Suburbs Start Figuring Out They Are Heading For Fiscal Crisis

Image via Shutterstock

Image via Shutterstock

Some suburbs in Indiana are waking up to the fact at their pattern of development is unsustainable in the most important way – financially.

An article in the Indianapolis Business Journal describes the scene in booming, upscale Hamilton County:

Hamilton County officials are closely watching new-housing prices, knowing that local governments’ long-term financial security could depend on it.

If a residential development doesn’t promise homes with a high enough price tag, a municipality could end up losing money. That’s because, under the state’s property tax caps, lower assessed values might not generate enough tax to cover the cost of city services.

No one seems to know exactly what that break-even price is—estimates range from $250,000 to $450,000—but most developers and government officials agree anything below $200,000 is no longer worth approving.

This is presented as an artifact of tax caps, but those caps are simply doing the service of revealing early, while there is still time to do something about it, that the financial model of too much of suburbia is not sustainable on a long term basis.

Indiana caps property taxes at 1% of a home’s value. That’s all the property tax money local government has to work with to provide all the services on which that property depends.

Houses that are too cheap – and too cheap could mean as expensive as $450,000 – will not produce enough property taxes to sustain municipal services.

This means housing for working class people isn’t going to get approved. This requires no recourse to racism, elitism, etc. to explain. Lower cost housing simply has a negative ROI for these communities.

Maybe they can get away with building some lower cost housing that requires subsidies to support, but too much of this and a town will quickly be in real trouble.

The problem is worse than these leaders know. They are in a favored quarter region that is still rapidly expanding in population, and every town here has physical room for more development.

Cities that are newer or still in their growth phase experience artificially low costs because of the power of greenfield economics. Their building stock is new, liabilities are low, the population is well off, and by simple economies of scale alone they are becoming more cost efficient as they grow.

But when they reach maturity and stop growing, costs escalate rapidly. This is why so many older suburbs around the country (paging Ferguson, MO) are in such bad shape, financially and otherwise.

One way to solve the problem is to only build houses expensive enough to make the math work. That’s what Hamilton County seems to be doing. They are also smartly realizing that developers used to be able to offload infrastructure costs onto the municipality, and they are now making sure everything is paid for by the developer up front.

But even a place without tax caps would end up like too many East Coast cities. They might in theory have a housing stock that would sustainably support a wider range of incomes. But in these towns sky high property taxes keep the working class out.  This type of development, once the lifecycle phase of cheap costs is over, will send taxes through the roof, which we see in many places.

These towns are ahead of the game in terms of coming to grips with the problem. Too many are not, however. They are simply approving developments pell-mell that are going to leave them saddled with massive future costs and a resident base that cannot afford to pay them.

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/30/suburbs-start-figuring-out-they-are-heading-for-fiscal-crisis/

Looking at Home Prices

Four cities have set new all-time highs for prices, two are more than 20% above their pre-crisis peaks:

(click on table or chart for larger image)

Home prices are much more volatile than rents and are rising a bit faster currently:

With inflation quite low, the real and nominal home prices track one-another, unlike the more distant past:

Affordability should survive the prospect of rising interest rates:


from S&P Dow Jones Indices – HousingViews
http://www.housingviews.com/2015/11/24/looking-at-home-prices/

Bicycling, Gentrification, NYPD, Donald Trump, Oh My!

I was the guest on yesterday’s installment of the Federalist Radio Hour with Ben Domenech. I took over the entire show, talking about a wide-ranging set of urban issues, including:

  • 0:00 – About me
  • 3:30 – Challenges facing cities
  • 5:20 – The limited power of city governments
  • 7:45 – Reinventing NYC and success at crime reduction
  • 10:15 – Crime in Chicago
  • 13:10 – Revival of cities and global cities
  • 15:28 – Millennial life cycle
  • 17:45 – Bike lanes – “The overwrought opposition to bicycling is almost comical”
  • 21:02 – Gentrification
  • 28:55 – Infrastructure and how to pay for it
  • 34:50 – The urban regulatory state
  • 38:45 – My podcast with my father about why the Republican base hates the GOP establishment and loves Donald Trump
  • 47:05 – Republicans and cities

If the embed doesn’t display for you, click over to listen on Soundcloud.

