Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's drive for acreage (Smart Growth not wanted)
The News and Observer (Raleigh NC) ^ | 04/24/02 | Rick Martinez

Posted on 04/24/2002 5:17:09 AM PDT by Phantom Lord

America's drive for acreage

By RICK MARTINEZ

RALEIGH - The problem with "Smart Growth" is that it's almost always smart for someone else.

Given a choice, most folks want what Smart Growth denies -- a big house with a big yard and at a bargain price. If they have to drive to a former cow pasture to get their piece of the American dream, so be it.

Espousing this position has earned me the title of urban neanderthal, but it appears I'm not the only member of this new species.

The National Family Opinion organization recently conducted a survey for the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors. It would be shortsighted to dismiss this poll as providing the industry with preordained answers: the builders and real estate agents I know will build and sell anything anywhere, so long as there's a market.

The survey, conducted in January and released Monday, never mentioned Smart Growth. It simply asked 2,000 respondents who had bought their primary residence in the past four years what they considered important in a home and community.

In nearly every instance, big, roomy and cheap homes -- the upside of urban sprawl -- generally won out over the small, crowded and expensive housing that tends to be the end result of Smart Growth polices.

When asked to rate the importance of 16 aspects of a home and its location, "houses spread out" received top billing from 62 percent of the respondents. Highway access was selected as the top community amenity by 44 percent of the respondents. When asked what single factor they would change in their present home and community, lower taxes was the top choice.

Somebody get this survey down to the General Assembly.

Density lost out big time among these homeowners. Forty seven percent said they looked for a bigger home, and 45 percent wanted a bigger lot. Only a measly 10 percent wanted a smaller house, and 9 percent a smaller lot.

The open space most of these homeowners preferred was out in the country, not in the city. Living in a less-developed area and living away from the city were deemed significant quality of life issues for 40 and 39 percent of the respondents, respectively.

The most damaging survey result for Smart Growth came when respondents were asked to select their favored housing lifestyle option. The anti-sprawl notion of a small single-family home in the city, close to work, public transportation and shopping, was the choice of only 18 percent. Ouch.

Forty percent said they wanted a smaller home in a suburb closer to the city. Forty two percent said housing utopia for them was a large single-family home in an outlying suburban area with longer distances to work, public transportation and shopping. Urban neanderthals unite!

If this consumer survey isn't enough to make our civic leaders and planners take a second look at Smart Growth, I suggest they read a sobering scholarly study by Matthew E. Kahn of Tufts University, published in the Fannie Mae Foundation journal "Housing Policy Debate" (Volume 12, Issue 1).

Kahn's article, "Does Sprawl Reduce the Black/White Housing Consumption Gap?", warns that Smart Growth has the potential to squeeze minorities out of the housing market at a time when they are making their most dramatic gains.

"Affordability is likely to decrease in the presence of more anti-sprawl legislation. Such rules reduce the supply of new housing, which in turn raise the price of homes. This article has documented that such policies will have distributional consequences by limiting progress in minority housing consumption."

In other words, Smart Growth legislation tends to jack up the price of housing, which tends to lock minorities out of housing choices.

Civic leaders and planners need to confront a chilling question -- Is resegregation an ugly, unintended consequence of Smart Growth communities? There is a growing amount of evidence that it is.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Smart Growth. Southern Village in Chapel Hill is a good example of a such development done well. But as the housing survey and Kahn's study demonstrate, Smart Growth works best for everyone when it's a free market option instead of government policy.

Rick Martinez can be reached by e-mail at rickjmartinez@mindspring.com


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: freedom; homeownership; homeprices; landgrab; meddlingpoliticians; propertyrights; smartgrowth; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last
Rick Martinez is a guest columnist once a week in the N&O. He has a real job, but I can not remember what it is. I enjoy reading him and he is often right on the mark. As he is today.

