment.

    I am one guy. I don't have PEC behind me, or any other organization. But when those officials considered me to be that much of a threat to their cosseted ideals, then I knew I was on to something.

    I'm not in league or in harmony with the property rights wing-nuts, either. The kind of crap some of them spout is nothing but code for "other people have no rights and I have them all".

    My message is my message, and it is not to be confused with other subdivision issues. And I don't beleive that my message is enhanced by mixing it up with those issues.

    But

    If you believe that my message is simply that EVERYONE gets equal property rights and no more than that, then those other issues will inexorably get pulled into the mix.

    If the county doesn't want skyscrapers on my proeprty, I'd agree with them, but that isn't what is going on. They don't want ANYTHING on my property other than a rich owner. That is what my supervisor told me.

    Where in God's name is the justification that says I can't have the same sort of developent as my neighbors have? The county hasn't told me I can't have skyscrapers, they have told me I cannot have anything, not even the stuff I was previously promised – in writing.

    The county is a liar and a cheat, and in my opinion, so is anyone who supports that policy. That is pretty blunt, but my actual opinion is that this is putting it rather mildly.

    You would never sit down at a table and play cards withthe county, because they change the rules as fast as they deal the cards. What kind of freaking county actually advises you on their website to get an attorney before attempting to do business with them?

    The county has not,as you claim just said I cannot sell property for the price I want. They have in fact said I cannot sell property that I once could have sold. In effect they stole that stick out of the bundle and I no longer have that property; it is off the books.

    I (my wife, and many others) didn't get anything for it and they (the county) did (or they believe they did). If you can tell me that is anything but stealing, then I will have learned a new synonym.

    That is what it is, thank you, it is stealing. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

    RH

  81. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your skyscraper argument is ridiculous.

    Unless he bought the lot with skycraper lots attached, he would have no right to presume he had skyscraper rights.

    EQUALLY

    Unless the neighbors bought their lots with anti sky scraper rights attached, they should have no right to presume they had prevention rights.

    UNLESS

    There are real, verifiable and actual costs to them (not just some invented, what-if kind of thing)

    BUT

    Provided that payment is made for those costs, they still have no valid argument.

    AND

    Even if they owned actual anti sky scraper rights, bought and paid for, recorded on theri deeds, the community could still argue (as under Kelo) that the benefit to the public in additional revenue exceeded the costs in additional sevices.

    IN THAT CASE

    The adjacent owners rights (property) could be purchased back under eminent domain with appropriate consideration of interest and other property losses.

    RH

  82. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – are you understanding what the "impact" part of impact fees means?

    it's to pay for infrastructure that is needed as a consequence of subdividing land.

    When impact fees are not allowed, localities will downzone so they don't incur infrastructure costs downstream as the land is developed without those fees.

    In other words – these things that you say are unfair are in direct response – a cost avoidance.

    If they don't do it – then what happens is you make a profit on the gains you got by subdividing and others have to pay for the infrastructure that the folks who buy that subdivided land will want and need.

    so no matter whether you are Fairfax Tysons Corner or Facquier county – the name of the game is who will pay for the infrastructure needed to serve more intensive uses.

    and I say again – if we had impact fees on by-right land, there would be less actions to prevent the development of land.

    as far as you suspicions about impact fees, I would advocate that we do it the same way we do water/sewer right now.

    fully transparent with full public accountability and a method of adjusting the fees according to market costs.

    and I'm betting something is going to happen this GA.

    take a look at this:

    OMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    HOUSE OF DELEGATES
    OFFICE OF THE CLERK
    RICHMOND

    October 02, 2009
    Meeting Information

    TO: Joint Subcommittee Studying Development and Land Use Tools, SJR 70/HJR 178
    FROM: Chris McCormick, House Committee Operations
    RE: Dec. 4, 2009

    http://tinyurl.com/yfe9pyf

    alright. NOW you have a committee that you can advocate to.

    ball is in your court.

  83. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "it's to pay for infrastructure that is needed as a consequence of subdividing land."

    I don't believe it. I believe it is another way to prevent the subdivision of land. It is another environmental regualtory taking ins disguise. It is another way to transfer the unfunded costs of ALREADY EXISTING problems to newcomers. It is a way to make existing homes more valuable at the newcomers and remaining landholders expense.