 

 

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/20/bicycling-gentrification-nypd-donald-trump-oh-my/

How Portland Is a Lot Like Texas

portland-streetscape

One theme I always hammer is that you have to look at proposed policy solutions in the context of the area where you want to apply them.

A great example of this is Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB, a policy that limits suburban development outside of a line drawn around the Portland region, is widely admired and perhaps even seen a type of holy grail policy in terms of preventing sprawl.

Obviously restricting development outside the UGB raised demand for land inside of it and thus housing prices. Portland’s median home price multiple – that is, the median home price divided by the median household income – is 4.8. The average household in Portland would need to spend 4.8 times its annual income to buy a house there.  This compares with 2.9 in Kansas City, 3.0 in Columbus, and 3.9 in Austin.

So Portland is less affordable than many similar sized housing markets around the US.

But despite this, Portland remains the most affordable major West Coast metro area.  That’s because housing prices in other major coastal cities are even higher, including Seattle (5.2), Los Angeles (8.0), San Diego (8.3), the Bay Area (9.2), and Vancouver (10.6).

So even while its home prices have risen, Portland remains the cheapest major city to live apart from Sacramento (4.7).  That is, even with the UGB Portland has a big cost advantage over its regional competition. In short, it’s cheap.

In this way, the attraction of Portland is a lot like Texas. Its draw is more a cost arbitrage play for people leaving San Francisco than an upgrade to superior urbanism from the interior. As it happens, California refugees make up the bulk of the net migrants into Portland.

The Texas comparison is relevant on the tax front too. Portland is one of the rare places you have the potential for double border tax arbitrage. Washington state has no income tax and Oregon has no sales tax. While only a limited number of people can take advantage of both (you have to both live and work in Washington to avoid the income tax), being able to zero out one or more major tax categories is a win.

This is not to say that Portland is a lousy place to live. It’s fantastic as near as I can tell. The point is that Portland was able to put in place policies to create good enough urbanism to lure a certain number of San Franciscans without compromising its competitive position because it was in a high cost neighborhood.

The story would be very different for a place like Oklahoma City or Columbus. These cities are in low cost regions, and if they undertook policies that raised their housing prices, they’d rapidly find themselves the most expensive market in their area.

Cloning Portland’s UGB is simply not a viable policy for most interior cities, even if they had the political alignment to make it happen.

There are many policies that can be broadly implemented across cities. The general principle is to first understand why a policy worked in the original context, then ask whether it is applicable to the target context, and if so how to implement it most successfully.

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/18/how-portland-is-a-lot-like-texas/

Commenting Is Now Re-Enabled – And More on Future Changes

people-debating-in-the-comments

Image via Shutterstock

Last year about this time I disabled comments. I have now re-enabled them as part of a series of changes I’m making to the site. Important information on this is below.

But first, I want to highlight some additional blog changes. I have updated my theme as you can see. I have also made a dramatic cull of the archives. There were over 1500 posts, 150 pages worth, which was simply unmanageable for anyone to look at. A lot of them were no longer relevant (e.g., 2012 population estimate releases). So I got rid of everything that is not truly relevant today and widely of interest to all readers (not just those in a particular city). I retained a few posts that don’t meet this criteria because they are important ones that are still referred to by people today.

I will be implementing regular purges going forward too. So some of my 2015 posts will be archived off after a period of time as they become less relevant.

You’ll find that the archives are now much simpler to click through and browse. So too search results. I have also included archive pages for my book and film reviews, as well as pages with listings of my publications in other cites like City Journal and Governing. Just look at the Archive drop down menu at the top of the page.

In the near future I hope to be changing some of the site graphics and make additional tweaks.

