Traffic, Humans and Culture

Tom Vanderbilt has written what looks to be a fascinating book, “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (And What It Says About Us),” that examines the human interaction with streets, roads and highways. Remember, transportation systems are more than sluices of bedrock, asphalt and steel. They are designed for use by human beings. And humans are often quite perverse.

According to a book review by Slate writer Michael Agger, Vanderbilt visited the city of Drachten, made famous by the “intersection heard around the world.” Dutch traffic engineer Hans Mondermann redesigned a congested four-way crossing in the city of Drachten by removing all of the traffic signs. Uncertain, drivers slowed down, cooperated with one another, and shared the road with pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic actually flowed more smoothly. Monderman’s animating principle was to put some of the “social world” into the “traffic world.”

(Bacon’s Rebellion blogged about the Drachten experiment here. My question is whether such spontaneous courtesy is the unique product of Dutch or Northern European culture, or whether the behavior that would replicate across cultures.)

Vanderbilt notes other fascinating instances of how human cultures intersect with traffic engineering. In the United States, people slow down their cars to rubberneck at accidents; when screens are placed in the way, people slow down to look at the screens. In the emerging car culture of China, apparently, there’s a problem created by motorists stopping to urinate in the middle of new highways.

Amazon.com links a one-pager on the “Traffic” book page: “Some Things About Traffic that May Surprise You.” Some of the “surprises” are indeed startling, but others would not surprise readers of Bacon’s Rebellion at all:

  • 80 percent of all traffic in a typical city runs on 10 percent of the roads. (As I’ve long maintained, we have more than enough lane-miles of road — it’s how we organize and connect them that’s the problem.)
  • One in five urban crashes is related to the search for parking.
  • It takes longer for people who circle looking for the “best” parking space to get to where they’re going than people who take the first place they see. (Someone please tell that to my wife!)
  • Anywhere between 10 percent and 70 percent of urban traffic consists of people just looking for parking.
  • Saturday at 1 p.m. has heavier traffic than weekday rush hour. (That’s because everyone’s out running errands… and looking for parking!)

(Hat tip: I owe someone a hat tip, but I lost track. My apologies.)


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “Traffic, Humans and Culture”

  1. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    J. Yardly, WaPo book reviewer, had a very complementary review recently.

    When we get to it, we will confrim but, based on three reviews we have seen, Vanderbilt appears to look at the thrid level of abstraction impacts of Autonomobility, not the problem with Large, Private Vehicle to provide Mobility and Access for urban citizens (aka THE PROBLEM WITH CARS).

    EMR

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    All that grief, expense, congestion, and pollution over parking, and yet some people think we need LESS parking to solve our traffic prolem.

    Good grief, get the people off the roads: give them a place to park.

    RH

  3. charlie Avatar

    Higher pricing for parking is more effective than congestion pricing for removing cars off the road. Whether car-removal is a good idea is another issue.

    I do find Jim Bacon’s idea that unregulated traffic circles as a function of dutch culture interesting. Part of the problem of talking about traffic is that we treat it as a moral issue. See cars vs. bikes, slow cars in the left lane, and street parking etiquette.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Higher pricing for parking is more effective than congestion pricing for removing cars off the road. Whether car-removal is a good idea is another issue.”

    So it is a question of whther you want them to not go there, or whether you want them to go there, get off the friggin road, and go do their business.

    RH

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If the answer is part one, you want to get them off the road, then high parking prices is more effective (and cheaper to implement, probably) than congestion pricing.

    If the answer is part two, you want them to do their business with the east congestion and pollution, then provide lots of parking, and make it cheap.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One in a hundred urban murders is probably over parking.

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Higher pricing for parking is more effective than congestion pricing for removing cars off the road. Whether car-removal is a good idea is another issue.”

    It would seem to me that if the Tysons advocates want to provide a level of confidence that they are serious about reducing traffic impacts – that they agree to a limited amount of parking – and that parking is expensive – perhaps even priced according to demand.

    then those who say they are concerned about traffic impacts will have one less reason to be opposed….

    I’m suggesting that the pro-Tysons folks DO have some obvious responses to some concerns and yet.. have chosen to not use them – so far.

    not using them – confirms the suspicions of those opposed….

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, for Tysons to work, aggressive Traffic Demand Management (TDM) principles must be adopted, implemented, monitored and enforced. Fairfax County has a terrible record doing this. It accepts TDM commitments and then just forgets them. Business as usual. Traffic gets worse.

    To their possible credit, the sponsors of mega-density have been pushing TDM, including the conversion of all work-related parking to expensive pay parking. Probably something similar for residential, at least beyond one parking space per dwelling unit. There has been some recognition that retail might need different treatment.

    However, when push comes to shove, what will happen? Would the county truly put the squeeze on free or low-cost parking when an owner of a big commercial building complains that tenants are moving to Reston or Falls Church to avoid paid parking (and higher general rents to boot)? Or when a builder claims that the condos won’t sell without at least two free/included parking spaced?

    The Fairfax County way has generally been to say yes to any request from a big landowner/developer/builder/property manager. But TDM doesn’t work with yeses. TDM requires lots of Nos.

    IMO, the big conflict for Tysons is between reality and BS. So far, we’ve seen truckloads of BS being brought in to justify huge increases in density. But for any density to work, the rules need to match the density (e.g., tough TDM). If the reality is that Tysons will remain largely suburban, except immediately around the rail stations, those rules (e.g., tough TDM) will hurt the owners of suburban properties.

    The same thing will happen with crime. Build an urban center, see urban crime patterns develop. “We wanted Disney World.”

    But the landowners/developers and the like only have themselves to blame. Instead of taking the existing Comp Plan and seeing how it could be improved incrementally, they manipulated the Task Force and brought in truck loads of BS. Now the whole thing just stinks.

    TMT

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if the Tysons advocates want to provide a level of confidence that they are serious about reducing traffic impacts – that they agree to a limited amount of parking “

    Isn’t the whole point of operating a business to generate traffic?

    Why would they ever agree to this?

    “It accepts TDM commitments and then just forgets them.”

    Short of putting up checkpoints, like DC did in Trinidad,how would you ever expect them to work, other than just pricing people out?

    Is pricing people out how you make a place less dysfunctional?