    When I see a suitably comprehensive formula for calcualting impact fees that takes a systems approach to all the related varaibles in play, then I'll agree impact fees are a good idea.

    But, based onthe arguments put forwrd to "justify" them, I can't imagin any way that they will be fair to all persons involved. It is a property rights land and or money grab, pure and simple.

    I'm willing to sign up for it but you need a plan that addresses some of the problems which have been identified concerning areas with superzoning and super-regulation.

    And first and foremost, if you want to propose payments for new development then you had better stand up in favor of payments for downzoning as well. One is the mirror image of the other, if one is good, so is the other, and I'm not willing to sign up for impact fees unless the regulation includes payment for anti-impact fees.

    RH

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If they don't do it – then what happens is you make a profit on the gains you got by subdividing "

    Fine.

    Now what about profits lost when subdividing is prevented?

    Until and unless I see those two features intimately connected, I won't support any kind of impact fees.

    ——————————

    Besides that, what have you got against profit? Are you suggesting that the impact fees should be equal to profit? That there should be no profit on land development? That impact fees might even be greater than profit? Surely if that is the case there won't be any development.

    By opening this line of argument you offer weight to my contention that this is the real purpose of impact fees: not to provide infrastructure, but to prevent the impact.

    Come back and see me when you have a plan for impact fees that work in both directions: when you have something that remotely smells fair instead of foul.

    RH

  85. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    alright. NOW you have a committee that you can advocate to.

    The governors office has already given me an earful.

    You can bet the committee will hear from me, also.

  86. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    yup.. the went off the tracks here.

    you're once again focused on what happened …before.. which we found out was wrong and only led to infrastructure deficits – so we stopped doing it.

    the way that water/sewer work now days is considered a fair and equitable impact fee by most in the development community.

    I have yet to hear anyone say that water/sewer fees are property rights issues or "takings".

    you have your choice on subdivision rights vs impact fees.

    If you opposed impact fees because you don't trust govt then … I'm not dissing you here – but I'd point out you sound a lot like the anti-govt, anti-health care folks.

    Impact fees are common place in most states – and there is a fairly large body of knowledge about them plus fairly strict accounting mechanisms that require that money to be put in a fund that can only be used for specific capital projects.

    there are no payments for downzoning Ray and the reason is that the downzoning itself is a measure against further subdividing without providing for the infrastructure needed.

    additionally – the locality is given that right by the Constitution and Code of Va – which define what people's rights are – and are not.

    who would you say should be the arbiter of these issues if not the Constitution/Code?

  87. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In other words – these things that you say are unfair are in direct response – a cost avoidance.

    I don't have any problem with that, unless the costs they pass on are greater than the costs avoided.

    It is a two way street and it is unfair, not ot mention stupid to paint the center line five feet from my side of the street, thinking that it somehow gives YOUR side the advantage.

    RH

  88. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray – when you prevent subdividing land for profit because it does not pay for the infrastructure – no one owes you money.

    they are preventing you from building something that will later on require other people to pay for the infrastructure while your profit was higher than it might have been had you had to pay for that infrastructure.

    If you want to be able to subdivide land – you have to address the infrastructure issue – or else the counties don't have to allow it.

    you can hold your position – and they can hold theirs.

    right?

    how would you change this?

  89. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " It is a two way street and it is unfair, not ot mention stupid to paint the center line five feet from my side of the street, thinking that it somehow gives YOUR side the advantage."

    this is a simple concept.

    other property owners do not want to pay for the infrastructure that will be needed if you subdivide your property.

    in Va – the way that they accomplish this without the ability to charge impact fees – is that they just won't approve subdivision of the land to start with – and then they don't have to worry about who will pay for the infrastructure.

    you and I agree that this is about property rights.

    you just refuse to acknowledge that other property owners should not have to pay for your infrastructure

    and it's THEIR CHOICE Ray – they do not have to agree with your rationale that they are getting a "good deal".

    they can disagree with you about whether or not it is a "good deal" for them.

    Over and over and over – across Virginia – virtually every time a development is proposed – it gets right down to impacts and how those impacts will be mitigated.

    With rezonings – the locality decides how the impacts will be mitigated – and if the developer does not agree then they both walk away and no approval is given.