I will also be rebranding the site and likely changing to a new domain name. While I will always be the Urbanophile, moving forward I will be using this more as a broader personal homepage. It will continue to be the place where all my work will be posted. But I may be expanding the coverage beyond urbanism over time, as with my recent forays into tech and politics.

Before I get back to commenting, I’m asking you all to do three things for me:

Now, back to comments. Comments are re-enabled on a going forward basis. The only post with commenting enabled right now is the one on the Brooklyn Bridge bike lane – and this one of course.

I previously let comments get out of control, and the discussion degraded and constantly went off into endless debates and rat holes. I continue to welcome vigorous discussion and disagreement with my position, but I will be aggressively managing the discussing this time around. To that end, I have created a comment policy. For the sake of convenience, here it is:

  • No anonymous comments permitted. Users may sign in with their WordPress.com account or use a name/email combination.
  • Your first comment will be held for moderator approval. Subsequent comments should post automatically. If you change the name or email under which you comment, then you will have to through the first comment moderation process again.
  • Comments should be substantive and on-topic.
  • Disagreement is welcomed, but no personal attacks. No more than two rounds of back and forth on a topic where agreement will not be forthcoming.
  • Contextually appropriate self promotion (e.g., links to your own blog) is allowed.
  • Comments will be be aggressively managed to maintain quality and flow. I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.
  • Repeat offenders may be banned from posting future comments
  • Spam comments will be automatically deleted.

If anyone encounters problems or has suggestions, please leave a comment about it or shoot me an email.

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/15/commenting-is-now-re-enabled-and-more-on-future-changes/

The Brooklyn Bridge Bike Lane Is a Disaster

brooklyn-bridge-pedestrian-bike-lane-crazy

The explosion of tourism in New York is something to behold. Back in October of 2002 or 2003 I took a vacation to New York and walked across the Brooklyn Bridge. While there were people on it, there weren’t many of them. I in fact remember it as it a bit wind-swept and forlorn.

Fast forward to today and epic tourist hordes jam the walkway up completely. The picture at the top of this post was taken a couple weeks ago and gives a feel for what it’s like.

You’ll notice people crammed onto only half the walkway, one partially obstructed by an NYPD cart. That’s because the other half is given over to a bike lane that every time I’ve been there has been lightly used.

It makes no sense to allocate 50% of this space to bicycles when pedestrians outnumber bicycles 50 to 1.  It’s unpleasant and unsafe for everyone involved. With people constantly stopping to take selfies, it can be hard to even move.

Fortunately there’s a simple solution to this problem.

  1. Eliminate the bike lane on the promenade.
  2. Carve out a lane using some construction zone type Jersey barriers and give one of the current traffic lanes over as a new bike lane.

This could be done in a day or two, easy.  The city make it happen stat. It’s only a matter of time until somebody gets hurt. And the current setup creates a terrible impression for visitors.

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/11/the-brooklyn-bridge-bike-lane-is-a-disaster/

How Urbanists Became the Highway Lobby’s Best Friend

Image via Shutterstock

Image via Shutterstock

I recently attended an Intelligence Squared debate about raising the federal gas tax to fund infrastructure. Unsurprisingly for a debate taking place in New York City, raising gas taxes had a lot of audience support. What I found most curious was watching the nods and positive body language whenever the pro-gas tax side made points about helping the environment.  Because you see, the debaters on the pro-gas tax side were the head of the Colorado DOT, who explicitly mentioned wanting to widen I-25, and a representative of the American Road and Transport Builders Association (ARTBA).  Though including transit contractors, I think it’s fair to say ARTBA is a key part of the “road lobby.”

There’s a contradiction at the heart of American urbanists’ transportation advocacy.  Though nominally devoted to expanding walking, cycling, and riding transit at the expense of driving, they have become one of the most vocal constituencies for perpetuating a system that sends 80 cents of every federal dollar straight to roads.

