The real housing crisis is one of quantity

[Enough Already]

The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.

People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map

"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.

Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

[Rose]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

i agree, greed drove the industry and now many houses are sitting
empty, no one to buy and too many people losing homes they had, almost
seems pre-determined to cause this current problem, all seems to be
blamed on the housing market, but there are many other factors
involved, every market has been inflated, oil companies claiming they
are losing money, grocery stores, etc. and yes, too many homes were
built but that is not the economies problem really, the cost of
everything has soared, where will this end? and to what end? and why?

[Art]

Post by Rose
i agree, greed drove the industry and now many houses are sitting
empty, no one to buy and too many people losing homes they had, almost
seems pre-determined to cause this current problem, all seems to be
blamed on the housing market, but there are many other factors
involved, every market has been inflated, oil companies claiming they
are losing money, grocery stores, etc. and yes, too many homes were
built but that is not the economies problem really, the cost of
everything has soared, where will this end? and to what end? and why?

It won't end. It is the natural cycle of things. It's a buyer's market
now and in a year or two it'll be a seller's market again. All markets
fluctuate up and down. Sometimes it's severe and sometimes just minor.

[Mark M.]

Post by Rose

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

i agree, greed drove the industry and now many houses are sitting
empty, no one to buy and too many people losing homes they had, almost
seems pre-determined to cause this current problem, all seems to be
blamed on the housing market, but there are many other factors
involved, every market has been inflated, oil companies claiming they
are losing money, grocery stores, etc. and yes, too many homes were
built but that is not the economies problem really, the cost of
everything has soared, where will this end? and to what end? and why?

The key to understanding the housing bubble is understanding what drives up
land prices. The OP is correct in saying that new construction was over
done. The reason is rising land value, but why did land values double and
redouble since the 1980's?

In our system, the financial sector has no problem creating funds for
inflating land value. In fact, in a rising land market, mortgage lenders
KNOW they can write home purchase checks without ANY real money on hand.
They KNOW that real estate sellers will put ALL the money right back into
buying other land.

Land prices rise because they are rising. All it takes is a small push
like a drop in property taxes, capital gains taxes, or a drop in interest
rates and it's off to the races. The upturn in land prices means this
capital gains opportunity will be reflected in even higher land prices.

And so it goes until everybody is mortgage debted up to their eyeballs. At
this point all it takes is one little bitty ol economic nastiness that
reduces the ability to make those big mortgage payments. A war or a sudden
jump in oil prices works nicely. Then the whole thing comes down with a crash.

Land prices cannot level off smoothly. As soon as they stop rising, they
have to fall and fall hard. This is because a big part of land price is
about the future investment payoff that buyers expect in a rising land
market. No more expected price appreciation, no more price premium.

Mark M.

[RogerDodger]

Post by Mark M.
The key to understanding the housing bubble is understanding what drives up
land prices. The OP is correct in saying that new construction was over
done. The reason is rising land value, but why did land values double and
redouble since the 1980's?...

The Shiller home price index shows home prices in the 20 major urban
areas rose a real 21% during the 15 years 1987-2002 -- a tad more than
1% a year.

So much for "double and double again".

This is entirely consistent with Shiller's data showing home price
appreciation barely exceeding inflation, appreciating by about 0.5%
real per year, for the last century.

Which is entirely consistent with USDA/NASS price index of all
farmland in the US, which shows land prices across the great bulk of
the US barely matching inflation, appreciating by about 0.5% real per
year, for the last century.

These indices show land value hasn't doubled even once in the last 100
years, much less gone "double and double again" since the 1980s.

Georgists. ;-)

There's their world and there's ours.

Put your money in land, then do nothing as a landowner but wait for it
to appreciate in value ... and die broke. ;-(

As to the home price boom, it has been *world wide* -- Britain,
France, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, China, all around the globe,
and in several foreign nations it's been much *bigger* than in the US
-- and it has all happened everywhere simultaneously in the last six
years.

So a different explanation is called for, other than repitition of ye
olde fact-free Georgist creed.

[Mark M.]

Post by RogerDodger

Post by Mark M.
The key to understanding the housing bubble is understanding what drives up
land prices. The OP is correct in saying that new construction was over
done. The reason is rising land value, but why did land values double and
redouble since the 1980's?...

The Shiller home price index shows home prices in the 20 major urban
areas rose a real 21% during the 15 years 1987-2002 -- a tad more than
1% a year.
So much for "double and double again".
This is entirely consistent with Shiller's data showing home price
appreciation barely exceeding inflation, appreciating by about 0.5%
real per year, for the last century.
Which is entirely consistent with USDA/NASS price index of all
farmland in the US, which shows land prices across the great bulk of
the US barely matching inflation, appreciating by about 0.5% real per
year, for the last century.
These indices show land value hasn't doubled even once in the last 100
years, much less gone "double and double again" since the 1980s.
Georgists. ;-)
There's their world and there's ours.

Yours and Shiller's? LOL

Real estate price appreciation barely matching inflation? What a joke.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2757699799528285056

Mark M.

Post by RogerDodger
Put your money in land, then do nothing as a landowner but wait for it
to appreciate in value ... and die broke. ;-(
As to the home price boom, it has been *world wide* -- Britain,
France, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, China, all around the globe,
and in several foreign nations it's been much *bigger* than in the US
-- and it has all happened everywhere simultaneously in the last six
years.
So a different explanation is called for, other than repitition of ye
olde fact-free Georgist creed.

[r***@telus.net]

Post by RogerDodger

Post by Mark M.
The key to understanding the housing bubble is understanding what drives up
land prices. The OP is correct in saying that new construction was over
done. The reason is rising land value, but why did land values double and
redouble since the 1980's?...

The Shiller home price index shows home prices in the 20 major urban
areas rose a real 21% during the 15 years 1987-2002 -- a tad more than
1% a year.
So much for "double and double again".
This is entirely consistent with Shiller's data showing home price
appreciation barely exceeding inflation, appreciating by about 0.5%
real per year, for the last century.

I proved years ago that the Shiller index is designed to hide land
value increases.

See if you can figure out how before I explain it to you. It will be
a good test of your willingness and ability actually to think for a
change. I'm not hopeful.

Post by RogerDodger
Which is entirely consistent with USDA/NASS price index of all
farmland in the US, which shows land prices across the great bulk of
the US barely matching inflation, appreciating by about 0.5% real per
year, for the last century.
These indices show land value hasn't doubled even once in the last 100
years, much less gone "double and double again" since the 1980s.
Georgists. ;-)

Georgists are at least willing to know the facts.

Post by RogerDodger
There's their world and there's ours.
Put your money in land, then do nothing as a landowner but wait for it
to appreciate in value ... and die broke. ;-(

LOL! As if everyone reading this doesn't know landowners who have sat
on land and made out like bandits!

Post by RogerDodger
As to the home price boom, it has been *world wide* -- Britain,
France, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, China, all around the globe,
and in several foreign nations it's been much *bigger* than in the US
-- and it has all happened everywhere simultaneously in the last six
years.

Of course, your claims are all false. Japan had its big land boom in
the 70s and 80s, and has experienced no significant housing price
inflation in the last several years. Certainly there have been
housing booms in a number of countries, but that's simply because the
same factors have been operating, especially cheap credit and
extravagant subsidies to landowning.

Post by RogerDodger
So a different explanation is called for, other than repitition of ye
olde fact-free Georgist creed.

"Fact-free" would be a good description of a land price index that
shows real land prices not doubling in 100 years.

-- Roy L

[Pat]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

E.A. Enough already. Take your dribble someplace else. You have a
long history is alt.planning.urban. You're a troll. And you're not
even good at that. Stop your cross posting. Better yet, stop your
posting.

[Dioclese]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

I like the thread so far. Only one stayed in the context you presented.
The other 2 went with the money synopsis thing, went somewhere else instead
of addressing the issues you presented. Kinda like politics.

See if I can even it out 50/50 for now (most won't address overpopulation
anyway, so its for now).