    It's essentially the same thing with subdivision of land – except that Va law does not allow proffers nor impact fees in exchange for granting subdivision approval.

    so.. it's a standoff

    no infrastructure = no subdivision

    If you want to be able to subdivide land – you have to reach an agreement on how to handle the infrastructure.

    it's as simple as that.

    They're meeting in Richmond right now about this very issue.

    they are considering county-wide impact fees in exchange for counties designating growth areas.

    but who knows what they'll finally come up with…

    but one thing is for sure – the solution will likely not satisfy you – right?

  90. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you're once again focused on what happened …before.. which we found out was wrong and only led to infrastructure deficits"

    We never found out that it was wrong. But taking peoples property without payment is wrong.

    We never even proved that it is the only thing that led to infrastructure deficits, nor has there been any reason to try to attemtpt to allocate the real causes and costs fairly.

    ————————-

    Downzoning is taking one of the bundle of sticks tha consitute property. It is taking property and monetary value from people forcibly. It is the same as taking their property. The consitution says you cannot take property for public use without compensation, and avoiding infrastrucure deficits is a public use.

    Downzoning without payments while advocating for payments for upzoning is a logically, morally, and ethically bankrupt position to take.

    By the obvious intent of the Constitution it is clearly illegal, but like slavery and Jim Crow laws it may take some time for the legal system to come around to what is right and what is clearly wrong.

    The reason we don't have payments for downzoning is mob rule: it benefits the majority and they can get away with it.

    But there is NOTHING about it that is right or fair. It OUGHT to be illegal, and eventually it will be.

    Nice try though.

    RH

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you just refuse to acknowledge that other property owners should not have to pay for your infrastructure"

    youa re wrong and you refuse to listen.

    I agree they should not have to pay for costs I cause them but at the same time only so long as they recognize EQUALLY that I should not have to pay costs they cause me.

    I've got a couple of million dollars worth of costs on the books. Along with six downzonings.

    I'll be happy to start advocating for impact fees to protect others as soon as they advocate for rules to protect me.

    As far as I can see it is the same exact rule only applied fairly and uniformly: in both directions.

    RH

  92. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If you want to be able to subdivide land – you have to address the infrastructure issue – or else the counties don't have to allow it."

    I have no interest in subdividing. My interest is in seeing people treated fairly and honestly.

    What you are proposing is dishonest and unfair.

    I'm not ever going to be able to subdivide: that is a given. But I might be able to ensure that in the future no innocent citizens are ever treated they way my brother and wife and neighbors and churchmembers have been treated.

    I don't care how much power the county has or who is behind it – They are simply wrong as wrong as stealing and slavery are wrong.

    I don;t understand why you continue to try to avoid it. Stealing is wrong.

    Someone had something before and now they don't have it. They weren't paid for it. Someone else got something of value. They did not pay for it.

    If you made a puppet show out of that script, any five year old would tell you it is stealing.

    I'm sorry there are infrastructure deficits, that we had a bad plan in the past. Now lets go make a better plan.

    And let's leave stealing out of it.

    RH

    RH

  93. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Someone had something before and now they don't have it."

    join the club.

    I used to be able to drive without a seat belt or guzzle a couple of beers… on in my case subdivide 5 acres into two parcels.

    your 'rights' are not inviolate for all time.

    they are what govt decides they are.

    I used to be able to do stuff on my land that I no longer can do… I bet you too.

    but I also used to pay less taxes before we had a bunch of subdivisions built with no proffers that subsequently needed tax increases to pay for the infrastructure that was needed to serve them.

    so I supported stopping increases on my taxes to pay for this – and yes.. it resulted in denial to others to subdivide – but my own property was affected also – and myself and a majority of others felt like it was a worse option to not restrict subdivisions.

    We now have a rule that allows up to 100 subdivisions per year contingent on the BOS rescinding that rule if they think it is getting out of hand.

    It was not a unanimous vote, in fact a contentious 4-3 vote with the 3 arguing that everyone else would be paying the the infrastructure for those 100 lots.

    so.. by your view – "mob rule" allowed the 100 subdivisions and that same "mob rule" might take it away.

    I don't see land-use rules as 'stealing' and the law does not view it that way either.

    I see land-use rules as protecting all property owners from being potentially adversely impacting by the actions of other property owners.

    I don't see rules that prevent you from guzzling beers as 'stealing' you rights either.

