Posted on 07/16/2008 5:43:59 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Debbie Kelly and her husband, Tom, have been living the dream for years.
They've got a cozy home nestled in the Wyoming Valley, the bucolic Iowa County setting where architect Frank Lloyd Wright drew his inspiration.
Deer graze in the yard. Orioles flock to the bird feeder. When nights are clear, the Milky Way lights the sky.
It's a little slice of heaven -- save for the 45-mile commute to work.
It wasn't a big financial drain driving into Madison, even as gasoline passed $2 a gallon in 2004 or $3 last summer. But for Debbie Kelly, $4 fuel has been the tipping point.
Now, instead of driving all the way to her nursing job at the Dean Clinic on Fish Hatchery Road, Kelly will often park in Verona and ride her bicycle the rest of the way. One night a week, she camps in the back of her pickup truck at Lake Farm County Park, south of the Beltline on the shores of Lake Waubesa.
"They've got the hottest showers," said Kelly, 54, a mother of three.
Kelly admits she's thought about moving closer to the city. The time spent driving and the rising costs are beginning to wear. But she said her husband isn't budging.
"Tom will probably go with the property," she said. "I don't think he'll ever leave the valley."
Whether high fuel prices are going to affect where people in Wisconsin live remains to be seen. It's not that simple to just pick up and move, especially for those who already own a home.
Still, it's a question crossing the minds of many who chose to buy a home miles from their place of employment or school.
"It really hit me when it cost nearly $100 to fill up the truck last week," said Rich Eggleston, who lives in Fitchburg and commutes to his job downtown at the Alliance of Cities.
And there are early indications that life in the suburbs is starting to look less attractive to home buyers.
Consider the median price of homes sold in McFarland is down nearly 19 percent from a year ago, falling from $258,000 to $210,000, according to the latest figures from DaneCountyMarket.com.
In Mount Horeb, prices are down 14 percent. In Fitchburg, they're off 8 percent. In the New Glarus/Belleville/Monticello market along the Dane-Green County border, prices are down nearly 10 percent.
While real estate insiders say it's dangerous to draw conclusion from just a few months of data -- Verona, Waunakee and Sauk City, for example, have all seen prices climb in 2008 -- there seems a growing realization that gasoline prices are not going down again.
That's left some observers wondering if the drivable suburb -- the model for virtually all post-World War II development in Wisconsin and the U.S. -- has run its course.
"I think we're looking at a tremendous societal shift," said Steve Hiniker, executive director of 1,000 Friends of Wisconsin, a statewide group that advocates for better land use. "Urban areas such as Madison and Milwaukee will continue to fill in and modern transit will soon be a part of the urban setting. Suburbs will continue to lose value as gas prices hit the stratosphere."
Indeed, the future of the suburbs in the face of rising energy costs has sparked a flurry of national reports in the past months. Many have come from groups that would like nothing better than to see an end to sprawl and a reinvestment in mass transit and the urban core.
One study from Chicago-based CEOs for Cities argues that soaring gasoline prices are what really popped the nation's housing market bubble.
"The popular narrative on the collapse of housing prices has only blamed exotic lending practices," said the group's economist Joseph Cortright. "But the much more important story is about how higher gas prices have re-drawn the map of urban real estate values."
In another report, Arthur Nelson of Virginia Tech predicts the nation is facing a surplus of 22 million large lot homes (houses built on 1/6 an acre of more) by 2025. That represents roughly 40 percent of the "McMansions" in existence today, places like Bergamont, Bishop's Bay and Hawk's Landing in Dane County.
And long-time sprawl critics like James Howard Kunstler have cheered the higher fuel prices as finally bringing an end to decades of suburban madness. He said trying to find solutions to keep the "Happy Motoring" utopia running is naive.
"The truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used french-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the Interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future," Kunstler said. "We have to make other arrangements."
Closer to home, not everyone shares the same doom-and-gloom scenario.
Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said fuel prices haven't reached the point where Americans have been forced to make fundamental changes. Rather, he sees a more gradual shift to a balanced mix of transit, compact development, walkable communities -- and single-passenger vehicles.
"I just got back from Europe and people still love to drive but they have other options," he said. "Unfortunately we've created a physical environment in this country that makes us slaves to our cars."