    Why would you want density and tough TDM? It is a recipe for failure. Lets build a place you can’t get to, if you do get there you can’t park, If you can park it’s expensive, and if you are already there all you can do is stare at each other, because you don’t dare leave the arking space.

    How many furniture stores can you support with a Metro stop?

    Get Real folks.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – You’ve figured it out exactly. Reality and BS are clashing.

    I sat next to a commercial real estate executive last February at a Tysons meeting. He expressed sincere concern that urbanizing Tysons, which means TDM, would wreck his company’s business. His building competes with others with lower rents and free parking.

    But with the densities being proposed for Tysons, TDM is essential or it’s literal gridlock 24/7. Tysons fails at 45 M sq ft during rain or any big shopping event. It can’t get much bigger without aggressive TDM. At least on paper, TDM is critical to adding density. Get rid of the car trips.

    As I’ve complained too many times. It would have been possible to take the existing plan for Tysons, make incremental improvements and affordable additions to public facilities. But that’s not what’s been done. There has been no planning whatsoever except to write high FARs on paper.

    Fairfax County is one scary place to live.

    TMT

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Isn’t the whole point of operating a business to generate traffic?”

    No.

    How do you think folks in NYC get furniture or groceries?

    How about downtown DC or Arlington or just name any high-density urbanized area.

    Do you think they don’t have furniture or grocery stores and that there are no businesses that sell furniture or groceries because they don’t have acres of parking for autos?

    I think the point with Tysons is – that if you want the increased FARs that you will not get them by replicating the existing way that Tysons has been developed.

    You want parking?

    Fine. Build parking garages and charge what it takes to build and operate them.

    Parking garages are fairly typical in most urban areas – right?

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Tysons' major problem is not the parking per se. I suspect that parking facilities could be built — at considerable cost — but built nonetheless.

    The problem is that the road network cannot handle much more traffic than Tysons generates today. HOT lanes on the Beltway will help some. Rail would help some. But more development means substantially more automobile traffic. Probably at levels that cannot be handled at any affordable price.

    Thus, the logic of a dense Tysons demands massive reductions in auto traffic. TDM on steroids. But as Ray has correctly noted, aggressive TDM could create substantial economic problems for many Tysons economic interests. It just doesn't work. Hence, my earlier comments about the clash between reality and BS.

    What should happen is for the BoS to thank the Task Force profusely, then disband it. The county staff, its consultants and GMU might be able to put together some modest improvements on the current plan.

    But the Grifters will freak — literally — if the Task Force is disbanded. No control & no mega-FARs. I suspect that big bucks on being spent on lobbyists as I type. What a mess!

    TMT

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “How do you think folks in NYC get furniture or groceries?”

    They live in suburbs as far away as Philadelphia and Darien, and Stoney Brook, thats how. most people who work in New York don’t live there and they have the longest commutes anywhere.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The problem is that the road network cannot handle much more traffic than Tysons generates today. HOT lanes on the Beltway will help some. Rail would help some. But more development means substantially more automobile traffic. Probably at levels that cannot be handled at any affordable price.”

    I think TMT has it correct. there is no functional (read economical) way to make this work as it is presently planned. To make it work youwould have to re-do much of that segment of Fairfax, and pieces of Fairfax and Loudoun much farther away.

    The thinking on this is way to small, and the only way to make it bigger is to see that people like TMT get a piece of the action. Give them something they can get behind.

    RH

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think what they can get behind – is growth and development that BENEFITS the community with LESS Traffic .. and a higher quality of life – a place where people want to live and has a sense of place as a community.

    That’s what any proposal should seek to accomplish – to find out what the concerns of the local residents are and to deal up-front with those issues in ways that gain their support.

    As long as the proposal is perceived by the locals as little more than monied interests manipulating political strings to show a proposal down their throats…the controversy won’t go away.

    They need to put a proposal on the table that IMPROVES the community not degrade it.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “growth and development that BENEFITS the community with LESS Traffic “

    Nice trick, if you can actually do it. It sounds like an oxymoron, to me, but that’s just my opinion.

    To me, it seems and appears that growth and development necessarily means more traffic, and thinking there is a way around it is (mostly) wishful thinking.

    Show me two similar size cities, where the one with greater cash flow has less traffic.

    I’m not saying it isn’t possible to have some efficiencies, but the general trend line is up, whether you have an efficient layout or not, more development will mean more traffic.

    ———————–

    When the locals perceive there is something in it for them, then they will get behind the plan. Doesn’t matter how good the plan is, they have no incentive NOT to be opposed, and they can flex their opposition almost for free.

    Example (in reverse):

    In the Fauquier Democrat this week Hope Porter outlined the five times Fauquier has been downzoned. (She left out one, it is actually six, and about to be seven.) She stated that 80-85% of the population supported these initiatives to “save Fauquiers farmland”.

    Well, why wouldn’t they? Only around 5% of the population actually owns the “farmland”, so it costs the other 85% nothing to get what they want.

    And they have, six times over.

    Whether you are a developer or an antideveloper, there is no incentive to figure out the costs or benefits to anyone other than yourself.

    That is why it is the government’s job to assess what is in the best net social interest, instead of cinsidering each proposal in a vacuum. And since it is a primary job of government to protect people’s property, even a task that is a net social benefit may require compensation to the perceived losers.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “Nice trick, if you can actually do it. It sounds like an oxymoron, to me, but that’s just my opinion.”

    no..it’s the opinion of the folks who are in the position of objecting to a proposal.

    Some proposals are accepted as beneficial.. especially re-development proposals that replace something with something better.

    “To me, it seems and appears that growth and development necessarily means more traffic, and thinking there is a way around it is (mostly) wishful thinking.

    Show me two similar size cities, where the one with greater cash flow has less traffic.”

    more bull feathers and blather –

    show me a city that has more kumquats and I’ll show you a city that has less rats.

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    I still don’t se how you increase growth and develpment with out increasing traffic while holding everything else equal.

    If you have a place with TDM in place and you try to increase growth and development, how can that work? You woul necessarily need more traffic, so you would either have to releive the TDM standards or use more space.