    And if govt can take your land and at the same time tell you what it is worth – no matter what you think – they certainly can do lesser things.. like "taking" it by limiting subdivisions of it and deciding that they don't have to pay you since you did not pay them when it was upzoned either – right?

    and I don't have anything against profit as long as part of your profit is not money you got from me for your infrastructure.

    you have expenses to pay before you earn a profit – that's your responsibility not mine.

    If I think you are making a profit by nailing me with your costs – I'm going to stop you if I can.. right?

    you'd do the same I bet.

  94. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    join the club.

    I know, I don;t understan why you are not as angry as I am. I'm angry on your behalf.

    —————————

    your 'rights' are not inviolate for all time.

    Then you don't have any.

    But the constitution STILL says the government has to buy your property when it is for a public use.

    There is no reason for the govenment to take something from you unless there is a net benefit. If there is a net benefit thee is no reason for anyone to be a loser because of a government action ———unless stealing is involved.

    Give it up, Larry. There is no logical or rational way around it.

    ——————————-

    "they are what govt decides they are."

    You are stating a fact of what happens. Even government has no right to make a serf out of you.

    ——————————-

    "I used to be able to do stuff on my land that I no longer can do… I bet you too."

    Ye, and my land is worth less because of it. Why can I no longer do what I once might have? Because the government wanted something of value. Instead of paying me for it, they stole it.

    It is that simple. If it was worth having, if it was that valuable, If it was a true benefit to the community, then the community should have paid for it.

    The did not. They took someting without paying for it and therefore they are all thieves. I resent being made party by proxy to any such activity.

    ——————————–

    "I also used to pay less taxes before we had a bunch of subdivisions built with no proffers that subsequently needed tax increases to pay for the infrastructure that was needed to serve them."

    But that is not the only reason you rtaxes need to be higher. Today your high school chem lab has instruments that were not even invented when I was in school. You gona blame that on new subdivisions?

    I am not saying and have never said that subdivision above by-right should not have to pay – something – only that it is immoral, illogical and unfair to make them pay and refuse to pay for downzonings in turn.

    And also that proffers have gotten way out of hand: that those communities with the hihgest proffers have seen the greatest declines in home values is one element of proof.

    Show me the analysis of tax increase due to subdivisions and tax increase due to every thing else. I have never seen a suggested proffer analysis that considers such a division.

    Show me the analysis that describes how much property values increase, over and above the tax savings which are both created by proffers.

    Shoe me ANYTHING that indicates this is nything more than my friends comment of build it someplace else, self aggrandizement at the expense of the new guy, and a de facto conservation easment that is not paid for.

    ——————————-

    "I see land-use rules as protecting all property owners from being potentially adversely impacting by the actions of other property owners."

    How can you possibly say that when you are not willing to protect those impacted directly by the rules? Witnout protection THEY are the ones adversely impacted by others.

    What I'm advocating is a systemthat does do exactly what you say: protect ALL property owners – equally.

    There is nothing equla or fair about your statement as things now stand.

    —————————

    Yes government CAN do pretty much as it pleases, as long as we let it. You are kidding yourself if you think all property owners are "protected" by a government that steals.

    I try to do my part to prevent it, what about you?

    RH

  95. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I don't see land-use rules as 'stealing' and the law does not view it that way either."

    You are wrong.

    There are court decisons which have ordered restitution. Go read the full history of Lucas vs South Carolina.

    There would be a lot more of them except it is next to impossible to get to court: you must first exhaust every possible adminsitrative avenue of relief and practically speaing this can take decades and cost more than the property is worth.

    The facts of law are clear, but the working of it is a mess, thanks to those that don't mind using the system to steal.

    Regardless of what the law says, stealing is still wrong, as wrong as slavery was when the law still said that was legal.

    RH

  96. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    so.. by your view – "mob rule" allowed the 100 subdivisions and that same "mob rule" might take it away.

    Yes.

    Either the four were right or the three were right: whatever the facts are of who benfits too mcuch and who pays too much, the vote did not elucidate them.

    We can find out who is paying too much and who is paying too little if we try. We can use market based methods to find out.

    Now, at some point the cost of finding out is higher than the value of the inequity resolved. At that point reasonable people will stop arguing becasue the cost of the argument is more than the value of what the argument is over.

    But unreasonable people will continue to argue, stupidly, that the other guy has NO RIGHT to evenone penny of my tax. that is a position that exerts all rights to one party and no rights to the other.