Walter Williams has explained better than anyone I have heard why "smart growth" and other government tactics to reduce development and control where people live is a horrible idea that actually produces the opposite of its intended purpose.

It is often promoted as a way to "reduce sprawl" and provide more "affordable housing." And as we all know, the immediate and direct result of "Smart growth" policies is a drastic increase in housing expenses.

As with most things the left pushes, they give it a nice name that lures people in. How could you be against "smart growth"? And who would support "dumb growth"?

1 posted on 04/24/2002 5:17:09 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
This is another good example of why zero population growth is an important goal. People just plain don't WANT to live crammed together wherever "planners" can "fit" them. Everybody can obviously survive in the "smart growth" type housing, but few people are happy there.
2 posted on 04/24/2002 5:23:45 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Zero population growth is a good idea? No, it is not.

The entire worlds population could live in Texas. Broken up into families of 4, each family would get nearly and acre of land.

Stick to shrinking government and not populations.

3 posted on 04/24/2002 5:26:02 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I got my undergraduate degree in city planning but couldn't stand the way my professors, who constantly touted public transit and living in concentrated areas, drove gas guzzlers and lived way out in the far suburbs and on farms. It was always about planning for others while they were exceptions. Even as a relatively unsophisticated, unperceptive college student, I got that. And I never did work in planning.
4 posted on 04/24/2002 5:28:12 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Stick to shrinking government and not populations.

Absolutely! Once you begin with restricting people growth, you enter into all kinds of sticky issues. Who can reproduce? Who do we eliminate? What about personal freedom to make decisions? Not only is this a slippery slope, it leads to the end of all freedom!

5 posted on 04/24/2002 5:30:38 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
In nearly every instance, big, roomy and cheap homes . . .

While the points raised in this article were good ones, it should be noted that in most parts of the U.S. a "big, roomy, and cheap" home is an oxymoron. In fact, if you do some research you'll find that people who live in suburbs are one of the most heavily-subsidized groups in the U.S. Homes can only be big and cheap if someone beside the buyer is picking up the cost of providing road and utility access, etc.

6 posted on 04/24/2002 6:04:54 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Phantom Lord
Walter Williams has explained better than anyone I have heard why "smart growth" and other government tactics to reduce development and control where people live is a horrible idea that actually produces the opposite of its intended purpose.

Future slums coming to your town soon! Many communities think packing in high density mixed use housing/commercial near freeways and rail transportation is going to solve their congestion problem while raising revenues. After the sheen dies away these "projects" will be filled by renters on AFDC and the merchants will have been put out of business.

8 posted on 04/24/2002 6:18:34 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twigs
If we wanted zero population growth, we would move to Communist China.
9 posted on 04/24/2002 6:18:47 AM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Section 8 will quickly fill the vacancies left by the successful who tire of the deterioration of the living conditions/standards that they originally bought into and its all down hill after that.
10 posted on 04/24/2002 6:37:18 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I always knew the environmentalists were racists- wanting to keep minorities out of affordable housing in rural/suburban areas just when minorities are able to have such purchasing power.

The Sierra Club and the National Resource Defense Council are where the 1970's Boston racists that were viciously against minorities flocked to in order to circumvent racial integration.

This is no joke. Northeasterners are the biggest racists on the planet- they just use "environmental concern" as their cover. It's appalling, but definitely exactly what they tried to do.

They indeed coined the phrase "smart growth" and there are countless examples of the environmentalists policies on "growth" being cover for racicial discrimination by real estate agents and city planners to keep the minorotoes out of certain areas.

that's becoming harder to do in the Northeast, so the environmentalists are going crazy trying to stop growth to continue a sort of economic segregation they originally envisioned.

Don't discount this motive in the least. That is exactly why the NRDC and the Sierra Club was founded after the busing cases. It's appaling, but a insidious move.

The environmentalist donations industry is horribly racist.

11 posted on 04/24/2002 6:37:32 AM PDT by GotDangGenius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
If this consumer survey isn't enough to make our civic leaders and planners take a second look at Smart Growth...