All our big problems are a of an ever increasing population nature. Both
nationwide and world-wide. The economy relies on a contigent of an ever
increasing population as starters. As population slows, the only
alternative is to take more from the current population. As the finite is
understood. Either way, we pay.

[Andy Energy]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

I like the thread so far.  Only one stayed in the context you presented.
The other 2 went with the money synopsis thing, went somewhere else instead
of addressing the issues you presented.  Kinda like politics.
See if I can even it out 50/50 for now (most won't address overpopulation
anyway, so its for now).
All our big problems are a of an ever increasing population nature.  Both
nationwide and world-wide.  The economy relies on a contigent of an ever
increasing population as starters.  As population slows, the only
alternative is to take more from the current population.  As the finite is
understood.  Either way, we pay.
--
Dave
Hypocrisy.  Big SUV, filament lights on all night.  You think your neighbor
should be changiing to compact fluorescent light bulbs and driving the
hybrid.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Dave, love your Hypocrisy. Lets add home that consume 80-90% more
than they sould at present. With the progress of the buildign science
we should soon be able to easly get the net consumption to Zero.

Yes I do practice what I preach. I drive a hybrid, my electric bill
has been a -$100 each of the last 6 years (yes that is a minus). My
highest gas bill las winter was around $80 and that is at $1.49 a
therm (CCF). My house is a modest 1,500 sq ft for two people. Each
year I do another project to reduce our usage. Since the house is
built it gets harder to fix the rest of the items. In new
construction it would have beed easy and inexpensice to fix.

Andy

Think, Whole House Performance, it is the right thing to do....

[Ron Peterson]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.

What housing crisis are you writing about?

Your Malthus style arguments never did reflect reality. Many European
countries aren't having a reproductive rate that is sufficient to
sustain their population.

--
Ron

[CWatters]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day..

Depends which country you are in.

Here in the UK we can't build houses fast enough. The government won't
release land for building, so prices are sky high and people need to borrow
a large multiple of their salary to afford one. Agricultural land (without
permission to build a house) sells for perhaps $20,000 a UK acre compared to
perhaps $2,000,000 an acre for land with permission to build houses.

[drydem]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not.

I disagree.

It's not how many
but what type of housing.
It's part of a built in market inefficiency
There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
However, there are very few options for the working poor.
Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
very rich
all the builders made houses for the very rich.
Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
poor
all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
because the world doesn't have enough rich people
and a lack of affordable homes
for the average working family....
this environment encourages/forces average family into a
housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
en mass. -

[Matt W. Barrow]

Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not.

I disagree.

It's not how many
but what type of housing.
It's part of a built in market inefficiency
There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
However, there are very few options for the working poor.
Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
very rich
all the builders made houses for the very rich.
Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
poor
all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
because the world doesn't have enough rich people
and a lack of affordable homes
for the average working family....
this environment encourages/forces average family into a
housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
en mass. -

[drydem]

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)

My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs

I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....


Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund. Developers could make much
more money by just opting out of building affording
housing units. However, the fund generated by this opt out
fee has never been enough for the local government to build
any new affordable housing projects/complexes ( especially with
rising land prices and higher construction cost). Since new
affordable housing units are now even more costlier to make
than in the past -- builders when they do make them also
can only make a few of them. Thus there hasn't been much
in additional affordable housing construction in my county
for about 20 years. Only recently the law was revised such that
builder/developers are now required to build Moderatedly Priced
Dwelling Units (MPDUs) and may NOT opt out -- but since
new construction permits has gone bust - this might
be a case of closing the barn door after the cows
have left.


At the local level, I've also witnessed
residents from local communities resist the inclusion
of MPDUs near their communities because they fear it would
decrease the value of their homes.


The lack of new affordable housing construction would not be
such a severe problem if it weren't for the lost of current
affordable
housing. The currently the bulk of affordable housing consist
of local apartment complexes but the current housing/real estate trend
has been of the conversion of these apartments ( which have
affordable rents) to luxury condos (which require a large amount of
capital but have high monthy fees) . So you not only have the
failure to create an adequate supply of new affordable housing
units but you have the lost of existing affordable housing units.
Luxury condos provide a higher profit margin than affordable
co-ops - So Co-ops are not very popular here. One of the
initiatives being advocated recently here is to stop the loss
of older affordable housing units by using the affordable housing
fund to buying apartments that provide affordable housing units
that would otherwise be converted into condoniums.


While housing cost have dropped - they are still very high
especially when considering the interest being charge
on the mortgage. It seems to me that the people
who have (re)financed their homes in my region in
the last 3 years who are mainly at risk with respect
to this currently troubling financial climate. I've heard
that atleast some of the current troubles have to do
with loans generated by mortgage brokers and
the lack of verification( of financial data by) financial
institutions. The main reason for this financial subterfuge
is to make a mortgage/home affordable (or appear to
be more affordable ).


I've notice in my community that most of the
housing assistance has gone to single parent families,
e.g. a mom with atleast one child. I've also notice that
many households in my locale ( the Washington DC
Metro Areas ) often solve the demand for higher
housing cost by having multiple earners.

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not.

I disagree.
It's not how many
but what type of housing.
It's part of a built in  market inefficiency
There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
However, there are very few options for the working poor.
Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
very rich
  all the builders made houses for the very rich.
Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
poor
  all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
    because the world doesn't have  enough rich people
 and a lack of affordable homes
     for the average working family....
this environment encourages/forces average family  into a
   housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
  often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
    place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
en mass. -

[george conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)

My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs

I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....


Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.

----

Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which limit
"sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment costs.
This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

[drydem]

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)
My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs
 I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.
----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which limit
"sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment costs.
This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

Zoning restriction can actually reduce the overall cost of
making new housing available by limiting the cost of
infrastructure and required services (roads, mass transit,
utilities, sidewalks, schools, libraries, fire/rescue services,
polices )
necessary to support the additional housing and businesses. One of
the major reasons for the support of "Smart Growth" policies
is to reduce the need for additional roads and schools -
major infrastructure cost to the local/state government. This
makes a more far more efficient use of current infrastructure
and should help control local taxes (e.g. property tax, income
tax, and other associated fees charged by local governments.


While limiting the region where new housing construction can
take place doesn't necessarily increase the cost of housing per unit
or per capita - the economic does dictate the type of housing that
can be built - so instead of building single family mansion with a
three car garage, luxury townhomes or condos are built.


The cost per housing unit starts to go when a multi-family dwelling
unit goes over five stories high and must use concrete and steel.
In addition, the cost per housing unit also increases if there is
any type of structure parking facility built for it.


While governments may set requirements that increase the
cost of building residential home, e.g. requiring a developer
to build a community center or public library, that doesn't
mean the developer ends up meeting those requirements.
This is exactly what happen in Clarksburg, Maryland inwhich
several developers had failed provide/build the things
they promised. So not only did residents pay a premium
to live there but the developers left them with a bunch of
empty promises.


I agree that government regulations can incraease the
up front cost of housing. New local laws just passed
now require new single family houses to be more
energy efficient ( Energy Star/LEED ) - while this would
decrease the cost of operating a home given the rise
in energy cost - it would make the initial cost of owning a
new home more expensive.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)
My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs
I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.
----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which limit
"sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment costs.
This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

*** Zoning restriction can actually reduce the overall cost of
*** making new housing available by limiting the cost of
*** infrastructure and required services (roads, mass transit,
*** utilities, sidewalks, schools, libraries, fire/rescue services,
*** polices ) necessary to support the additional housing and businesses.

On what planet?


*** One of
*** the major reasons for the support of "Smart Growth" policies
*** is to reduce the need for additional roads and schools -
*** major infrastructure cost to the local/state government. This
*** makes a more far more efficient use of current infrastructure
*** and should help control local taxes (e.g. property tax, income
*** tax, and other associated fees charged by local governments.

Roads and appurtenant items are built by the developer about 98% of the
time.

Try again.