    As soon as there is no better argument than to claim blather, then I know I must be getting close to home.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Ray – How can Virginia exist on two separate planets. Fauquier County downzones or is it downplans? While Fairfax County claims it is powerless not to upzone or is it uplan. (EMR, where are you when you are truly needed? Please clarify the differences between down or up zoning and down or up planning. Thanks.)

    What is in the replanning of Tysons Corner for Fairfax County residents — worse traffic, more crowded parks, schools, and higher real estate taxes to try to play catch-up on infrastructure.

    If Tysons is the economic engine for Fairfax County, why (except for this year) have residential real estate taxes increased at rates that greatly exceed inflation & population growth — or if your prefer, increases in personal income for the last 7 or 8 years?

    If Tysons Corner development is critical to the fiscal well-being of Virginia, why doesn't Tim Kaine offer to have the state pay all of the public facilities-related costs not picked up by developers?

    Fortunately, the county staff and a couple of Planning Commissioners and Supervisors are starting to see the light.

    TMT

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    Downzoning means reducing the number of development rights nominally associated with a property.

    Yes, you read it right. Fauquier has downzoned (reduced the potential total number of houses that may be built there) six separate times, soon to be seven.

    Even though many landowners might never use those rights for decades, the idea is to get those rights out of there. You could still build by asking for a re-zoning, but the rules to fill out that application will cost a minimum of 100 grand today.

    For a farm owner who wishes to build one house, it means there is no economic chance of it happening, and considering the population on the various boards, there is virtually no chance.

    For some landowners, the (potential) losses could easily amount to tens of millions of dollars. For example, You could easily build three fabulous homes on fifty acre lots, priced similarly to other homes in the area at over several million, each.

    Except, you would be prohibited because the county believes that growth costs them money. Or at least that is the sales pitch. The real reason is they want more conservation land, that they don’t have to pay for.

    WE are on two separate planets. The fauquier powers that be are mainly refugees from Fairfax, determined not to let it happen again.

    ———————

    The requirements for tax funds have little to do with population or inflation. More precisely population and inflation are only part of the equation.

    If I put up more fence, I have to allocate more time and money to maintain the fence, and that cost goes UP over time. It has nothing to do with inflation or population, but it has a lot to do with entropy.

    The more stuff I build, the more stuff I have to take care of, and that limits the resources I have to build with, even if the building makes me “richer”, it hurts rather than helps my cash flow.

    Since My cash flow gets worse every time I get richer, then I should put a moratorium on building. No fence building allowed until it can pay its own full life cycle costs. Don’t build a fence until I have enough endowment for the fence to be self funding for maintenance and replacement.

    I might have to wait a long time for that fence, like forever. So, if I make that rule it pretty much rules out any new fence forever.

    Course, if I had that much money, I wouldn’t need the fence to begin with.

    —————————

    “why doesn’t Tim Kaine offer to have the state pay all of the public facilities-related costs not picked up by developers?”

    What, you mean have those that benefit help pay the costs of those that suffer? First you would have to be able to show unequivocally what the location variable costs are.

    Based on what you said, it appears that Jim Kaine has “deemed” Tysons to be the economic engine of Virginia.

    ———————–

    “What is in the replanning of Tysons Corner for Fairfax County residents — worse traffic, more crowded parks, schools, and higher real estate taxes to try to play catch-up on infrastructure.”

    That is the exact same campaign that Hope Porter was selling in her recent letter. And it was the same argument I saw recently on Marthas Vineyard. (“If we allow zoning to stay as it is now we could have 33% more houses than we have now!”)

    As far as I can tell it is a one size fits all argument because it is being made in jurisdictions across the U.S.

    Everyone wants the economy to grow, but no one wants THEIR neighborhood to grow.

    We want renewable power to hapen magically, too.

    If you don’t like Fairfax, come on out to Fauquier, where we don;t allow building. Course, you might have to live in a cave.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Ray, we need to collaborate on a book — Virginia – Uranus & Virginia – Neptune. Different versions of the Virginia Code are effective on different planets.

    Tim Kaine has, indeed, called Tysons the economic engine of Virginia. I heard him do so at a reception in Reston this June. Whether it is or not, I'm not sure. More and more jobs are going west from Reston to Herndon to Loudoun County. They want to be closer to workers, avoid the higher rents at Tysons and the construction of Dulles Rail and HOT lanes. Having said that, Tysons has not, and is not likely to, dry up. That's what makes the farcical behavior of the Tysons Task Force even more disappointing. It could have actually tried to improve on the existing Comp Plan — but didn't.

    TMT

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: development without traffic

    it happens… by your arguments RH, places like NYC cannot exist because their traffic is less than what is proposed for Tysons….

    by your argument .. people cannot live in NYC because they have no way to buy furniture or have it placed in their apartments…

    re: property “rights”.

    I’d sign off on this – one owner-occupied dwelling per parcel as a basic “right” of the property owner.

    development “rights” are not the same as property rights.

    You “right” to develop a property for profit and for uses beyond your own enjoyment – involves the need for infrastructure – which you do not own as part of your property… and which …costs money..

    if you want gasoline for your car – you have to buy the gasoline and you must have a car that you paid for that has a tank and the plumbing to move that gasoline to the engine.

    if you have a home – it will need water (that you do not own), the pipes to move the water to your home (which you do not own)… a sewage treatment plant (that you do not own) .. and piping to take your sewage and move it (which you do not own).

    If you own a parcel of land – in an area where there is no water/sewer infrastructure – what is your “right”?

    If you own a parcel of land in an area where water/sewer capacity was planned at 4 units per acre and you want to developed 20 units per acre – where will the additional infrastructure come from?

    Now.. take that scenario and multiply by ALL the property owners in a region.. and tell me how you would supply ALL of them with the maximum amount of infrastructure that they might want with respect to their “right” to develop their land – at whatever density – they want.

    This is the Tysons issue.

    Those guys want a higher density than the existing infrastructure can support – and their “solution” is essentially to say that the only way to “properly” develop Tysons is for the existing Levels of Service to either be paid for by other taxpayers and/or to degrade from the existing….

    In other words … the “property rights” of the folks who want higher density than the density of the existing land owners “rights” is deemed ..justified.. because ..in theory.. they’ll be contributing MORE taxes than the existing property owners contribute.

    the fact that those higher taxes will not be available to other taxpayers – but instead will be required to be used to be spent on the infrastructure needs of the upzoned higher density area – means that the existing property owners get .. nothing.. except a lowered quality of life from the existing infrastructure being overwhelmed by the higher density.