    How can such a position protect all property owners from adverse effects of the others?

    That is what the goal is, not the outcome of some vote, especially one that does NOTHING to resolve the basic problem: government is not protecting people equally, and isn't even looking for a way to do so.

    RH

  97. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " How can such a position protect all property owners from adverse effects of the others?"

    the same way that we outlaw dangerous substances that may benefit some property owners but but at the same time – potentially endanger others.

    same concept.

    your rights – along with all other property owners are no inviolate and do depend on whether or not one property owners activities is affecting the others.

    and it does not matter if at one point in the past – it was not realized the level of harm being caused.

    you seem to think that if you used to have the right to do something that it is stealing to take it away from you.

    it's not stealing if it affects all property owners – and it has been determined that allowing it to continue means that some property owners will benefit at the expense of others

    … like subdividing your land – that then results in the need for infrastructure – that you did not pay for – and others will.

    .. they have the right through elective government to restrict those kinds of activities – to protect other/all property owners from having to pay higher taxes to pay for additional facilities needed as a consequence of subdividing land.

    there's never been a question in the courts about this particular aspect as far as I know – as the Constitution and the Code say that localities have the right and the duty to protect the health and welfare of all citizens by restricting the activities of others than would harm them.

    this will be comment 97 and per my practice 100 will be my limit.

  98. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the same way that we outlaw dangerous substances that may benefit some property owners but but at the same time – potentially endanger others.

    Oh come on. that analogy makles no sense whatever, and it doesn;t even hold water.

    You can't declare my prospective house a potentially dangerous substance and still keep your own.

    If (you claim without prooof) my prospective house endangers your house then it is OK to ban mine but not yours – and you call that equal protection?

    you are falling back on the mob rule argument.

    RH

  99. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the same way that we outlaw dangerous substances that may benefit some property owners but but at the same time – potentially endanger others.

    Oh come on. that analogy makles no sense whatever, and it doesn;t even hold water.

    You can't declare my prospective house a potentially dangerous substance and still keep your own.

    If (you claim without prooof) my prospective house endangers your house then it is OK to ban mine but not yours – and you call that equal protection?

    you are falling back on the mob rule argument.

    "How can such a position protect all property owners from adverse effects of the others?"

    The problem is that your position is not designed to protect people equally, it is designed to protects SOME at the expense of others.

    Say there are eleven homes and one of them has a benefit that the other ten want, so they take it. As a result their homes are increased in value by $10 k apiece and the loser is out $50k in value.

    The ten could get $5k in new benefits with out costing number eleven anything. That would be OK. The ten could get $4500 in benefit and then number eleven would not only not be out his $50k he would share the same benefit as the others. That would be better and more fair: the community buys his property and everyone still ahs a net benefit of $4500.

    Your scenario says they get $10k and number eleven gets nothing, and this is how you ropose to protect all owners equally.

    Sorry charlie, that is stealing no matter how you try to paint it.

    RH

  100. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you are banning BOTH – Ray.

    it has been determined than an action by any property owner can adversely affect the others so it's banned for all of them.

    that's the way they law works.

    and it takes effect at the same time for everyone – so that even though before that time it may have been legal and even though some property owners did it and others did not – the change applies to everyone.

    that's the way the law works.

    if you personally benefited from say – raising hogs without having to have a waste lagoon and it is determined that you must have one – then everyone must – and those folks who waited to raise hogs have to have one also.

    they cannot claim that you received preferential treatment because you were allowed to do it "before" the rules were changed.

    this is a fundamental aspect of land-use law.

    you cannot single out one property owner for special or adverse treatment.

    In some cases for some issues, the current landowner can be grandfathered but that is at the discretion of the govt.

    for instance, the hog lagoon may be grandfathered for a period of time before you have to conform unless you want to increase the number of hogs or raise wildebeest instead.

    but if the waste that is coming from your lagoon is materially and adversely affecting others – you can receive a stop action order and you must cease and desist.

    what this means.

    it means that someone else besides you decides – what activities, what thresholds, and what changes and as long as those things apply to all who raise hogs – on an equal basis – then it is legal.

    Now if they decided that your land did not have to conform and your neighbors land did – then he would have a good chance of overturning the rule.

    this is what is meant by "protecting the minority" Ray.