I wrote a piece on this over at City Journal.  Here is an excerpt:

By agreeing to throw transit and biking advocates a small federal bone, the so-called “road lobby” inadvertently turned its enemies into allies. Not only does this current status quo entrench an overwhelming allocation of federal transport funds to roads; it also crushes transit agencies under a mountain of costly federal regulations. Rail construction is now more expensive in the United States than anywhere in the world.

Those who believe that Americans should fundamentally change the way they get around now find themselves defending a system that produces results contrary to their goals. Gas taxes, bridge tolls, and congestion pricing may be sensible policies on their own terms, but relying on revenue from these sources to pay for bike and mass-transit projects comes with an obvious limitation—the money goes away if people get out of their cars. Standard & Poor’s is just a messenger here. If the facts make alternative-transport advocates uncomfortable, it’s their own fault.

Click through to read the whole thing.

My colleague Nicole Gelinas made similar observations in the New York Post:

It’s not just environmental nuts who are saying that people want to use transit and bikes. Listen to the investment community. As Standard and Poor’s, the bond-rating agency, warned last week: “Millennials” — people born between 1982 and 2000 — “are driving less than older motorists did” at the same age — “and when they do get behind the wheel, they are . . . in smaller, more fuel-
efficient cars.”

It’s all wonderful, then, that people are changing their behavior — except for the fact that the country needs for people to keep driving ever more miles so that it can fund its highway and transit infrastructure. Remember: Just as not everyone needed to default on his mortgage to cause a housing bust, not everyone needs to take the bus instead of a car to cause a roads bust.

 

 

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/08/how-urbanists-became-the-highway-lobbys-best-friend/

Why the Republican Base Hates the GOP Establishment and Loves Donald Trump

Photo by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 3.0

Photo by Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 3.0

My father, who still lives back in Southern Indiana, is my proxy for the Republican base. I’ve found him very insightful into their point of view of the years. He came to NYC over the weekend for his first visit since working on a consulting project here in 1978 (quite a shock to his system). After listening to him talk about the Republican Presidential nomination race, I had to record a podcast with him on the topic.

One takeaway I had is that some of Trump’s support may be less people who love him, than people who are delighted that he’s wrecking the current Republican Party. The base, successfully suppressed for so long by the establishment, is delighted to see a guy who has turned the tables on a Republican Party leadership that they themselves have not been able to dislodge.

In this podcast we talk about:

  • The GOP base’s views of the party and Donald Trump
  • What conservatives would worry about if Trump were actually President
  • What the rise of Trump has exposed about the establishment and pundit class
  • Why Trump’s appeal is much more sophisticated than people want to give him credit for

If the audio embed doesn’t display for you, click over to listen on Soundcloud.

 

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/05/why-the-republican-base-hates-the-gop-establishment-and-loves-donald-trump/

What Did the 1950’s Really Mean?

Wikimedia Commons/ Evert F. Baumgardner

Wikimedia Commons / Evert F. Baumgardner

I attended and spoke at a Kauffman Foundation event this summer focused on new entrepreneurial growth opportunities in the American economy. It was clear that one of the key points of debate about that question was actually how we ought to look back at the past, particularly the immediate post-War era from 1945 to 1965.

I investigated that question for my latest column for Governing magazine, which is in the November issue and available online now, titled “What is the real American Dream?”  Here’s an excerpt:

“How we see the present depends a lot on how we see the past.” This observation from Dane Stangler, the nonprofit Kauffman Foundation’s vice president for research and policy, was one of his summary points at a recent discussion on how to boost declining rates of entrepreneurship in America and, more broadly, the engine of broad-based socioeconomic mobility and job creation.

The key question, as Stangler suggests, is this: What is the baseline we should be comparing today to? Many people look back with nostalgia at a golden postwar era from 1945 to 1965, when the modern American middle class was built, and suggest that those kinds of economic conditions are what we should be trying to reproduce.

But how should we really look at that period? Is it a model of what a modern and just society should produce?

Or it is an anomaly, or even undesirable in some ways?

Click through to read the whole thing.

from The Urbanophile
http://www.urbanophile.com/2015/11/02/what-did-the-1950s-really-mean/