    The proper way to look at this is to be comparing one set of property owners “rights” verses another set of property owner “rights” – because..why would you offer upzoning to one group and not the other in the first place and if you do that.. then both would have to be offered the same infrastructure deal also….

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    “by your argument .. people cannot live in NYC because they have no way to buy furniture or have it placed in their apartments…”

    My argument is that the vast bulk of peoeple who operate NYC live outside the city, and they have long commutes: the longest in the nation. Despite having a huge transit system, the NY system carries only ten % of the total trips made.

    Yes, some people apparently shop for their furniture by catalog and have it shipped, but it doesn;t come to their house via subway.

    ————————–

    development “rights” are not the same as property rights.

    I maintain that they are, and you are simply wrong. Property rights include more than simple real estate related rights. It is anything to do with property.

    The county has a zoning plan in place that indicates that if you buy a certain plot of land, you will fit the zoning criteria which will allow you to build three houses. You invest your money based on the written “promise” made by the county, and then the county yanks the rug out from under you, wrecks your plans and your investment, by simply changeing their written “promise” on a whim, and without grandfathering.

    I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong, my mother taught me that much. It wouldn’t stand up in any commercial court under contract law, and no two genttlemen would stand for it if it was so much as a handshake. it is only because you can’t sue the government or punch them in the mouth that they get away with it.

    Virtually every week you can see stories about chinese people being forced from their homes, and what a humans rights issue that is. I don’d distiguish between taking all of my property and some of it, as the law on takings does. I know that is the law, and aIalso know it is wrong.

    The only reason that these are not “real” property rights is that they are written in the zoning papers instead of on the deed papers. I suggest that one county paper is just as good as another, or it ought to be.

    The governments primary responsibility is to protect peoples property. If you bought a lot with tree allotments, and someone tried to take two of them without payment, you would expect the government to protect you. Just because it is the government that is the thug in a downzoning, does not make it right.

    If the government expects to be paid proffers for upzoning, then they should expect to pay for downzoning. With PDR’s that is exactly what they do, and they should treat everyone they downzone the same way.

    ————————–
    I’d sign off on this – one owner-occupied dwelling per parcel as a basic “right” of the property owner.

    What if you had a parcel that alredy had three dwellings on it, and had been used that way for decades? Would you say it was OK to change the rules without recompense, and cause the owner to not use the other two dwellings?

    Just because you can’t see the development rights, in the same way you can see the dwellings, doesn’t tmake them any less real. Just because you can’t “see” the owner using his development rights as you can see him using the dwellings, doesn’t mean they are not real. His “use” of the development rights may be simply to save them. would you go down to the bank and take his other savings, just because it is a “public benefit” to do so?

    Sorry, you will never, ever, convince me on this one. It is simply wrong. It is stealing, and it is wrong. It is government stealing, so it is three times as wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    ——————-

    “You “right” to develop a property for profit and for uses beyond your own enjoyment – involves the need for infrastructure – which you do not own as part of your property… and which …costs money.. “

    And undeveloped property pays taxes for infrastructure it never needs or uses. Sometimes for decades or centuries. How much credit should an undeveloped property get for paying for infrastructure this way, in advance?

    The neighbors ability to prevent me from developing (when it was previously allowed) involves usurping development rights that they do not own. If they want those development rights, they can pay for them, just as they do with PDR’s. The ability to prevent development costs money too: and it is not the money of those that prevent the development. Whereas, if a development needs more infrastructure we can easily look up in the records how much money that vacant lot has contributed over the years.

    If I buy gasoline and put it in my car, I do not expect the county to come and take two thirds of it, for the “public benefit”.

    —————————–

    “folks who want higher density than the density of the existing land owners “

    I’ll agree, that is a different case. What I’m talking about is someone who just wants the same density as his neighbors. I’m talking about someone who might even want less density than his neighbors, because that is all he is allowed, haveing purchased the property after a previous downzoning. Then HE gets downzoned four more times.

    Sorry, that is wrong.

    You don’t get to take even one of his bundle of sticks, and you don’t get to complain if he uses his development stick – because you have already used yours.

    What you are claiming is that having already used their development stick, by virtue of being there first, they now get to create a brand new stick for themselves (one that never existed before) that says “no new neighbors”.

    Sorry, it is still wrong. It is ethically bent, and it is dishonest.

    ———————-

    Upzoning and downzoning should have the same costs, but in opposite direction. Fair is fair.

    I’m not talking about an upzoning or a rezoning. I’m talking about being downzoned six separte times.
    Sorry, it is still wrong six separate times. Don’t try to confuse the issue here, by dragging is upzoning requests. Wrong is still wrong.

    The Tysons issue is a different (but related) issue. To solve the really big problems like Tyson’s, it helps to be able to see the little issues clearly.

    I feel for TMT and his higher taxes. I pay higher taxes in Fairfax, too. But the guy who gets dwonzoned is also paying higher taxes. TMT (MAY) enjoy higher property values as a result of Tysons development. He might still not like the development because of his immediate problems: higher taxes and lower QOL.

    But if he does enjoy higher property values, then it is dishonest to ONLY harp on the negative. The government has an OBLIGATION to look at the total effect: the net public penefit as the GAO says.

    I think TMT is right, and theneto public benefit is not htere for the Tysons plan. The landowners are not seeking to use their existng rights: they want new ones, and they shoud expect to pay for them.

    But it is wrong to (arbitrarily) set the payments so high that no one can afford them. It is just as wrong to set or claim the environmental tolerance (artificially) so low that nothing is allowed.

    If the market for one or the other of those rights is full, then we need to open the market for business. TMT and others can get paid for accepting higher taxes, and those that feel differently can sell their rights for enough moeny to make up for their angst. Of course there might be other peopl ein the market willing to sell for alot less……

    In whihc case we would know that TMT and others like him were asking too much.

    ————————–
    in theory.. they’ll be contributing MORE taxes than the existing property owners contribute.

    We need to get away from theory and find out the right answer in the real world: hard but not impossible. First you have to be willing to try, you have to put your political feelings aside: You buy from your enemy if they have the best price.