Cieslewicz said those who oppose mass transit or improved rail service often argue that environmentalists want to take away the freedom to drive.
"People on the other side of this issue use scare tactics and say everyone will be forced to give up their cars," he said. "But there is actually more freedom in having the option to bike or walk somewhere without fear of getting killed."
Troy Thiel, who moved to Madison in 2003 from the Chicago area and narrowly lost a 2007 bid for a seat on the City Council, predicts the suburban housing market will weather the storm. He notes that many of the area's largest employment centers are no longer located downtown -- including Epic Systems in Verona, American Family on the far east side and Discovery Springs in Middleton.
A sales agent with First Weber West Towne, Thiel also questions whether fuel prices are having much impact at all on an already depressed real estate market. He notes that sales of homes and condos within five miles of the State Capitol were down 30 percent for the first six months of 2008 versus a 25 percent sales decline overall.
"People are choosing more efficient personal autos and will locate closer to their jobs, many of which are already in the 'burbs," said Thiel. "Rich folk are putting their SUVs in the garage. That way $4 gas looks like $3 gas and they're just fine with that."
Needless to say, those who can afford it don't feel the fuel pinch as acutely.
But rising oil prices are costing everyone plenty. The average American household will spend over $3,200 to fuel their vehicles this year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than twice the cost of just five years ago.
In Dane County, drivers are now spending a combined $428 million more on gasoline than in 2004, according to professor Andy Lewis, community development specialist for University of Wisconsin Extension. That's money that could have gone to a lot of other uses, whether affordable housing or commuter rail.
Lewis noted that in 2006, when gasoline averaged $3 a gallon, households with incomes under $14,999 were already spending eight percent of their income on fuel versus three percent for households with incomes over $100,000.
"As expected, the lower income households are feeling the pinch more then wealthy households," said Lewis.
On the other hand, Alan Harvey, chairman of the town of Windsor, said Dane County enjoys the advantage of having a diverse economy -- a mix of both urban, rural and suburban development.
"Clearly, all of society is going to be looking at a period of adjustment," he said. "But I think we're pretty well-positioned since economic activity is spread throughout the county."
Harvey said the real impact is being felt in communities outside Dane County like Fall River or Pardeeville, where people have purchased homes because they got a lot more square footage for their dollar.
"Those advantages start to disappear when commuting costs get too high," said Harvey, who is skeptical about the ability of mass transit to solve the problem.
Madison Ald. Robbie Webber, who defeated Thiel in the District 5 council race, has championed higher density urban development and mass transit as the long-term solution. Despite the growth in the suburbs, she said Madison remains the engine that drives the area economy with its downtown and UW campus.
"Even lunch is easier to get to without a car in a dense area than in a suburban business park," she said.
Webber said the concern isn't so much with Middleton or Verona, two places where real estate values have been holding.
"What about Mount Horeb, Dodgeville, Lake Mills, Edgerton, Portage?" she said. "Those long commutes, with no hope of transit, are going to be pretty painful."
To that end, commercial real estate developer Terrence Wall says he realized several years ago that rising gasoline prices were going to dramatically impact Dane County. For that reason, he's pursuing mixed-use projects combining office, residential and retail at Tribeca Village in Middleton and the West End in Verona.
"I've been warning people for the last three years that demand for oil in China was going to send prices skyrocketing," said Wall, president of T. Wall Properties.
Dan Miller, a Realtor with Keller Williams who maintains the DaneCountyMarket.com Web site with colleague Shawn Kriewaldt, cautioned against drawing too many conclusions about the long-term impact of gasoline prices on the local housing market.
"For example, I just helped somebody sell a house in Madison and buy one in Mount Horeb because they work at Epic and wanted to be closer to their job," he said.
Miller said a few more months of data may help paint a clearer picture.
"I think we're on the early part of the curve right now," he said. "Most folks spend several months looking for a home before they make an offer, and once an offer is accepted, it can be another 1 to 3 months until the closing. Given the lag between the decision to buy and the actual purchase, my hunch is the data will become more telling later this fall and winter."
At this point, most commuters are just biting the bullet, trying to combine trips or share rides when possible.