[george conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)
My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs
I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.
----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which limit
"sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment costs.
This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

*** Zoning restriction can actually reduce the overall cost of
*** making new housing available by limiting the cost of
*** infrastructure and required services (roads, mass transit,
*** utilities, sidewalks, schools, libraries, fire/rescue services,
*** polices ) necessary to support the additional housing and businesses.
On what planet?

Like New York City has low housing costs because of its zoning
procedures. Large cities have large taxes.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
*** One of
*** the major reasons for the support of "Smart Growth" policies
*** is to reduce the need for additional roads and schools -

You mean smart growth applies to sex too? Gosh, that is new one. Fewer
schools due to smart growth? Ok.

[drydem]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)
My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs
I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.
----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which limit
"sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment costs.
This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

*** Zoning restriction can actually reduce the overall cost of
*** making new housing available by limiting the cost of
*** infrastructure and required services (roads, mass transit,
*** utilities, sidewalks, schools, libraries, fire/rescue services,
*** polices ) necessary to support the additional housing and businesses.
On what planet?

Yours.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
*** One of
*** the major reasons for the support of "Smart Growth" policies
*** is to reduce the need for additional roads and schools -
*** major infrastructure cost to the local/state government. This
*** makes a more far more efficient use of current infrastructure
***  and should help control local taxes (e.g. property tax, income
*** tax, and other associated fees charged by local governments.
Roads and appurtenant items are built by the developer about 98% of the
time.

Who builds a road is irrelevant - so called Smart Growth
government policies is focusing on reducing the cost
and demands of economic development by making
more efficient use of current existing infrastructures and
services. Economic growth not has a capital
improvement cost component but an on-going operational
service cost component. Developers may come and go but
the government and the community remains.

[Pat]

Post by drydem

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)
My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs
 I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.
----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which limit
"sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment costs.
This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

Zoning restriction can actually reduce the overall cost of
making new housing available by limiting the cost of
infrastructure and required services (roads, mass transit,
utilities, sidewalks, schools, libraries, fire/rescue services,
polices )

Having just read your post, I agree with much of it. But this is just
insane. Zoning, by it's very nature is exclusionary. It creates dis-
economies and increases prices. If it really did all of the things
you said, then developers would do just what you want without any
zoning whatsover because it would be in their financial interest.
Developers are a very predictable lot when it comes to money.

Post by drydem
necessary to support the additional housing and businesses.  One of
the major reasons for the support of "Smart Growth" policies
is to reduce the need for additional roads and schools -
major infrastructure cost to the local/state government. This
makes a more far more efficient use of current infrastructure
and should help control local taxes (e.g. property tax, income
tax, and other associated fees charged by local governments.

Smart growth is popular because it's the flavor of the week.
Developers like it because planners like it and developer need to get
planners off their backs.

Post by drydem
While limiting the region where new housing construction can
take place doesn't necessarily increase the cost of housing per unit
or per capita - the economic does dictate the type of housing that
can be built - so instead of building single family mansion with a
three car garage, luxury townhomes or condos are built.
The cost per housing unit starts to go when a multi-family dwelling
unit goes over five stories high and must use concrete and steel.
In addition, the cost per housing unit also increases if there is
any type of structure parking facility built for it.

Yes, totally true. And steel and concrete is needed because there
isn't enough developable land that is zoned for multifamily in most
communities. That drives up land cost and keeps out affordable
housing. You have to realize that affordable housing has a LONG lead
time even under the best of conditions, so no developer wants to buy
the land unless it's absolutely necessary. And no seller wants to
wait on an option when an upscale developer offers cash for the land.

Post by drydem
While governments may set requirements that increase the
cost of building residential home, e.g. requiring a developer
to build a community center or public library,  that doesn't
mean the developer ends up meeting those requirements.
This is exactly what happen in Clarksburg, Maryland inwhich
several developers had failed provide/build the things
they promised. So not only did residents pay a premium
to live there but the developers left them with a bunch of
empty promises.
I agree that government regulations can incraease the
up front cost of housing.  New local laws just passed
now require new single family houses to be more
energy efficient ( Energy Star/LEED ) - while this would
decrease the cost of operating a home given the rise
in energy cost - it would make the initial cost of owning a
new home more expensive.- Hide quoted text -

For affordable housing, local regulations are killer. But state ones
for funding are just as back. The regulatory burden in enormous. My
guess is that regulation adds 25% to the cost of an affordable unit.

Post by drydem
- Show quoted text -

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

Matt

[george conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on less
land and charge more too.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on less
land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

[george conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Developers manipulate the price of land, as does government. They always
ask government to change the zoning so they can make money by doing nothing
but by playing politics.

[Sid9]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

[george conklin]

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Eco 101 assumes free markets too. Smart Growth prides itself on manipulated
markets for social goals, and this raises the price of land and housing.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by george conklin

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Eco 101 assumes free markets too.

No, it does not. Free market theory derives from S&D (the best way to meet
objective under the reality of limited resources.

Post by george conklin
Smart Growth prides itself on manipulated markets for social goals, and
this raises the price of land and housing.

"Smart Growth", as used, is an oxymoron.

[george conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Eco 101 assumes free markets too.

No, it does not. Free market theory derives from S&D (the best way to meet
objective under the reality of limited resources.

Post by george conklin
Smart Growth prides itself on manipulated markets for social goals, and
this raises the price of land and housing.

"Smart Growth", as used, is an oxymoron.

Technically it means any growth sactioned by planners, following goals set
by the APA.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

You've got it completely inverted.

Post by Sid9
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Excuse me?

[Sid9]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

You've got it completely inverted.

Post by Sid9
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Excuse me?

Theoretical Eco 101 supply-demand
curves require perfect knowledge by
buyers and sellers.

That NEVER happens in the real world.
Never.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

You've got it completely inverted.

Post by Sid9
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Excuse me?

Theoretical Eco 101 supply-demand
curves require perfect knowledge by
buyers and sellers.

No, it doesn't, except in Keynesian economics.

Post by Sid9
That NEVER happens in the real world.
Never.

"Perfect knowledge" isn't necessary, which is why Keynes was a sham.

[Sid9]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing on
less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

You've got it completely inverted.

Post by Sid9
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Excuse me?

Theoretical Eco 101 supply-demand
curves require perfect knowledge by
buyers and sellers.

No, it doesn't, except in Keynesian economics.

Post by Sid9
That NEVER happens in the real world.
Never.

"Perfect knowledge" isn't necessary, which is why Keynes was a sham.

Republican Reagan was a Keynesian.
Republican jr is a Keynesian.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing
on less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

You've got it completely inverted.

Post by Sid9
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Excuse me?

Theoretical Eco 101 supply-demand
curves require perfect knowledge by
buyers and sellers.

No, it doesn't, except in Keynesian economics.

Post by Sid9
That NEVER happens in the real world.
Never.

"Perfect knowledge" isn't necessary, which is why Keynes was a sham.

Republican Reagan was a Keynesian.
Republican jr is a Keynesian.

So?

"We are all Keynesians now" - Richard Nixon.

Did you know that Keynes had ONE SEMESTER of economics in his entire school
career?

If you can't stick to the topic and keep throwing "streams of
consciousness", there's no point in further discussion.

[Pat]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Sid9

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Matt W. Barrow
It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is
restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents,
etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers
have nothing
to do with it.
Matt

 Developers support smart growth because they can put more housing
on less land and charge more too.

Developers don't set the price, the market does. Econ 101 - learn it.

Eco 101 teaches you theoretical
models.....you need more advanced
courses to approach reality.

You've got it completely inverted.

Post by Sid9
In reality theoretical supply-demand
markets never occur.

Excuse me?

Theoretical Eco 101 supply-demand
curves require perfect knowledge by
buyers and sellers.

No, it doesn't, except in Keynesian economics.

Post by Sid9
That NEVER happens in the real world.
Never.

"Perfect knowledge" isn't necessary, which is why Keynes was a sham.