    ————————–

    “those higher taxes will not be available to other taxpayers “

    keeristcircularlogic.

    Their taxes are not supposed to be “availabe to their neighbors” they are supposed to be paying for their own needs.

    You assume the existing property owners get nothing, which might no be true. Bu this also suggests that for enough money they wouldn’t care: they woould be willing to “sell their rights” if only we had written down (on the deed, or in the zoning. Either way works on paper.) what they were in the first place.

    It all comes down to property rights, and prices.

    The proper way to look at this is the way your mother taught: right tis right, fair is fair, and wrong is wrong.

    RH

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “My argument is that the vast bulk of peoeple who operate NYC live outside the city,”

    here are the 5 biggest cities in the US along with their population – that live IN THE CITY:

    city pop density

    New York City 8274527 26403.8
    Los Angeles 3834340 7876.4
    Chicago 2836658 12752.2
    Houston 2208180 3371.8
    Phoenix 1552259 2781.7

    “Yes, some people apparently shop for their furniture by catalog and have it shipped, but it doesn;t come to their house via subway.”

    RH – they have furniture stores and delivery trucks ….you go to the furniture store.. select your furniture and it is delivered just like it is in suburbia.

    ————————–

    re: “development “rights” are not the same as property rights.

    I maintain that they are, and you are simply wrong. Property rights include more than simple real estate related rights. It is anything to do with property.”

    what you can do with your property is determined by what the impacts are to the other property owners that are affected by your activities – though.

    you want to raise pythons on your property or burn tires?

    re: “The county has a zoning plan in place that indicates that if you buy a certain plot of land, you will fit the zoning criteria which will allow you to build three houses. You invest your money based on the written “promise” made by the county, and then the county yanks the rug out from under you, wrecks your plans and your investment, by simply changeing their written “promise” on a whim, and without grandfathering.”

    RH – you invest your money in a company that makes a product that is then declared unsafe – like asbestos.

    are you guaranteed/grandfathered?

    “I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong, my mother taught me that much. It wouldn’t stand up in any commercial court under contract law, and no two genttlemen would stand for it if it was so much as a handshake. it is only because you can’t sue the government or punch them in the mouth that they get away with it.”

    I’ll give an inch here… in terms of is it morally “right”…verses is it legal. It apparently is legal.

    “Virtually every week you can see stories about chinese people being forced from their homes, and what a humans rights issue that is. I don’d distiguish between taking all of my property and some of it, as the law on takings does. I know that is the law, and aIalso know it is wrong.”

    surely you would not compare “property rights” in places like China verses here though…

    “The only reason that these are not “real” property rights is that they are written in the zoning papers instead of on the deed papers. I suggest that one county paper is just as good as another, or it ought to be.”

    why isn’t it written in the deed?

    “The governments primary responsibility is to protect peoples property.”

    ALL people’s property – especially those whose property would be adversely affected by the activities of other property owners.

    “If you bought a lot with tree allotments, and someone tried to take two of them without payment, you would expect the government to protect you. Just because it is the government that is the thug in a downzoning, does not make it right.”

    actually.. speaking of property rights and allotments – my grandad had an allotment for tobacco.

    One day the government showed up and said that a recent air photo showed that he had planted 10 more rows than he had an allotment for – and made him cut those rows as they watched.

    do you think he had the right to keep his rows?

    “If the government expects to be paid proffers for upzoning, then they should expect to pay for downzoning. With PDR’s that is exactly what they do, and they should treat everyone they downzone the same way.”

    you’ve got it confused again – as usual.

    the government – which is other property owners says… if you want to build something that requires more infrastructure – we’ll approve it if you help pay for the infrastructure (and we’ll pay for some of it also).

    Otherwise.. no deal…

    ————————–
    re: “I’d sign off on this – one owner-occupied dwelling per parcel as a basic “right” of the property owner.

    What if you had a parcel that alredy had three dwellings on it, and had been used that way for decades? Would you say it was OK to change the rules without recompense, and cause the owner to not use the other two dwellings?”

    What I support is the right for property owners to “use” their property..for their own use – for a place to live but if they want to develop the property as an investment – and in developing it.. it will require additional infrastructure to serve it – then it becomes an issue of who is responsible for building and paying for the required infrastructure.

    re: “just because you can’t see the development rights, in the same way you can see the dwellings, doesn’t tmake them any less real. Just because you can’t “see” the owner using his development rights as you can see him using the dwellings, doesn’t mean they are not real. His “use” of the development rights may be simply to save them. would you go down to the bank and take his other savings, just because it is a “public benefit” to do so?”

    no what you are talking about.. is potential…. not the money in the bank.. but the potential for that money to increased with interest.

    like your 401K… it has the potential to increase .. but you are not guaranteed that it will.. and if you pick the wrong stocks and/or you have bad luck.. or the economy goes belly up.. you may not realize the potential you were expecting.

    That’s why investments are risky.

    re: “Sorry, you will never, ever, convince me on this one. It is simply wrong. It is stealing, and it is wrong. It is government stealing, so it is three times as wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.”

    If you had a 10000 acres and you and your fellow property owners never left that property….i.e. you provided everything for yourselves… like one of them big 10,000 acre ranges in Montana… you could build as many homes as you wanted… because you’d have to figure out how to provide them with water/sewer… internal roads… and pay the electric company to put more poles in the ground… etc….

    when you develop smaller plots of land .. that require more and more publically-provided infrastructure, who owes who – changes.

    ——————-

    re: “You “right” to develop a property for profit and for uses beyond your own enjoyment – involves the need for infrastructure – which you do not own as part of your property… and which …costs money.. “

    And undeveloped property pays taxes for infrastructure it never needs or uses.”

    confusion again.

    what you pay for is services.

    you pay to have the sheriff show up if you need him. You pay for the county to provide teachers for existing schools.. libraries, etc.

    if 10 people go live on that undeveloped property – you’re going to need a bigger police stations, more schools, more libraries.. etc.. IN addition to the folks that taxes pay to people who work out of those buildings.

    PROFFERS are NOT for Operational expenses.