Nicole Weisenberger, who drives 100 miles round-trip from Madison to her job as an occupational therapist in Beloit, has found a few ways to offset the high gas prices. One is purchasing a Pontiac Vibe, which gets over 30 mpg on the highway. The other is cutting back on doggy day care from three days to one day a week.
"To be honest with you, I think the dog has been suffering more than I have," she said.
True, to a great extent.
However, the suburbs may no longer be a viable alternative for a lot of people. People may start to move abandoned cities and try to fix them, and not with any big government programs. Alternately, they can build new cities or expand existing ones. With the internet and the availability of air travel, you can put a city just about anywhere.
Gentrification is occuring, and has been occuring, in many cities - Ohio City in Cleveland, and just north of the river here in Chattanooga. People are doing so of their own volition. Unfortunately, there is still the democRAT monolith that runs many large cities, particularly those of the north. Cleveland is extremely liberal, as is Detroit, Chicago, and such. Atlanta has its problems as well.
Chattanooga still enjoys some degree of conservatism and that alone makes it a better place to live. Plus, it's a smaller city. I personally believe that when a city reaches a certain size, it takes a turn for the worst. Too many people living on top of one another, with no means for escape. Maybe it's the population density or maybe it's the lack of privacy and lack of freedom of movement - I don't know. But I do know that the larger the city, the more trouble it seems to have.
No, I don’t assume the government will stay out of the way; in fact, I’m frightened they’ll screw it up. However, right now while they just argue about gas prices and drilling an don’t actually do anything, it’s ideal.
The government does need to lift many of it’s restrictions, especially on nuclear power. It can lift the restrictions on drilling too, but we need to focus way beyond that. You mention an “environmental hoax”, by which I’m assuming you mean global warming/cooling/climate change/whatever they’re calling it today. That’s not my concern. My concern is that oil is a fossil fuel that we’re eventually going to run out of, and countries like China and India are rapidly using more and more. This is why prices are headed sky high and why drilling more at home will barely be a drop in the bucket.
We need to change the way we’re living. I don’t have faith in government to figure out how and I certainly don’t want them to force us. However, we’re headed for economic catastrophe if we don’t accept that cheap energy is a thing of the past and we need to adjust.
We're seeing that here in DC- over the last decade or so the city has been getting gentrified and is now more white and richer. This has led to large numbers of poor black residents moving out to Prince George's County, which has seen a spike in crime.
This situation needs to sort itself out over the next decade- people need to figure out whether they can afford to keep living in the suburbs and commuting in to work. The only thing government should do is lay off on the restiction on oil drilling.
I agree with that. I’ve stated a few times on this thread that smaller cities are better. Places like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. get too big to manage and it becomes too hard to hold local government accountable. I like the Twin Cities because they’re smaller.
To be honest, the Twin Cities pretty liberal, but so is a lot of rural Minnesota. If I want to escape liberalism, I need to leave the state entirely, which is not something I’m willing to do. I can’t stand the people out East or down South (not to mention the God awful weather), and the West is just too remote for me, so I’m definitely staying in the Midwest. The Twin Cities are the best example of smaller city where crime is low and jobs are good, so I plan on staying.
Large cities are generally more expensive and less accountable than smaller communities.
Just moving out of the city resulted in lower taxes, better schools, substantially better police response and a generally higher quality of life.
Technology will solve many of the short term problems we are facing. Telecommuting will reduce many people’s need to commute to the office. Higher gas prices are spurring development of more efficient cars, although we could be driving cars with better gas mileage if the government safety regulations hadn’t effectively banned tiny cars like the old GEO Metro.
I am puzzled by your contention that the government drills for oil. Oil companies want the opportunity to pay the government for the right to drill. They pay leases and then pay royalties on the oil they pump.
How do you know we can’t drill our way out of it? Liberals have prevented us from trying. If we can, great, no problem. If not, drilling will increase the supply of oil and decrease the price of fuel until a a viable alternative can be found. However, liberals and envirocommies have us in a strangle hold. It shows me they are afraid, WE CAN drill our way out of this if given a chance.
“These folks either get a Housing Allowance, or there is on-post housing available...they just CHOOSE not to take it.”
1) You obvioulsy have not been stationed in DC
2) And E-6(with dependents) assigned to DC receives $2000. Having lived in DC/NOVA on and off for 15 years, $2K doesn’t go very far.