ROTFL....as if city planners give a rats ass about what the people want.

12 posted on 04/24/2002 6:42:52 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Walter Williams has explained better than anyone I have heard why "smart growth" and other government tactics to reduce development and control where people live is a horrible idea that actually produces the opposite of its intended purpose.

You're assuming two things:

  1. That the stated purpose is actually the intended purpose
  2. That the planners aren't fully aware of the likely consequences of their planning
Planning is socialistic. Socialists are habitual liars and will not reveal their true plans. They will say whatever they need to say to get the "useful idiots" (Lenin's phrase) to support them in their quest for power.

The objective of "planning" is not an improved existance for the regular people -- it is (and has always been) to get more power for the "planners".

13 posted on 04/24/2002 6:47:42 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twigs
Funny, isn't it?
14 posted on 04/24/2002 6:47:52 AM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
The entire worlds population could live in Texas. Broken up into families of 4, each family would get nearly and acre of land.

216914 square miles, 640 acres per square mile, 168 million acres or 670 million people in families of 4 per acre. World population: 6.2 billion (40 people per acre).

Not too bad until they all get into their cars.

15 posted on 04/24/2002 6:52:07 AM PDT by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: *Landgrab
Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
16 posted on 04/24/2002 6:58:07 AM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
And what about the next generation, when all those people living on one acre in Texas have 2.5 - 3 children apiece? And the generation after that? What ever quality of life is theoretically available to the current number of people on earth, deteriorates with each successive generation that is larger than the one before. Remember the wonderful pioneer era in this country, when hard-working people needed only to stake their claim to 20 or 40 acres of free land, and then settle down to improving their' families' standard of living? That's no longer an option. With continued population growth, the acre in Texas won't be an option either (and by the way, that calculation assumes that all roads, farms, ranches, parks, wildlife habitats, etc. are eliminated).
17 posted on 04/24/2002 7:06:45 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Nobody is proposing that we set up texas as the sole place for the worlds population, it's an example. Do the math for the worlds land area vs. population. See how much land per person we have then.
18 posted on 04/24/2002 7:09:27 AM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: twigs
Where did I suggest that anything other than personal freedom should enter into the decision to limit population growth? Frankly, most of the areas, both in our own country and abroad, where birth rates are well above replacement rate, are areas where the population is being heavily subsidized by welfare, foreign aid, etc. This creates artificially high population growth in societies which do not have the infrastructure to support a decent standard of living even for their existing numbers. The population problem is much more likely to take care of itself if government gets its nose out of everybody's business.
19 posted on 04/24/2002 7:12:57 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
What ever quality of life is theoretically available to the current number of people on earth, deteriorates with each successive generation that is larger than the one before.

If this were true, the quality of life would have been deteriorating for a long time as population has continued to grow. It hasn't. Quality of life continues to improve for most.

Quality of life in countries that are poor and often refered to as "3rd world" is not low because of population. It is low because of a lack of FREEDOM. Tyranny and government oppression reduces quality of life, not population growth.

20 posted on 04/24/2002 7:17:08 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
And by the predictions and claims of previous "zero population growth" advocates we should all be dead by now. What happened to the "population bomb" that was going to cause mass starvation and 80% of the worlds population to die off by the early 90's?
21 posted on 04/24/2002 7:18:56 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
"Smart Growth" here in the Peoples Republik of Merryland (soon to be another Kennedy dominated state) is just another excuse for the leftwing wild eyed liberals and the state government to CONTROL the lifes of citizens!!! I think jamming people together (a'la urban "planning") is totally a communist-inspired idea. Why? It's much easier to control the masses when they are ALL squeezed into a 2 room condo in a high -rise, surrounded by other high-rises.
22 posted on 04/24/2002 7:23:55 AM PDT by texson66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer
Thanks for the reality check. I never really believed that oft-quoted "fact", but didn't bother to do the math myself and never saw anyone else refute it. I think it's been through a number of permutations -- probably was originally cooked up a few decades ago when world population was much smaller, and came up with a result of a quarter acre per family. The enthusiastic adherents of this myth then mutated it by incorrectly recalling the size of the plots we would all enjoy (for one generation, until we increased our numbers again).