    They are for NEW INFRASTRUCTURE that will be needed to house new staff…to provide services.

    your taxes pay for the staff to provide the services – for the most part.. only a small amount goes for capital facilities..usually on the order of 10% or less…

    re: ” Sometimes for decades or centuries. How much credit should an undeveloped property get for paying for infrastructure this way, in advance?”

    you’re mostly paying salaries…

    “The neighbors ability to prevent me from developing (when it was previously allowed) involves usurping development rights that they do not own. If they want those development rights, they c
    an pay for them, just as they do with PDR’s. The ability to prevent development costs money too: and it is not the money of those that prevent the development. Whereas, if a development needs more infrastructure we can easily look up in the records how much money that vacant lot has contributed over the years.”

    I think restricting development is not the right way so I agree but the problem is that new development invariably leads to a degradation of existing levels of services – the way that we currently develop.

    The only places that don’t have serious degradation – require proffers.

    Some places.. feel that even with the proffers – that they’ll still end up either with degraded LOS or higher taxes to keep the LOS from being degraded – and so they pick development restrictions.

    It’s not right.. I agree.. but it’s understandable.

    Until we come up with an acceptable way to grow …without having to suffer degradation of levels of service.. the restrictions will continue – as long as we have elected supervisors.

    They cannot approve growth – and raise taxes …and still stay in office.

    re: “If I buy gasoline and put it in my car, I do not expect the county to come and take two thirds of it, for the “public benefit”. “

    perhaps.. but they’ve got to “take” something to pay for the roads that you’ll need because without the roads.. your car won’t be very useful.. gasoline or not.

    —————————–

    re: “folks who want higher density than the density of the existing land owners “

    I’ll agree, that is a different case. What I’m talking about is someone who just wants the same density as his neighbors. I’m talking about someone who might even want less density than his neighbors, because that is all he is allowed, haveing purchased the property after a previous downzoning. Then HE gets downzoned four more times.

    Sorry, that is wrong.”

    it’s not right.. but it’s apparently legal.

    re: “You don’t get to take even one of his bundle of sticks, and you don’t get to complain if he uses his development stick – because you have already used yours.

    What you are claiming is that having already used their development stick, by virtue of being there first, they now get to create a brand new stick for themselves (one that never existed before) that says “no new neighbors”. “

    I think …whoever the existing landowners are – no matter where they are in the continuum – have a right to decide how their existing community will grow…

    and they have a right to decide if they want to pay increased taxes to improve the existing infrastructure for the exiting residents (perhaps to catch up from prior development that did not pay it’s fair share)

    .. .that they have a right to pay higher taxes to improve the infrastructure – as opposed to being forced to pay higher taxes to prevent degradation from new development…

    .. there has to be a bargain between the existing residents and new development as to how much each will pay.. to support the new development…

    and the existing residents have a “veto” if they think that the price of new development is too high.. either too high in increased taxes or too high in degradation of LOS.

    re: “Sorry, it is still wrong. It is ethically bent, and it is dishonest.”

    I don’t think it is dishonest at all. It a contest of who will pay and people simply will not be forced to pay for something they don’t agree with.

    that’s not dishonest… at all.. IMHO.

    ———————-

    “Upzoning and downzoning should have the same costs, but in opposite direction. Fair is fair.”

    ideally.. when you upzone – you owe higher taxes… but it doesn’t always work this way.

    ideally.. the higher taxes would be due .. if you developed the property to the new upzone limits..

    If you never developed it..you’d not owe the higher taxes… and if they downzoned it..you’d not be out of anything either.

    re: “I’m not talking about an upzoning or a rezoning. I’m talking about being downzoned six separte times.
    Sorry, it is still wrong six separate times. Don’t try to confuse the issue here, by dragging is upzoning requests. Wrong is still wrong.”

    I’d not disagree.

    The Tysons issue is a different (but related) issue. To solve the really big problems like Tyson’s, it helps to be able to see the little issues clearly.

    I feel for TMT and his higher taxes. I pay higher taxes in Fairfax, too. But the guy who gets dwonzoned is also paying higher taxes. TMT (MAY) enjoy higher property values as a result of Tysons development. He might still not like the development because of his immediate problems: higher taxes and lower QOL.

    But if he does enjoy higher property values, then it is dishonest to ONLY harp on the negative. The government has an OBLIGATION to look at the total effect: the net public penefit as the GAO says.

    I think TMT is right, and theneto public benefit is not htere for the Tysons plan. The landowners are not seeking to use their existng rights: they want new ones, and they shoud expect to pay for them.

    But it is wrong to (arbitrarily) set the payments so high that no one can afford them. It is just as wrong to set or claim the environmental tolerance (artificially) so low that nothing is allowed.

    If the market for one or the other of those rights is full, then we need to open the market for business. TMT and others can get paid for accepting higher taxes, and those that feel differently can sell their rights for enough moeny to make up for their angst. Of course there might be other peopl ein the market willing to sell for alot less……

    In whihc case we would know that TMT and others like him were asking too much.

    ————————–
    in theory.. they’ll be contributing MORE taxes than the existing property owners contribute.

    We need to get away from theory and find out the right answer in the real world: hard but not impossible. First you have to be willing to try, you have to put your political feelings aside: You buy from your enemy if they have the best price.

    ————————–

    “those higher taxes will not be available to other taxpayers “

    keeristcircularlogic.

    Their taxes are not supposed to be “availabe to their neighbors” they are supposed to be paying for their own needs.

    You assume the existing property owners get nothing, which might no be true. Bu this also suggests that for enough money they wouldn’t care: they woould be willing to “sell their rights” if only we had written down (on the deed, or in the zoning. Either way works on paper.) what they were in the first place.

    It all comes down to property rights, and prices.

    The proper way to look at this is the way your mother taught: right tis right, fair is fair, and wrong is wrong.

    I think TMT and the Tysons issue is very relevant to this discussion.. because you’re talking about UPZONING .. property to a denser by-right…

    so .. should you give that increased value ..gratis…or should it be tied to the necessary infrastructure to serve it.. and the folks who benefit from the upzoning being responsible financially for the infrastructure.

    The way this plays out… often.. is that they do the UPZONE but each property owner has to apply for a rezone.

    Let me explain.

    You can UPZONE an area but you can remove virtually all the “by-right” uses at the time you upzone it.. and then require a special use permit for virtually any higher intensity use.