Republican Reagan was a Keynesian.
Republican jr is  a Keynesian.

So?
"We are all Keynesians now" - Richard Nixon.
Did you know that Keynes had ONE SEMESTER of economics in his entire school
career?
If you can't stick to the topic and keep throwing "streams of
consciousness", there's no point in further discussion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

People, you are confusing reality and theory. Theory is theory is
theory. It is not meant to describe reality, but is only meant to
explain a teeny, tiny slie of reality.

Go look at something like Von Thunen. Great theory. It does a great
job of explaining cities. But it'll never describe any particular
city.

Keynsean economics is a good theory, but no one really expects thing
to work that way. Sure it assumes perfect knowledge. But it also
assumes a whole lot of other things. It's just a model.

Perfect knowledge is a minor assumption compared to something like
disjointness. Geez, disjointness assumes away ... EVERYTHING. Go try
living in disjoint world for a while.

Don't get too attached to your models and theories. They are just
that -- theories. You can't generalize much beyond the basics with
them. But as teaching tools, they're top notch.

[The Trucker]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing. Housing is the house
and it is the only part that has "replacement cost". The land does not
have "replacement" costs. The claim seems bogus. And BTW, the limiting
of sprawl decreases the fuel costs. If you were "forced" to buy a home
closer to your place of work due to the "sprawl laws" then you should
probably be smiling right now.

We need MUCH BETTER condos and apartments where you cannot hear your next
door neighbor no matter how hard you try.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

Post by The Trucker
Housing is the house
and it is the only part that has "replacement cost". The land does not
have "replacement" costs. The claim seems bogus. And BTW, the limiting
of sprawl decreases the fuel costs. If you were "forced" to buy a home
closer to your place of work due to the "sprawl laws" then you should
probably be smiling right now.

If I was forced to do any such thing, I'd smash the thugs face in with a
baseball bat.

Post by The Trucker
We need MUCH BETTER condos and apartments where you cannot hear your next
door neighbor no matter how hard you try.

Well, get busy building them...or is it easier to just shoot your stupid
mouth off?

[The Trucker]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent" and it normally must be
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker
Housing is the house
and it is the only part that has "replacement cost". The land does not
have "replacement" costs. The claim seems bogus. And BTW, the limiting
of sprawl decreases the fuel costs. If you were "forced" to buy a home
closer to your place of work due to the "sprawl laws" then you should
probably be smiling right now.

If I was forced to do any such thing, I'd smash the thugs face in with a
baseball bat.

A poor choice of words on my part. Let us say "encouraged" by your own
desire to maximize utility.

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker
We need MUCH BETTER condos and apartments where you cannot hear your next
door neighbor no matter how hard you try.

Well, get busy building them...or is it easier to just shoot your stupid
mouth off?

At present the construction of more housing is not warranted but in very
unique situations. The title of this thread is just plain erroneous. The
trade price of homes is not going down because of a supply problem. Most
rational persons are able to understand that axiomatic principle.

[george conklin]

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent" and it normally must be
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by The Trucker

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.
In
this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

You apparently have zero comprehension of what "land rent" refers to.

Post by The Trucker

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent"

Nope.

Post by The Trucker
and it normally must be

Post by The Trucker
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

He's badly misusing the term "land rent", almost as if he doesn't have a
clue as to what it means. Typical statist.

[george conklin]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.
In
this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

You apparently have zero comprehension of what "land rent" refers to.

Post by The Trucker

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent"

Nope.

Post by The Trucker
and it normally must be

Post by The Trucker
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

He's badly misusing the term "land rent", almost as if he doesn't have a
clue as to what it means. Typical statist.

I am not sure what land rent meant, but I did comment on the fact that
populations are concentrating is the result of social policy, such as Smart
Growth, which encourages increasing density using such terms as "infill."

[The Trucker]

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.
In
this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

You apparently have zero comprehension of what "land rent" refers to.

Post by The Trucker

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent"

Nope.

Post by The Trucker
and it normally must be

Post by The Trucker
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

He's badly misusing the term "land rent", almost as if he doesn't have a
clue as to what it means. Typical statist.

I am well aware of what land rent is. I have written quite a bit on the
subject here and in various other forums. I wonder why you would think
that someone is a "statist" because they are aware of land rent. Could it
be that you are a typical Republican rightard?

[The Trucker]

Post by george conklin

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as they're so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent" and it normally must be
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

The clumping of population is much less affected by social policy than
by natural resources and voluntary social interactions. "policy"
certainly will have an effect; especially tax policy and such things as
zoning. But zoning and such as that are the candles on the cake. People
live where they do much more because of climate, jobs, family, and all
sorts of stuff that is not "policy". Good local policies regarding local
development can be very beneficial. But people will tend to clump
together near natural water and such without any "policy".

[george conklin]

Post by The Trucker

Post by george conklin

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc.
In
this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Less land available means fewer houses capable of being built = less supply
during a static or increasing demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! The natural supply of land is not any
deterrent to the construction of housing. But land rent _IS_.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Odd that shold need to be pointed out to someone outside elemantary school
(Oh, I forgot, they don;t have time for that in public schools as
they're
so
busy teaching environmental hysteria and leftist economics/public policy).

The "cost" of land is referred to as "land rent" and it normally must be
pointed out to those who are unable to spell "elementary". Most of the
land rent in the USA today is a function of proximity to jobs and desired
goods. This would imply to most rational human beings that the spacial
aspects of lots (the lot is too small for the house) are the least of the
problem. The price of gasoline will have reduced the market value (cost in
rent) of residential land and in the countryside while elevating the value
of residential land (the cost of land use) in or closer to the centers of
population.

Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

The clumping of population is much less affected by social policy than
by natural resources and voluntary social interactions.

The stated goal of Smart Growth IS population concentration. It is the
same in UK. Urban growth boundries for example. Infill for another. This
not "natural." It is manipulation for ideological reasons by people who
have an agenda, and the public good is not a part of the agenda either.

[Mark M.]

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any "natural"
law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Mark M.

[george conklin]

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and it
does not good to hide the fact.

[Mark M.]

Post by george conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and it
does not good to hide the fact.

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in anticipation of
price appreciation. Land users must bypass this high priced land. This
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.

There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom of
something stupid.

If all land were up for lease bid, what kind of settlement pattern do you
suppose would result? Would people prefer to live farther from their jobs,
friends, shops, entertainment, and services?

Why is land much more expensive where population is dense rather than in
the sticks?

What makes a great retail location?

Mark M.

[George Conklin]

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and it
does not good to hide the fact.

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in anticipation of
price appreciation.

Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.



Land users must bypass this high priced land. This

Post by Mark M.
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.
There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom of
something stupid.

More paranoid rantings. The average commute is 21 minutes. Sorry about
the FActs. They make you look silly.

[Clark F Morris]

On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:57:46 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and

it

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
does not good to hide the fact.

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in anticipation

of

Post by Mark M.
price appreciation.

Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.
Land users must bypass this high priced land. This

Post by Mark M.
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.
There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom

of

Post by Mark M.
something stupid.

More paranoid rantings. The average commute is 21 minutes. Sorry about
the FActs. They make you look silly.

And then there is the person who drowned in the stream with an average
depth of 6 inches (15.24 cm.). Averages on this are misleading for
several reasons. The accuracy of the reporting of commute time may be
open to question (I suspect that transit may be more underestimated
than automobile). My wife did have about a 20 minute commute when she
was working. The transit or drive portion of my commute when I lived
and worked in Bloomfield, NJ varied from 2 minutes (train) to 5
minutes (bus) with the car being in between. Given parking the
walking varied from 2 - 5 minutes so the time spent moving was about
10 minutes. Add 5 - 10 minutes wait for the transit depending on how
closely I timed it (and if I ate breakfast and read my newspaper I
timed it fairly close to the schedule), I spent less time waiting in
the morning. I would time my departure from work to the transit
schedule. You can tell I was lazy in a sense since the walk was 20 -
25 minutes door to door.