    It does not mean you cannot make changes – only that they must apply to everyone equally – at the time the change is made – without recourse as to what occurred prior to that.

  101. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    decherfthat then results in the need for infrastructure – that you did not pay for – and others will.

    First, you cannot prove the subdivision is what led to the need for all the tax increase. it is wrong to assess the subdivision for tax increase it did not cause. Unless you can separate the causes, your premise is wrong and therfore so is your argument.

    The premise is a popular one, largely propmoted by orgs such as AFT, but it is at least partly wrong.

    Second, that vacant land has been paying for infrastructure – infrastructure it didnt get, and maybe for decades. the contention that infrastructure is now suddenly gotten tht is not paid for is also wrong. There neeeds to be consideration of prepayment for decades on non infrastructure if you are suddenly going to demand accountability. You need to do the accounting fairly.

    Others are not the only ones paying for it, once the subdivisionis built the newcoers will be paying for their own infrastructure and also contributing to yours. thee is no consideration of what they contribute to you, only of what you (supposedly and not provably) contribut to them.

    —————————

    On the preveious argument: notice that even in the best circumsatnce where #11 is compensated for his property AND shares in the community benefit, he is still out a substantial amount. Had he been able to develop his $50,000 benefit it might have been worth much more than he was compensated. On the other hand, now he does not have to do the work, make the investment and take the risk. His (net) $4500 benefit is risk free and equal to the benefit the rest of the community got.

    But suppose the benefit to the other ten was only $3000 to begin with, not $10,000. Then there would be no net benefit. It would cost more to procure the benefit from the owner than it was worth, so you would not do it.

    BUT

    As long as you can steal his property and not have to pay for the benefit, the ten can come out $3000 ahead and too bad if #11 is out $50k.

    Unwillingness to pay, in other words, is eidence there is no net benefit to begin with.

    RH

  102. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We are not discussing raising hogs or pollution. We are talking about whether paying for downzoning is a logical corrollary of demanding payment for upzoning.

    RH

  103. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I consider that by changing the subject you are throwing in the towel on that argument.

    RH

  104. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I allow some hunting on my property and I have done so for decades. since then new owners have moved in around me and they object to my hunting because they have horses. (They don't mind riding on my property though).

    They have become more and more strident in their concerns, to the point of making threats and boundary claims.

    I could, but do not, sell the hunting permits on my property for a substantial sum. If I allow them to prevail I will have lost that potential income.

    The knew or should have known that hunting occurs in this area, not always legally and not only on my property. They could have bought a horse farm in Fairfax where dischaging firearms is illegal.

    What would you say their rights are concerning legal activities on my property?

    Suppose they manage to limit firearms dischares through the legal process, aren;t they just buying insurance for their horses at the expense of the value of my hunting permits?

    When they bought their property is there a clause in their deed that says they also control the neighboring properties?

    If that is the case, thene where is the clause in MY deed. I claim that if people own horses it damages the hunting. (I'm not a hunter, incidentally).

    RH

    RH

  105. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "and even though some property owners did it and others did not – the change applies to everyone.

    that's the way the law works."

    Yes, and that is how the people that did it use the law to steal from those that haven't yet.

    They get a benefit they don't pay for and everyone else not only pays for the benefit for others, they are shut out from sharing it themselves.

    It is using the law to steal and it needs to be fixed – universally. South Carolina had to pay Lucas over EXACTLY this issue, and yet the ruling has not spread to other courts.

    RH

  106. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    if you personally benefited from say – raising hogs without having to have a waste lagoon and it is determined that you must have one – then everyone must – and those folks who waited to raise hogs have to have one also.

    If you personally benefited from having a 10 foot setback and it is now determined that you must have a fifty foot setback, then everyone must, and those who waited to have one must also.

    Even you an see that this does not work the same as the hog example.

    Because of grandfathering, some people pay and some people benefit. The people who benefit also have a numerical majority so they can push to steal their benefit through mob rule.

    It is a different situation and it needs to be treated differently. A conservationist is the last guy who built his cabin in the woods.

    RH

  107. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    it means that someone else besides you decides – what activities, what thresholds, and what changes.

    I never said I should decide. I think the market should decide and the law should make it so. Then, if the ten want that benefit they can buy it at market rates. They get a fair price and the guy they buy it from gets a fair price.

    The problem is that they can get a better than fari price as long as the law allows and encourages them to steal.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More