    Then it becomes a proffer negotiation about how much additional infrastructure will be need to serve the higher intensity uses.. and who’s financial responsibility it is.

    I think Tysons .. effectively captures the “development rights” issue.

  25. Anonymous Avatar


    You can UPZONE an area but you can remove virtually all the “by-right” uses at the time you upzone it.. “

    Sure, and all you have to do is downzone it first, then wait twenty years and everyone will forget what you stole from them first and now want to sell back.

    If you remove exisiting by rights without compensation it is stealing.

    Sorry, I’m so hard over, but I have seen too many individuals financially ruined this way.

    For the good of others, naturally.

    Otherwise, I see your point. You can allow more density and set requirements for using it. That is fine, as long as you don’t take anything previous away. It also presumes that you don’t artificially set the requirements so high that they cannot realistically ever be met.

    I don’t have a problem with that scenario, but that isn’t what happened in Fauquier – six times – and soon to be seven.

    And it isn’t what I’ve seen happen in Massachusettts, South Carolina, and Tennesee either.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    Ray – I believe that, subject to the right of a county or city to amend the comprehensive plan to reduce density as permitted by the Virginia Code, I believe that one property right is the ability to develop one’s property to what is permitted by the zoning ordinance. If I own five acres and the zoning is R-1, I can build as many as five houses on my property, subject to all other lawful requirements.

    I don’t think that I would have the right — the property right — to insist that the zoning be changed to R-8 so that I can build as many as 40 houses on my five acres. That type of change affects many other issues and people and is not a property right — Judge Dillon or no Judge Dillon. I also believe that it would not be unreasonable for the local government to exact some substantial contribution from me to fund the added infrastructure that would be needed to support the additional 35 residences that I’m building.

    Let’s turn to Tysons. I believe the landowners can build to the existing comp plan, consistent with the zoning ordinance. But that would probably not deliver many FARs of more than 1.5 to 2.0 at the outside. And the landowners don’t want to do that — if they did, they would since it’s permitted by today’s zoning.

    Tysons sits at about 45 M sq.ft today. With the addition of well more than $500 million in road and interchange improvements, I believe that the owners could build to about 60 M sq ft. With how many hundreds of millions more for four rail stations, they could build to about 78 M sq ft.

    I don’t believe that their property rights extend beyond what is permitted today. Even to grow to 60 or 78 M sq ft, there are huge price tags that need to be paid. Between the Tysons landowners and everyone else in Fairfax County, I think that the former need to shoulder the bulk of the public infrastructure costs to get to those density figures. But they are paying no more than $450 M or so from a cost of multiple billions. I don’t see how anyone could argue that their rights in dirt extend to the point where they have a right to make others pay billions in higher taxes and fees so that the landowners can profit from higher zoning. Yet, that’s exactly what they are trying to do.

    The idea that they have the right to go to as high as 220 M sq ft when the Task Force has not even studied the impact of such density on public facilities, much less calculated the cost for building needed infrastructure is frankly obscene. This rises to the level of tyranny — the type that provoked the Descendants and whole lot more people to revolt against King George.

    TMT

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: f you remove exisiting by rights without compensation it is stealing.”

    I think what Ray is talking about is land that in the past was up zoned…then later on down zoned.

    he sees that as a previous granting of additional property rights then a later “taking” of those rights.

    I tend to agree with him but I think that localities think that when they did this – they made a mistake and that ..the law permits them to “undo” this mistake.

    The “mistake” is two-fold mistake.

    First… up zones were done that did substantially increase property rights – for “free”.

    we agree…that once up zoned – that going from say 2 units allowed per acre to 5 – substantially increases the value of the property.

    But those folks got this increased value for “free” ..thus the localities see it differently..when they down zone… i.e. along the lines of nothing ventured – nothing gained.

    so..that whole concept of upzoning but carrying forward… all “by right” uses from the lower zoning is now viewed as a mistake.

    Now days.. many localities – if they change land-use designations in their Comp Plan and then align their zoning districts accordingly – all or most of the default “by-right” uses are removed when they up zone.

    This effectively means that the property owners that want to then development their properties – have no built-in by-right uses so they have to make a proposal for those uses – which then kicks off a negotiation process for infrastructure and proffers.

    To give an example.

    A locality will up zone.. to allow a maximum of twice as many units as previously allowed but no “by-right” structures are allowed without a Special Use Permit.

    This permit is not granted until a negotiation occurs with respect to the proposed use.

    I said proffers were involved but also ..the type and extent of the use is also at question.

    for instance, a proposal for a doctors’s office might center on traffic impacts..and how much it would cost to mitigate impacts for different kinds of entrances…configurations.. etc..

    and it could be.. that for some types of intensive uses in some specific places… that the intensity is not a good “fit” without a whole heck of lot more infrastructure that the applicant simply can not provide and still have an economically-viable project.

    So.. he may need to find another use – that is a better “fit”.

    this is the problem ..when you do an up zone that includes all previous by-right uses – no matter what intensity the use might be.

    take this back to Tysons… which essentially is an advocacy for an up zone… for much higher intensity use…

    what some of those guys want is an unrestricted up zone.. with someone else responsible for the level of service.. infrastructure impacts that will arise from the higher intensity uses.

    I’d like to call it smoke and mirrors … a purposeful muddying of the issues ..,in hopes that not too many citizens will recognize the severity of the impacts… then by the time they find out – it’s a done deal.

    So… while I agree with RH on the upzone/downzone issue… in terms of what is right or wrong morally… it is the responsibility of government (which is just taxpayers electing leaders) to protect their interests … and those interests are two things:

    1. – existing levels of service/quality of life

    2. – taxes to pay for infrastructure upgrades to deal with higher intensity uses.

  28. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    so… you need to do the traffic study – honestly and accurately.

    then the discussion needs to be about how much more infrastructure would be needed (and it’s cost) to adequately mitigate it…

    OR… a discussion of what kind and scope of TDMs to mitigate … in concert with increased infrastructure.

    The goal is to NOT go forward without a plan that does what it says it will do.

    The folks who want the higher density – have a responsibility to do this – for two important reasons.