I would assume the commute time includes people who work from home. I
don't know how they account for people who have varying work locations
(housekeepers, visiting nurses, electricians, consultants, etc.).

The distribution of commutes and the sources of information would be
of great interest.

[George Conklin]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:57:46 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population
concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is
population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and

it

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
does not good to hide the fact.

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in

anticipation

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin
of

Post by Mark M.
price appreciation.

Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.
Land users must bypass this high priced land. This

Post by Mark M.
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.
There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom

of

Post by Mark M.
something stupid.

More paranoid rantings. The average commute is 21 minutes. Sorry about
the FActs. They make you look silly.

And then there is the person who drowned in the stream with an average
depth of 6 inches (15.24 cm.). Averages on this are misleading

Averages are the true picture, not your emotions.

[Pat]

Post by Enough Already

Post by Clark F Morris
On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:57:46 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by Mark M.

  Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks.  That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

    Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries.  This is population
concentration.  Smart Growth wants infill.  This is population
concentration.  Smart Growth wants "shared walls."  This is

population

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Mark M.

concentration.  The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization."  This

is

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Mark M.

population concentration.  Population concentration is social policy

and

Post by Clark F Morris

it

Post by Mark M.

does not good to hide the fact.

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in

anticipation

Post by Clark F Morris

of

Post by Mark M.
  price appreciation.

  Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.
 Land users must bypass this high priced land.  This

Post by Mark M.
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.
There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work.  It is a

symptom

Post by Clark F Morris

of

Post by Mark M.
something stupid.

   More paranoid rantings.  The average commute is 21 minutes.  Sorry

about

Post by Clark F Morris

the FActs.  They make you look silly.

And then there is the person who drowned in the stream with an average
depth of 6 inches (15.24 cm.).  Averages on this are misleading

   Averages are the true picture, not your emotions.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Your arguing the wrong side, here, George. These are means. They
take into account people with tremendously long commutes. I'm sure
there are some people who commute 2 hours each way the skew the
numbers pretty badly. In all likelihood, the median is probably lower
yet.

But anyway, I think Clark's point is that further examination of the
numbers might be very interesting. For example, what do the quartile
numbers look like? What's the distribution? Are there a bunch of
people with 1 minute commutes and a bunch with 45 minute commutes and
few in between? I don't know, but it would be interesting to look
at. One number, by itself, is seldom interesting (or useful).

Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:af46c5c0-b9cd-4ebf-8a9a-***@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------

I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from where
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

-Amy

[Clark F Morris]

On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from where
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

Post by Pat
-Amy

[George Conklin]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from where
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

If planners could have come up with a planned society which had 20 minute
commutes they would be screaming, "success, success, success." 20 minutes
is a minimum commute.

[Pat]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times.  If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like?  What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment?  That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from

where

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
I work."  I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business,

like

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people.  The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

If planners could have come up with a planned society which had 20 minute
commutes they would be screaming, "success, success, success."  20 minutes
is a minimum commute.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

George. If the average commute is 24 minutes, the minimum commute
ain't 20 minutes.

[George Conklin]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from

where

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business,

like

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

If planners could have come up with a planned society which had 20 minute
commutes they would be screaming, "success, success, success." 20 minutes
is a minimum commute.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

George. If the average commute is 24 minutes, the minimum commute
ain't 20 minutes.

Overall 20 minutes is the minimum a society is likely to obtain. Even in
bicycle-oriented societies, like India used to be, it takes quite a bit of
time to get through crowded streets to get to work.

[Pat]

Post by Enough Already

Post by George Conklin

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from

where

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business,

like

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference

people

Post by George Conklin

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

If planners could have come up with a planned society which had 20 minute
commutes they would be screaming, "success, success, success." 20 minutes
is a minimum commute.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

George.  If the average commute is 24 minutes, the minimum commute
ain't 20 minutes.
  Overall 20 minutes is the minimum a society is likely to obtain.  Even  in
bicycle-oriented societies, like India used to be, it takes quite a bit of
time to get through crowded streets to get to work.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If an overall co mmute time of 20 minutes is "ideal" (to which Amy
will demand that you cite something); then an average of 24 is pretty
darned good. Free markets prevail. People know what they want.

[George Conklin]

Post by Enough Already

Post by George Conklin

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from

where

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business,

like

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference

people

Post by George Conklin

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

If planners could have come up with a planned society which had 20 minute
commutes they would be screaming, "success, success, success." 20 minutes
is a minimum commute.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

George. If the average commute is 24 minutes, the minimum commute
ain't 20 minutes.
Overall 20 minutes is the minimum a society is likely to obtain. Even in
bicycle-oriented societies, like India used to be, it takes quite a bit of
time to get through crowded streets to get to work.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

If an overall co mmute time of 20 minutes is "ideal" (to which Amy
will demand that you cite something); then an average of 24 is pretty
darned good. Free markets prevail. People know what they want.
---

Apparently in Europe too people are willing to spend 1 hour to get to work.
We are a long, long ways from that. Amos Hawley is known for that rule in
the USA, although later in life he thought maybe half-hour was closer to
what people were happy about.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Pat

Post by George Conklin
If planners could have come up with a planned society which had 20 minute
commutes they would be screaming, "success, success, success." 20 minutes
is a minimum commute.- Hide quoted text -

No, the APA has been trying to LENGTHEN commutes for many years now to FORCE
people out of their cars.

If reducing communting time and congestion were the goal, they've been using
some really bizarre tactics.

Note, too, that of all the money garnered from fuel taxes, how much winds up
in the general fund and hou much is poured into road funding of bridges
(Ted Stevens) and roads to "no where" (Robert Byrd).

(See earlier post regarding the fallacy of government planning)

As well, local traffic departments have been playing with traffic controls
to encourgae violations and increase revenue from traffic fines.

Post by Pat

Post by George Conklin
- Show quoted text -

George. If the average commute is 24 minutes, the minimum commute
ain't 20 minutes.
Overall 20 minutes is the minimum a society is likely to obtain. Even
in
bicycle-oriented societies, like India used to be, it takes quite a bit of
time to get through crowded streets to get to work.

And the whole premise is wrong, given the points above.

[Pat]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times.  If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like?  What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment?  That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from where
I work."  I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people.  The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.  

I agree that for most people, they need "decompression time" on the
way home -- plus a grocery store in many cases. Most people wouldn't
like working from home -- especially people in manufacturing.

It is an interesting prospect for the so-called planned communities.
What if they are building the work too close to the living?

[George Conklin]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from where
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

I agree that for most people, they need "decompression time" on the
way home -- plus a grocery store in many cases. Most people wouldn't
like working from home -- especially people in manufacturing.
----

I can just see it now...assemble your Toyota at home. Really?

[Pat]

Post by Pat

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from

where

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

I agree that for most people, they need "decompression time" on the
way home -- plus a grocery store in many cases.  Most people wouldn't
like working from home -- especially people in manufacturing.
----
I can just see it now...assemble your Toyota at home.  Really?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Would it be "assemble the Toyota at home" or would it be "live at the
Toyota factory"?

Remember all of the old worker-cottages and crappy row housing built
next to factories that spewed out who-knows-what from back in the
Industrial Revolution days (before good transportation). Well, people
left that model and headed to the suburbs to get away from it. People
wanted to be away from work. I don't think things have changed too
much.

[George Conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by Clark F Morris
On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:20:36 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
...
Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.
--------------------------
I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from

where

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by Pat
I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like
sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people
want to live from their employment.

Actually my wife found that the 20 minute commute (about 15 miles) was
useful in separating work from home and I have heard the same thing
from other people. The idea of a minimum commute or separation
distance is worth exploring.

I agree that for most people, they need "decompression time" on the
way home -- plus a grocery store in many cases. Most people wouldn't
like working from home -- especially people in manufacturing.
----
I can just see it now...assemble your Toyota at home. Really?- Hide quoted

text -

Post by Pat
- Show quoted text -

Would it be "assemble the Toyota at home" or would it be "live at the
Toyota factory"?