It reminds me of the idiotic "statistics" quoted by gun control advocates. A local paper in my area recently carried a huge article touting the Million Mom March. In one paragraph it cited an academic study which claimed that a gun in the home is 22% more likely to be fired at a family member than at an intruder. A couple of paragraphs later, the article quoted a local MMM leader patronizingly saying "People tend to forget that a gun in the home is 22 TIMES more likely to be used on a family member". The newspaper printed this nonsense without comment, and now there are hordes more people absolutely confident that they KNOW guns in a home are just WAY more likely to hurt a family member, and thus it makes no sense to let anybody have one. The dangerous result of this sort of rampant innumeracy is that in a recent election for State House Representative, we had no pro-gun candidate to vote for. The Republican candidate (who won) even sent out repeated mailings emphasizing how hard she would work for stricter gun control laws.

23 posted on 04/24/2002 7:29:43 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Where did I suggest that anything other than personal freedom should enter into the decision to limit population growth?

You didn't. I just made the point that I believe one thing leads to another, whether or not that is the intent.

24 posted on 04/24/2002 7:34:31 AM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
If this were true, the quality of life would have been deteriorating for a long time as population has continued to grow. It hasn't. Quality of life continues to improve for most.

Nonsense. It is only in the last hundred years or so that crowding has become a serious problem. And before the development of modern medicine, population growth in crowded areas was kept in check by deadly diseases. Now that phenomenon is greatly limited.

Quality of life in countries that are poor and often refered to as "3rd world" is not low because of population. It is low because of a lack of FREEDOM. Tyranny and government oppression reduces quality of life, not population growth.

It is due to both. In areas where people have little or no education and there is only a simple agrarian and scavenging economy, it's not a lack of freedom that prevents families from sowing 20 acres of land to produce a havest -- it's a lack of land that isn't already being used by somebody else. And once stuck in this predicament, these people are easy marks for socialist, communist, and other anti-freedom political movements, which all promise to take from the rich and give to the poor. All that's required for these political movements to take over the world is the continued increase in the number of poor people. Desperate people can't afford to pursue lofty ideals like freedom; they have to focus on getting fed today.

25 posted on 04/24/2002 7:41:03 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: twigs
I don't think it necessarily does. If everyone who cares about promoting freedom would cease and desist from claiming that there is no reason to worry about unchecked population growth, and switch to a tune of voluntarily limiting reproduction as an essential part of the fight for freedom, we'd be making a lot of progress. Instead, so-called conservatives jump on the PC bandwagon and scream "racism" every time anyone suggests that people in poverty stricken third world countries, and in welfare-addicted domestic slums and public housing projects, need to be advised that their ticket out of misery is to stop having so many children.
26 posted on 04/24/2002 7:46:17 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Bump and bookmark for ammo. This dreaded push for "Open Space" and "Smart Growth" is like a cancer. Let me say this loud and clear: THESE ARE LEFT WING AGENDAS!!!!
27 posted on 04/24/2002 7:48:53 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Nonsense. It is only in the last hundred years or so that crowding has become a serious problem. And before the development of modern medicine, population growth in crowded areas was kept in check by deadly diseases. Now that phenomenon is greatly limited.

Crowding is a problem? Take some time and do some research on the % of land in America, since this is where we live, that is populated. A vast majority of the land in America is uninhabited.

And as far as modern medicine goes, it is a product of FREEDOM and our capatilist system. Not government invention and ingenuity. And the improvement in quality of life has afforded significant numbers of people the opporutnity to persue jobs and careers in the medical and research field as opposed to scrounging for todays meal. And also no small part due to our population growth. How many of the past centuries scientists and doctors would never have been born or grew old under a "zero population growth" mandate?

