'Smart' plan makes suburbs the enemy

Houston Chronicle ^ | November 8, 2001 | JIM BARLOW

[Alberta's Child]

While I can understand people's concerns about "smart growth" policies, I am going to come to a defense of these government agencies in this case. What you are witnessing is government planners groping in the dark for a response to a real problem -- the problem is that many of the costs of suburban living are simply passed along from the suburban resident to the taxpayer. If people living in the suburbs had to pay their true cost of living (particularly roadways and utilities), nobody would be able to afford it.

I don't know if Portland has all the answers (in fact, it looks like they don't). It seems that limiting development will only serve to drive up the cost of existing homes. If nothing else, Portland will become a test case to determine if their methods are sound.

[daviddennis]

I live in Woodland Hills, an "Edge City" (see Joel Garreau's excellent work if you haven't already) in the San Fernando Valley.

There is lots of available high density housing. I find it vaguely depressing and terrifyingly expensive for what you get. As an example, I could get a two-bedroom apartment in an impersonal complex with about 1,000 units for $1,200 a month. I didn't like that, so I rented a two-bedroom house in a better part of Woodland Hills ("South of the Boulevard" instead of north) for $1,325. True, I got an exceptional deal, but comparable housing would rent in the $1,500 range.

I have to say the difference is worth it. I find it a great deal pleasanter to live in a suburban home instead of a concrete jungle. Multifamily housing is rarely developed with any kind of charm or attention to aesthetics.

I like the idea of being close to shops and restaurants, but suburbia doesn't necessarily preclude that. In my case, I'm about five blocks from Ventura Blvd, the major shopping street, and my commute to work is two miles. I could walk to Ventura Blvd shopping if I wanted to. This is the virtue of Edge City, where suburban and commercial development is intermixed.

I think sprawl exists because it's more appealing than density. Gigantic rabbit warren complexes, where each individual tenant feels like an ant buried in a hill, is not the way most people want to live.

Yes, there were some government subsidies, but people won't take even subsidized deals if they don't like the product being sold. Otherwise, those Portland apartments and condos would be full to the brim.

D

[CaliforniaDreamer]

A fried of mine who was forced to live briefly in Portland called it the Poland of America

[Jack of Diamonds]

Hey, I live in a place called Virginia Beach. The entire city is SUB-URBAN. We are just now building a "Down town" area with our first building over 12 stories and centers around a shopping mall. The courthouse is 10 miles away in a quaint colonial area in a building from the Civil War era. We are not dependant on a big urban city to pay our way.

There are a lot of cities around the country that are more sub-urb than urb.

[1stMarylandRegiment]

There's a really simple answer to this - money.

Truthfully (no axe, no Barbara Streisand) allocate all public infrastructure costs to the actual users of the infrastructure and let me decide how much I am willing to pay for my "three acres and a fireplace."

(I said simple, not easy).

[daviddennis]

But this doesn't make sense; the suburban resident is the taxpayer, since a majority of us live in suburbs nowadays.

Shifting costs can only go so far; if the whole thing was truly unsustainable, the whole nation would be bankrupt.

D

[daviddennis]

You might enjoy Edge City by Joel Garreau.

It tries to document the world of the "city/suburb", introduces you to its denizens, and so on. I found it fascinating.

D

[balrog666]

...allocate all public infrastructure costs to the actual users of the infrastructure ...

Already done. It's called the gasoline tax. It pays for roads and bridges. It runs a surplus almost every year in the federal government and in most of the 50 states. Check out the latest audit in your state.

Similarly, we have phone taxes, water taxes, sewer taxes, electricity taxes, and taxes on those taxes. It is extremely rare for any of the tax based "trusts" to actually spend more than they collect on a yearly basis.

Oh, and note that all of them are paid by the direct users of the "infrastructure".

[CraigH]

I don't believe in this smart-growth crap (it's really just the latest environmental cause to control free enterprise).

That said, I do think it would be smart to require developers to foot the bill for sewers, roads, sidewalks, etc. and thus pass those costs on to the homebuyers.

This way there might be some tax relief to existing residents.

[backhoe]

this link?

-The Thoreau Institute Urban Growth and Transportation Studies--

has a lot of info & opinion refuting the "urban sprawl," "Lite rail/mass transit" and related items...

And more here:

-Independence Institute--"Rights" Research

[daviddennis]

Aren't sewers and the like generally paid for over time through property taxes, in the same way our homes are paid for over time through loans?

How much do sewers and the like cost, anyway? Do you know?

I think this is very often used as an excuse to prevent development, as you say. In many communities, the policy you desire is already in place, and developers are paying.

D

[Hank Rearden]

(reposted from a thread a few weeks ago)

Here is an absolutely definitive website on the subject, with lots of emphasis on Portland, OR.

I'm acquainted with Randal O'Toole, have heard him speak several times, have a copy of his The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths (read it or keep it handy as a reference for the full scoop) and know that he's totally steeped in and expert on this subject.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Get a clue. People who live in the suburbs are taxpayers, too. And since they can afford to live in the suburbs, they generally pay much more than the average person in taxes. Mass transportation systems are NOT built for the masses. They are built to provide government subsidized transportation to those who pay little or no taxes.

Portland is a socialist paradise. You will find very few places outside of China and Cuba with as many overbearing laws as that place.

[SauronOfMordor]

The suburban residents pay more than their own way for all services. The main problem the Left has with suburbia is that it points out how much city resources are sucked up by the urban poor. The suburbs are not subsidizing the "social services" the cities provide for the Welfare Class

[Dog Gone]

There is nothing wrong with cities and states experimenting with new approaches to governmental management. It is one of the truly brilliant concepts built into our Federal Constitution which allows and encourages that. It allows us to learn from our mistakes at a local level before they are implemented at a natonal level.

I do have a problem with a government telling me what I can or can't do with my property by imposing new rules after I've purchased it. That happens far too much, and it's a "taking" by the government without any compensation. Anytime the government intervenes into the free market process and dictates what can or can't be done there is a huge potential for unintended consequences. Rent control leads to housing shortages, for example. Rationing or excessive taxes lead to the development of a black market.

Portland runs the real risk of creating problems which cause people and businesses to decide against living or doing business there.

Or they may get it right. That's the beauty of experimentation.

For me, I don't want to live in the big city. It's chock full of people who love Al Gore and Barney Frank. And I don't apologize for that and adamantly oppose any government attempt to force me to change my lifestyle.

But that's my preference. Anyone who disagrees will probably be very happy in Portland. (If the plan there actually works.)

[1stMarylandRegiment]

I rest.

[Benson_Carter]

ping

[CJ Wolf]

people moved to the suburbs because they couldn't afford the house in the city. You could get much more for a bit more of a commute. This land zoning is crap, just taking property rights away from people thats all. Socialist to the core.