Remember all of the old worker-cottages and crappy row housing built
next to factories that spewed out who-knows-what from back in the
Industrial Revolution days (before good transportation). Well, people
left that model and headed to the suburbs to get away from it. People
wanted to be away from work. I don't think things have changed too
much.

---

Can you imagine living over McDonalds? What about over Wal-Mart?

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
Would it be "assemble the Toyota at home" or would it be "live at the
Toyota factory"?
Remember all of the old worker-cottages and crappy row housing built
next to factories that spewed out who-knows-what from back in the
Industrial Revolution days (before good transportation). Well, people
left that model and headed to the suburbs to get away from it. People
wanted to be away from work. I don't think things have changed too
much.
---
Can you imagine living over McDonalds? What about over Wal-Mart?

Those particular businesses are optimized to work best when _nobody_ lives
within walking distance of them, especially Wal-Mart. So of course they'd
be unpleasant to live over.

OTOH, I'd _love_ to live over a curry house, as my friend in London did.

[George Conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
Would it be "assemble the Toyota at home" or would it be "live at the
Toyota factory"?
Remember all of the old worker-cottages and crappy row housing built
next to factories that spewed out who-knows-what from back in the
Industrial Revolution days (before good transportation). Well, people
left that model and headed to the suburbs to get away from it. People
wanted to be away from work. I don't think things have changed too
much.
---
Can you imagine living over McDonalds? What about over Wal-Mart?

Those particular businesses are optimized to work best when _nobody_ lives
within walking distance of them, especially Wal-Mart. So of course they'd
be unpleasant to live over.
OTOH, I'd _love_ to live over a curry house, as my friend in London did.

Burger King might be almost as bad. My wife cooks curry and just one
day's worth changes the aroma in the house for 2 weeks.

[George Conklin]

Post by Enough Already

Post by Clark F Morris
On Wed, 7 May 2008 19:57:46 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by George Conklin

Post by Mark M.

Post by george conklin
Population concentration is a result of social policy, not any
"natural" law.

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population
concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is

population

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin

Post by Mark M.

concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This

is

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin

Post by Mark M.

population concentration. Population concentration is social policy

and

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin
it

Post by Mark M.

does not good to hide the fact.

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in

anticipation

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin
of

Post by Mark M.
price appreciation.

Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.
Land users must bypass this high priced land. This

Post by Mark M.
means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.
There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more
hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a

symptom

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin
of

Post by Mark M.
something stupid.

More paranoid rantings. The average commute is 21 minutes. Sorry

about

Post by Clark F Morris

Post by George Conklin
the FActs. They make you look silly.

And then there is the person who drowned in the stream with an average
depth of 6 inches (15.24 cm.). Averages on this are misleading

Averages are the true picture, not your emotions.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Your arguing the wrong side, here, George. These are means. They
take into account people with tremendously long commutes. I'm sure
there are some people who commute 2 hours each way the skew the
numbers pretty badly. In all likelihood, the median is probably lower
yet.

But anyway, I think Clark's point is that further examination of the
numbers might be very interesting. For example, what do the quartile
numbers look like? What's the distribution? Are there a bunch of
people with 1 minute commutes and a bunch with 45 minute commutes and
few in between? I don't know, but it would be interesting to look
at. One number, by itself, is seldom interesting (or useful).

Another interesting thing to look at would be minimum commuting
times. If you take out people who work out of there homes, what does
the distribution at the very short end of commuting look like? What
is the minimum distance that people want to live from their
employment? That could have a profound impact on Smart Growth and
other things.

Here is what the census says:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2005
Stephen Buckner/Joanna Gonzalez
Public Information Office
[phone]/457-3620 (fax)
[phone] (TDD)
e-mail: <***@census.gov>
CB05-AC.02
Ranking tables [PDFs]:
State | County | Place
Extreme Commutes
Photos
Press Kit


Americans Spend More Than 100 Hours Commuting to
Work Each Year, Census Bureau Reports
New York and Maryland Residents Face Most Time Traveling to Work
Americans spend more than 100 hours commuting to work each year,
according to American Community Survey (ACS) data released today by the U.S.
Census Bureau. This exceeds the two weeks of vacation time (80 hours)
frequently taken by workers over the course of a year. For the nation as a
whole, the average daily commute to work lasted about 24.3 minutes in 2003.

"This annual information on commuters and their work trips and other
transportation-related data will help local, regional and state agencies
maintain, improve, plan and develop the nation's transportation systems,"
said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon. "American Community Survey data
will provide valuable assistance to agencies offering housing, education and
other public services as well."

Based on a ranking of states with the longest average commute-to-work
times, the ACS showed that New York (30.4 minutes) and Maryland (30.2
minutes) residents spent the most time traveling to their jobs. New Jersey
(28.5 minutes), Illinois (27.0 minutes) and California (26.5 minutes) were
also among states with some of the longest one-way commute times. States
with some of the lowest average commute times included South Dakota (15.2
minutes), North Dakota (15.4 minutes), Nebraska (16.5 minutes) and Montana
(16.9 minutes). (See state rankings [PDF].)

Of the 231 counties with populations of 250,000 or more covered by the
ACS, Queens (41.7 minutes), Richmond (41.3 minutes), Bronx (40.8 minutes)
and Kings (39.7 minutes) - four of the five counties that comprise New York
City - experienced the longest average commute-to-work times. Additionally,
workers living in Prince William County, Va. (36.4 minutes); and Prince
George's County, Md. (35.5 minutes); - suburban counties located within the
Washington, D.C. metro area - also faced some of the longest commutes. (See
county rankings [PDF].)

In a ranking of large cities (with populations of 250,000 or more), New
York (38.3 minutes); Chicago (33.2 minutes); Newark, N.J. (31.5 minutes);
Riverside, Calif. (31.2 minutes); Philadelphia (29.4 minutes); and Los
Angeles (29.0 minutes) had among the nation's highest average commute times.
Among the 10 cities with the highest average commuting times, New York and
Baltimore lay claim to having the highest percentage of people with
"extreme" commutes; 5.6 percent of their commuters spent 90 or more minutes
getting to work. People with extreme commutes were also heavily concentrated
in Newark, N.J. (5.2 percent); Riverside, Calif. (5.0 percent); Los Angeles
(3.0 percent); Philadelphia (2.9 percent); and Chicago (2.5 percent).
Nationally, just 2.0 percent of workers faced extreme commutes to their
jobs. (See extreme commutes rankings [PDF].)

In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to
experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas
(16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes);
and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)

Other highlights:

Chicago; Riverside, Calif.; and Los Angeles were the only cities among those
with the highest average travel times to work that are not located on the
East Coast.
Among the 10 counties with the highest average commuting times, the highest
percentages of extreme commuters were found in the New York City metro area:
Richmond, N.Y. (11.8 percent); Orange, N.Y. (10.0 percent); Queens, N.Y.
(7.1 percent); Bronx, N.Y. (6.9 percent); Nassau, N.Y., (6.6 percent); and
Kings, N.Y. (5.0).
Among the 10 states with the highest average commuting times, the highest
percentages of their workers commuting 90 or more minutes to their job were
found in New York (4.3 percent), New Jersey (4.0 percent) and Maryland (3.2
percent).
The new ACS is the cornerstone of the government's effort to keep pace
with the country's ever-increasing demands for timely and relevant
population and housing data. Being mailed to about 250,000 (roughly
1-in-480) addresses a month nationwide, the ACS will provide current
demographic, housing, social and economic information about America's
communities every year - information previously available only once every 10
years.


- x -
The American Community Survey data are based on responses from a sample of
households across the nation. The estimates and rankings may vary from the
actual values because of sampling or nonsampling variations. The statistical
statements have undergone testing, and comparisons are significant at the
90-percent confidence level. Additional information and data profiles for
the nation, states, counties and places may be accessed at
<http://www.census.gov/acs> or <http://factfinder.census.gov>.