3)”there is on-post housing available” Sure and the wait can be anywhere from 6 months to a year.
4) “they just CHOOSE not to take it.” Have you seen the schools outside of Bolling AFB? Obviously not. It is a friggin’ war zone outside the gate.
5) “I’m retired Army.” Unfortunately, I’ve seen and heard the “Just suck it up” compassion so well known within the Army culture all too much. (Sigh)
Of course the government doesn’t drill. However, they can prevent us from doing so. They can also raise gas taxes and control the road system. That’s why I like to use as little gas as possible and avoid being subject to the whims of government.
I agree technology will solve many problems. I think the high prices right now will cause market forces to push us even further in that direction. This will happen much more quickly and efficiently than any government program.
We can’t drill out of it. This is a global problem. Third world countries are very rapidly using more oil, much faster than we could produce here. The best case scenario is we slow the rate at which prices increase. We’re still going to have to find an alternative eventually.
Honestly, that’s the comforting thing, because let’s say it did bring down prices. It would just like after the oil crisis in the 70’s; everybody would forget and go back to depending on cheap fuel. Then, we’ll start to run of oil for good. Then we’ll REALLY be screwed, because there was no economic pressure to come up with an alternative.
Oil is a fossil fuel. We can’t use it forever, especially not at the rate we’re going. The market pressures of high prices will prove to be good for us in the long run.
If the federal government would reverse some of the uneducted fear-based restrictions that the Carter administration imposed on us, nuclear power (fission) would provide cheap electricity for the next 1000 years. Once fusion becomes viable, then electricity becomes cheap indefinitely.
Once we have a sufficient supply of cheap electricity, then internal combustion engines can be supplied with fuel other than oil-based octane.
Accepting expensive energy is letting the socialist-greens know that they win and that they can restrict our freedoms as they please. Do not give in.
Do you support the Democrats policies against drilling?
COnservatives conserve. We want sustainable living, we don’t want to burn up the planet. We were put here to be in dominion over every living thing, but not to destroy it.
Imagine someone buys the property next to you, and then mines it for topsoil and cordwood. Then they dig out the rocks for people to use for walls.
Now you have a pit next to your house, so they hire it out for trash.
Do you see: That would be living in a “burdensome way”. To be less burdensome to the planet is to live in a way that improves things rather than destroys them.
In Scouts, we had a rule — always leave the campsite better than you found it. That’s a conservative principle.
I refuse to change my language because some liberals try to take it and use it for their own bizarre theories.
Given how much people switch jobs (by their choice or the company’s), it wouldn’t make sense to try to live near work in all cases.
My parents live in the suburbs of Chicago and both have jobs in the suburbs. But they both commute 40 to 50 miles each way. 2 different suburbs.
Not everyone with this problem lives out in the exurbs.
I think nuclear is probably the way to go for the future. Government should stop getting in its way. However, I don’t think we should encourage more drilling. It’s a short-term band-aid.
To a degree, but not for the same reasons.
You know, I really think things are different now. If gas prices dropped, I think there'd still be a push for drilling and alternative fuels. Why? Because now, more than ever, the average person does NOT want to be beholden to the countries in the Middle East. The political will of the people will remain after prices drop, IMO.
I’ve moved a few times. But more importantly, if both people and businesses moved back to the cities, we wouldn’t have this problem. I commute 8 miles from my house in St. Paul to downtown Minneapolis. I’m able to have some distance from work, have some space (I have a house with a yard), yet not live in the middle of nowhere and be dependent on my car. I always wonder what people out in the middle of nowhere do when their car breaks down? I just take the bus.
Yes—I have 4 children and even though I’m in the suburbs, all 4 are enrolled in a private Christian school. Hence no McMansion for us!
My husband works from home a lot (actually he works at local coffee shops or wherever), and I work from home a little and only have a long commute 2x/week. (I work P/T). We don’t own SUVs or gas guzzlers and I take BART besides. . .(it sure has been crowded lately!)
For people with long commutes, this could be a dangerous solution. More miles = more opportunities for accidents, regardless of the type of vehicles.
Overall, I think it’s a decent idea in many situations.
Wasn’t in Los Angeles.
Living in Minnesota apparently has LEFT influence upon you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.