    1. – so that the project does not overwhelm the existing infrastructure … that actually ends up harming it.. because too much congestion cuts down on the anticipated market traffic

    2. – so that the folks that are “watching” .. can decide for other projects… proposed ….whether or not they trust the process and outcome.

    If this project fails at 1. or 2. or both -future proposed projects will face… fierce opposition – and rightly so.

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    “I think what Ray is talking about is land that in the past was up zoned…then later on down zoned.”

    Nope. I’m talking about land that from day one, when zoning was first introduced, had a reasonable density allotment. Of course, they had to do that to get zoning accepted. That original zoning itself was a downzoning, because befor that you could do as you please.

    And every zoning change since then, for the last thirty years has been downward, substantially reducing the value of properties already owned.

    If you buy a property that has already been downzoned, then you can take its possibilities into account in the price. But, if you then get downzoned again (remember, six times so far in Fauquier), then you have been robbed.

    If I tried to build my Alexandria house today, I would not be allowed, and I’d be out a half million dollars. Yet that house has been sitting there for twenty years, and hasn’t bothered anybody or anything, that I can tell. Even so, today it couldn’t happen.

    —————————-
    “they made a mistake and that ..the law permits them to “undo” this mistake.

    The “mistake” is two-fold mistake.”

    We have talked about this before. It matters when you start. It is easy to get around this through grandfathering: If you bought property under one set of rules, then those are the rules that apply, unless you get compensated. A new buyer gets the new set of rules. That still means the seller won’t get what he might have, but it also means he took a pass on his opportunity.

    Otherwise, if you infact amend the comprensive plan and then amend the zoning, well, that might be OK because you only amend the comprehensive plan every 20 years. That ought to be enough time for people to carry out their plans.

    ——————————-

    I have re-thought my previous position. You can allow more density but set requirements for using it. What this means is that you are effectively selling additional rights in exchange for getting new public stuff built.

    The problem is that this opportunity only exists for the area that was upzoned, and so it is inherentluy unfair to owners outside that area. Especially if they have been downzoned as a way to force development into the new zone. If this new arrangement is for th epublic good, then it needs to be arranged in such a way that all the public benefits – not some at the expense of others.

    If you are going to buy and sell building rights, then let’s have a market and do it, same as for pollution rights. What this plan really does is point out once again that development rights are, in fact, valuable property. We simply have not come out and fully recognized that, as in granting title to such rights.

    Some economists have pointed out that this would be the most efficient, forthright, and fair metod of dealing with the problems we have.

    As for downzoning first, then later upzoning with proffers attached, some authors previously predicted that the growth in proffers would lead to just such activity: it is too profitable to the communites to not do it.

    It is still outright stealing from the parties affected.

    ————————-

    AS for development causng higher taxes, I like the Australian method.

    Every homeowner sets his own value on his house, and pays taxes on that amount. There is no arguing over what the house is worth or what axes you pay.

    Just to keep things honest, the government has the right to buy your home at the value you claim.

    In that case TMT could claim a low valuation and pay no tax increases, so he would have no (personal) argument aganst Tyson’s. But if Tysons winds up increasing the value of his home a lot, then the county could buy it at his claimed value, and resell it for whatever they could get.

    End of argument.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    “If I own five acres and the zoning is R-1, I can build as many as five houses on my property, subject to all other lawful requirements.

    I don’t think that I would have the right — the property right — to insist that the zoning be changed to R-8 so that I can build as many as 40 houses on my five acres.”

    Yes, I agree with that. I just say that if you have five rights and it is suddenly reduced to one, then that is just as wrong as when these guys want unrestricted rights with no payment for effects on others.

    I also think that when proffers are required, you should get credit for the taxes paid during all the time th poperty stood vacant: paying for infrastructure when none was used.

    If you are going to charge for upzoning then you are ethically obligated topay for downzoning.

    If you are going to claim “damages” for effects caused to you by new building, then you need to pay for benefits gained during all the time there was no building.

    You have a lot that once had in it’s bundle of sticks a building right. You used that right. That does not give you the right to complain against the next guy who wants to use his stick. Doing that means that you are claming a new right, adjunct to your use of the old one!

    I agree that everyone is affected by new building. The people who owned the vacant lots are affected by new building too. The only difference is that those lots are not populated with people who can vote: the people who are affected aren’t there yet.

    If they were there, they would be affected by the existing people, just as much as the existing people will be affected by the new ones.

    Therefore, to claim a new right to protect yourself from new people, after you were a new people yourself is cynical and unethical in the extreme.

    When you bought your lot you could have bought the right to protectyourself from new people: just buy some more lots. In that case you would have had to pay for the right you now claim for free.

    Sorry folks, I can’t see any way out of it that isn’t wrong and unethical, unless you are willing to cough up what the benefits cost.

    You might find that buying infrastructure is cheaper.

    The county records the deeds. What would happen if they added a notation for new residents, when they buy the property, that this action restricts them from objecting to other people buying property. Then it would be on your deed: you have three building rights. Others have their building rights. By this purchas it is understood that neither side has a prior position to defend against the other.

    RH

  31. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “ou can allow more density but set requirements for using it. What this means is that you are effectively selling additional rights in exchange for getting new public stuff built.

    The problem is that this opportunity only exists for the area that was upzoned, and so it is inherentluy unfair to owners outside that area.”

    no.. the problem is that what you are essentially advocating is building water/sewer/major arterial roads EVERYWHERE that there are property owners.

    and that is both physically and fiscally impossible…

    .. that’s why localities DESIGNATE where they will invest in more infrastructure to support more density and more intensive land-use.

    your reasoning RH.. is similar to someone saying that when a new interstate is built – that all landowners are entitled to new interchanges…so that there is “equal parity” in terms of access.

    but how would you do this?

    would each property owner be entitled to their own interchange?

    each locality.. has a similar problem… they cannot provide monolithic build-out infrastructure.

    they cannot run water/sewer down every road that exists…

    they cannot expand every road to be able to accommodate unlimited density ….

    so how do we decide where we will put new/upgrade existing infrastructure?

    and how would you prevent “wind fall” property rights for those who happen to be in the path of planned upgrades?

    Your logic is sort of like advocating that everyone who owns stock is entitled to having the value of their stock go up – anytime the value of other stock goes up…

    ..that everyone in entitled to equal appreciation of assets…

Leave a Reply