[george conklin]

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing is
drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.

[The Trucker]

Post by george conklin

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing is
drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.

No thanks. My reading list is already quite full. I am very much aware
of why housing costs WERE ridiculously high, and why the are now going
way down. Perhaps you think that environmental policies have been eased
(and they haven't that I am aware of)causing the decrease in the price of
homes. YOU may well believe that frogs cause warts.

Unless you insist on connecting the limitations on drilling the ANWR to a
control on sprawl (what a leap) you are simply full of crap.

[george conklin]

Post by The Trucker

Post by george conklin

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing is
drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.

No thanks. My reading list is already quite full. I am very much aware
of why housing costs WERE ridiculously high, and why the are now going
way down. Perhaps you think that environmental policies have been eased
(and they haven't that I am aware of)causing the decrease in the price of
homes. YOU may well believe that frogs cause warts.
Unless you insist on connecting the limitations on drilling the ANWR to a
control on sprawl (what a leap) you are simply full of crap.

The American population has been concentrating in fewer and fewer places
since 1900. What we have today are the side effects of population
concentration, with half of our counties actually losing population. Half.
And it would be more like 65% if you include failure to grow at the average
rate, thus failing to keep up. But do read "The Last Harvest" to see how a
smart growth-oriented architect shows how governmental foot dragging kills
the quality of life.

[The Trucker]

Post by george conklin

Post by The Trucker

Post by george conklin

Post by The Trucker

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by george conklin

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

----
Developers have prices artifically raised by governmental rules which
limit "sprawl" and thus force housing prices up to many times replacment
costs. This is what makes housing unaffordable to start with.

It's called "supply and demand" - the supply of workable LAND is restricted
and even diminishing, while the DEMAND increases. The rules may be to
alleviate "sprawl" or just to protect certain insects, rodents, etc. In this
case the S&D curve is artificially contrived and the developers have nothing
to do with it.

These claims make no sense. Please attempt to advise us how "rules that
limit sprawl" would drive up the price of housing.

Just read the book "The Last Harvest" to see how the cost of housing is
drive sky-high by smart growth limits and governmental foot-dragging.

No thanks. My reading list is already quite full. I am very much aware
of why housing costs WERE ridiculously high, and why the are now going
way down. Perhaps you think that environmental policies have been eased
(and they haven't that I am aware of)causing the decrease in the price of
homes. YOU may well believe that frogs cause warts.
Unless you insist on connecting the limitations on drilling the ANWR to a
control on sprawl (what a leap) you are simply full of crap.

The American population has been concentrating in fewer and fewer places
since 1900. What we have today are the side effects of population
concentration, with half of our counties actually losing population. Half.
And it would be more like 65% if you include failure to grow at the average
rate, thus failing to keep up. But do read "The Last Harvest" to see how a
smart growth-oriented architect shows how governmental foot dragging kills
the quality of life.

NO time. But you are right to look at the community as opposed to the
whole damned financial and federal taxation system.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Since your posts don't indent properly, I'll just summarize by saying:

Your country has a housing situation that would do North Korea proud and you
find noting amiss? Worse yet, you equate this to the entire US?

Just what perspective do your bring when you "testify"? A lot of Hollyweird
celebrities testify in front of government boards - ever wonder WHY?

Let me guess - you're one of these?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8831

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)

My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs

I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....


Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund. Developers could make much
more money by just opting out of building affording
housing units. However, the fund generated by this opt out
fee has never been enough for the local government to build
any new affordable housing projects/complexes ( especially with
rising land prices and higher construction cost). Since new
affordable housing units are now even more costlier to make
than in the past -- builders when they do make them also
can only make a few of them. Thus there hasn't been much
in additional affordable housing construction in my county
for about 20 years. Only recently the law was revised such that
builder/developers are now required to build Moderatedly Priced
Dwelling Units (MPDUs) and may NOT opt out -- but since
new construction permits has gone bust - this might
be a case of closing the barn door after the cows
have left.


At the local level, I've also witnessed
residents from local communities resist the inclusion
of MPDUs near their communities because they fear it would
decrease the value of their homes.


The lack of new affordable housing construction would not be
such a severe problem if it weren't for the lost of current
affordable
housing. The currently the bulk of affordable housing consist
of local apartment complexes but the current housing/real estate trend
has been of the conversion of these apartments ( which have
affordable rents) to luxury condos (which require a large amount of
capital but have high monthy fees) . So you not only have the
failure to create an adequate supply of new affordable housing
units but you have the lost of existing affordable housing units.
Luxury condos provide a higher profit margin than affordable
co-ops - So Co-ops are not very popular here. One of the
initiatives being advocated recently here is to stop the loss
of older affordable housing units by using the affordable housing
fund to buying apartments that provide affordable housing units
that would otherwise be converted into condoniums.


While housing cost have dropped - they are still very high
especially when considering the interest being charge
on the mortgage. It seems to me that the people
who have (re)financed their homes in my region in
the last 3 years who are mainly at risk with respect
to this currently troubling financial climate. I've heard
that atleast some of the current troubles have to do
with loans generated by mortgage brokers and
the lack of verification( of financial data by) financial
institutions. The main reason for this financial subterfuge
is to make a mortgage/home affordable (or appear to
be more affordable ).


I've notice in my community that most of the
housing assistance has gone to single parent families,
e.g. a mom with atleast one child. I've also notice that
many households in my locale ( the Washington DC
Metro Areas ) often solve the demand for higher
housing cost by having multiple earners.

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not.

I disagree.
It's not how many
but what type of housing.
It's part of a built in market inefficiency
There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
However, there are very few options for the working poor.
Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
very rich
all the builders made houses for the very rich.
Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
poor
all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
because the world doesn't have enough rich people
and a lack of affordable homes
for the average working family....
this environment encourages/forces average family into a
housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
en mass. -

[drydem]

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Your country has a housing situation that would do North Korea proud and you
find noting amiss? Worse yet, you equate this to the entire US?

Indentations are not necessary style element nor are they required.

Also your summary of my posting is incorrect.
There was no comparison or judgement involved. - my posting focused on
the
economic mechanism that drive the development of housing in the
Washington DC Metro Area.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Just what perspective do your bring when you "testify"?

For the most part,
It depends on what my local community (+700 homes) wants to focus on.
My focus has normally been with the crafting local laws, zoning
ordinances and variances..
most of the time its rather tedious - and almost always obscure,
e.g. the
environmental impact of methane generators.

The last time I testified it was to argued for my community to get
some type of relief from noisy low flying helicopter operations.

Post by Matt W. Barrow
A lot of Hollyweird
celebrities testify in front of government boards - ever wonder WHY?

That's our federal government for you!
It's to be expected - Why our country even elected a hollywood
celebrities (Ronald Reagan) for President!


Unfortunately, Hollywood celebrities just
aren't attracted to any of my local civic meetings ...
but just in case I'll have my camera ready for them :-)
yeah that would be sooo cool to have Jessica Alba or Orlando
Bloom as guest.... :-)

[Pat]

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow
Can you support your points below, or are you just throwing out you opinion?

Oh no!
I hope you don't think I'm ranting... (9_9)
My points are an empircal observation. I'm involved in
urban planning and local governing affairs
 I occassionally testify at government hearings as well....
Locally builders have been able to opt out of building
affordable housing units ( until recently) by paying into
Affordable housing Fund.  Developers could  make much
more money by just opting out of building affording
housing units.  However, the fund  generated by this opt out
fee has never been enough for the local government to build
any new affordable housing  projects/complexes ( especially with
rising land prices and higher construction cost).  Since new
affordable housing units are now even more costlier to make
than in the past -- builders when they do make them also
can only make a few of them.  Thus there hasn't been much
in additional affordable housing construction in my county
for about 20 years. Only recently the  law was revised such that
builder/developers are now required to build Moderatedly Priced
Dwelling Units (MPDUs)  and may NOT opt out -- but since
new construction permits has gone bust - this might
be a case of closing the barn door after the cows
have left.
At the local level, I've also witnessed
residents from local communities resist the inclusion
of MPDUs near their communities because they fear it would
decrease the value of their homes.

There are a bunch of studies out there about the impact of affordable
housing on the values of nearby homes. Most studies found no impact
whatsoever. One study found that there was a slight reduction in the
INCREASE in housing value for housing within 300' of an affordable
complex -- but the impact was negligible.

Post by drydem
The lack of new affordable housing construction would not be
such a severe problem if it weren't for the lost of current
affordable
housing.  The currently the bulk of affordable housing consist
of local apartment complexes but the current housing/real estate trend
has been of the conversion of these apartments ( which have
affordable rents) to luxury condos (which require a large amount of
capital but have high monthy fees) . So you not only have the
failure to create an adequate supply of new affordable housing
units but you have the lost of existing affordable housing units.
Luxury condos provide a higher profit margin than affordable
co-ops  - So Co-ops are not very popular here. One of the
initiatives being advocated recently here is to stop the loss
of older affordable housing units by using the affordable housing
fund to buying apartments that provide affordable housing units
that would  otherwise be converted into condoniums.

One of the biggest problems is that the LIHC program is not-that much
more than 15 years old and the initial projects were on 15 year
regulatory periods. In appreciating markets, a lot of these complexes
are going to market. There is a similar problem with the Section 8
project-based complexes including a lot of USDA RD complexes.

Another issue overlooked almost completely are the Section 142 bond
projects where they use a huge amount of cap to produce relatively few
affordable units and end up subsidizing the non-affordable units --
the so-called 80/20 projects.

Post by drydem
While housing cost have dropped - they are still very high
especially when considering the interest being charge
on the mortgage.   It seems to me that the people
who have (re)financed their homes in my region in
the last 3 years who are mainly at risk with respect
to this currently troubling financial climate.  I've heard
that atleast some of the current troubles have to do
with loans generated by mortgage brokers and
the lack of verification( of financial data by)  financial
institutions.   The main reason for this financial subterfuge
is to make a mortgage/home affordable (or appear to
be more affordable ).

No, they weren't trying to make homes affordable. They were trying to
allow people to speculate and to buy a home in the homes of "growing
into the mortgage". Affordability wasn't a concern.

However, this has had an impact of affordable multi-family development
because it has taken financial instituations out of the market for
LIHCs and has driven it down to companies looking for a highe yield.
That has brought the pricing down significantly and therefore has make
many project infeasible.

Post by drydem
I've notice in my community that most of the
housing assistance has gone to single parent families,
e.g. a mom with atleast one child.  I've also notice that
many households in my locale ( the Washington DC
Metro Areas ) often solve the demand for higher
housing cost by having multiple earners.

the number one thing someone could do to get affordable housing is to
increase the amount of land where one can build multifamily. You have
a construction boom and it will include affordable units after the
initial boom of high-end stuff. Open up othe markets and let the
markets get into balance.

Post by drydem

Post by Matt W. Barrow

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not.

I disagree.
It's not how many
but what type of housing.
It's part of a built in  market inefficiency
There are plenty of houses for the very rich.
However, there are very few options for the working poor.
Because there is a higher profit to be made making housing for the
very rich
  all the builders made houses for the very rich.
Because there is a very low propfit for making housing for the working
poor
  all the builders avoid making housing for the average working stiff.
Unfortunately this led to a glut of overpriced homes
    because the world doesn't have  enough rich people
 and a lack of affordable homes
     for the average working family....
this environment encourages/forces average family  into a
   housing market where they must +buy up+ to afford housing
  often forcing them to extend their credit to buy a
    place to live...this inturn creates a financial market
full of risky instruments. All it takes is inflationary pressures
or a a recession to cause these risky instruments to fail
en mass. -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Geo]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

The real housing crisis doesn't exist. 96% of home owners do the
right thing by paying their mortgages. 4% are too stupid to figure
out simple math and understand that an adjustable rate mortgage
actually goes up after a certain amount of time. To you numbskulls
that went to govt schools, that means the monthly payment goes up.
So, what do we have? A freaking bailout that you and I have to pay
for. All because people are too stupid to be responsible.

[Dioclese]

Post by Geo

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.

The real housing crisis doesn't exist. 96% of home owners do the
right thing by paying their mortgages. 4% are too stupid to figure
out simple math and understand that an adjustable rate mortgage
actually goes up after a certain amount of time. To you numbskulls
that went to govt schools, that means the monthly payment goes up.
So, what do we have? A freaking bailout that you and I have to pay
for. All because people are too stupid to be responsible.

Forgive my unfamiliarity. As I understand it, the bank or maker of a loan
for a home/house is REQUIRED to provide a list of payments for the entire
length of the mortgage loan.

The housing crisis exists uniquely for the working poor. This is because
they have to pay for all their housing costs, and because there seldom
exists adequate affordable housing for these people.

[Matt W. Barrow]

Post by Dioclese

Post by Geo
The real housing crisis doesn't exist. 96% of home owners do the
right thing by paying their mortgages. 4% are too stupid to figure
out simple math and understand that an adjustable rate mortgage
actually goes up after a certain amount of time. To you numbskulls
that went to govt schools, that means the monthly payment goes up.
So, what do we have? A freaking bailout that you and I have to pay
for. All because people are too stupid to be responsible.

Forgive my unfamiliarity. As I understand it, the bank or maker of a loan
for a home/house is REQUIRED to provide a list of payments for the entire
length of the mortgage loan.
The housing crisis exists uniquely for the working poor.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Many middle-class folks got in too deep by
borrowing against equity (paper gains) to buy all sorts of nice toys. Now
they're stuck with diminishing market value and two or even three mortgages
on their property.

Post by Dioclese
This is because they have to pay for all their housing costs,

And who doesn't?

Post by Dioclese
and because there seldom exists adequate affordable housing for these
people.

Absolute BS. There's not enough "rich" people to sustain the market you seem
to think you see.

Just 100 yers ago, most goods beyond the very basics were the domain of the
"rich" (and those were mostly rich by heredity, not productivity, at least
outside the US).

Today, the "poor" have goods the rich didn't have in the late 19th century.

As little as 30 years ago, the term "Jet Setter" had a significant
connotation: only the wealthy could afford to fly around for their travels;
today, most anyone can.

Here's a few clues: Henry Ford, Sears, Wal-Mart, the consumer electronics
industry...

There's very few markets that can sustain themselves catering only to the
wealthy.

Post by Dioclese
--
Dave
Hypocrisy. Big SUV, filament lights on all night. You think your
neighbor should be changiing to compact fluorescent light bulbs and
driving the hybrid.

Hey, hypocrite: shut off your computer and TV and use your abacus and read
books.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare for a trip in the morning in my
private aircraft that gets 15 miles per gallon.

--

[zzbunker]

Post by Enough Already
The REAL housing crisis is that TOO MANY of them are being built every
day, bad mortgages or not. Mindless overpopulation (75 million
annually, worldwide) is treated as natural. Nature is treated as
expendable.
People go about their business, talking about money and investments,
as if the land itself is infinite. They always claim there's "plenty
of land" but won't say relative to what. Unaffected acreage decreases
literally each second.

That's only a tenth of the problem. They also build their neo-
palaces
with three car garges, but buy five cars, two SUVs, and a
powerboat.
Impossible to afford maintainence fees, built-in theaters,
dial-a-pizza, and fly-in drive-ways.
So you put all them togther, and it's not a housing problem.
It's a geniune Miami Beach idiot problem.

Post by Enough Already
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=human+footprint+map
"Economic growth" means more people and less nature each day, with
money creating a false measure of value in the process. A true housing
"bubble" is an entire round hill covered with them.
Real estate developers use money made from cannibalized land to
cannibalize even more land. The word FINITE is missing from too many
vocabularies.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Housing starts are a leading indicator of mindless growth.