The doom and gloom predictions of the population growth fear mongers have ALL failed to materalize. NONE of their predictions have ever come true.

And I have a suggestion for the "zero population growth" crowd. Lead by example and off yourselves.

28 posted on 04/24/2002 7:54:19 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
"Affordability is likely to decrease in the presence of more anti-sprawl legislation. Such rules reduce the supply of new housing, which in turn raise the price of homes. This article has documented that such policies will have distributional consequences by limiting progress in minority housing consumption."

For a textbook example, see the San Francisco Bay Area. Twenty years of "Smart Growth" style development policies have left us with the highest housing costs in the country, and have substantially reduced the black populations of San Francisco and the Penninsula. And yet vast areas of land have been set aside as "open space" preserves.

29 posted on 04/24/2002 7:54:45 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Voluntairly reducing reproduction rates? What happens when not enough people volunteer?

There are two options available. Voluntary and mandatory. When the 1st doesnt work, the 2nd is implemented.

30 posted on 04/24/2002 7:56:20 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf
Much of the world's land area is not really habitable, and not capable of producing food. Furthermore, many people need to live reasonably near food production areas in order to tend and harvest crops. And not everyone thinks it makes sense to obliterate all wildlife in order to make room for ever-increasing numbers of humans.

Regardless of how many habitable acres per person currently exist, we have to stop increasing sooner or later, since the acreage won't expand. Might as well stop increasing now, at least until we figure out how to get economic and political systems developed which will enable the present number of people to live decent lives. The alternative is to declare that it doesn't matter how many people starve, are tortured, sell their children into slavery and prostitution, etc., as long as we don't have to exercise any self-restraint in reproduction.

31 posted on 04/24/2002 7:59:21 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
In the U.S., at least, we are pretty close to zero population growth, excluding immigration.
32 posted on 04/24/2002 8:00:00 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
No one is suggesting that anyone should be "offed" in order to achieve zero population growth. Nor is anyone suggesting that the U.S. as a whole has an excessively high birth rate. However, the U.S. is the destination of choice for immigrants -- many illegal -- from countries which are both crowded and lacking economic/political development. Population growth elsewhere invariably leads to increased pressure on our borders.
33 posted on 04/24/2002 8:03:31 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
How do we know #1 won't work, when we haven't actually tried it in most of the world?
34 posted on 04/24/2002 8:05:16 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ALL
RELATED:

"OPEN SPACE" TAXES. Has your town taxed you yet to "preserve" open space-http---www.FreeRepublic.com-focus-news-660307-posts

"Smart Growth" is "Agenda 21"http---www.freerepublic.com-forum-a3ac76978087e.htm

 

35 posted on 04/24/2002 8:05:30 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
That's a big exclusion. Our culture of freedom is already being severely threatened by massive immigration from countries where there is no tradition of freedom. Between poor immigrants and poor welfare addicts, the votes will soon be there to formally dismantle our Constitutionally guaranteed freddoms. They're already doing a pretty good job of dismantling them informally, by pushing through legislation and "social programs" which are blatantly unconstitutional.
36 posted on 04/24/2002 8:09:11 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
Nothing is better for left wing political movements than masses of hungry people.
37 posted on 04/24/2002 8:10:15 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Lack of freedom and opportunity is what drives people to leave countries. NOT population growth.

Hong Kong is the densist city on the planet and has ZERO natural resources. NONE. ALL food and other neccesities are imported. Yet the quality of life there is amongst the highest on the planet and the population continues to grow.

You have fallen hook line and sinker for Paul Elrich (sp?) and his minions. They are liars and scam artists.

38 posted on 04/24/2002 8:11:28 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
What happened to the "population bomb" that was going to cause mass starvation and 80% of the worlds population to die off by the early 90's?

Probably the same thing that happened to the "coming ice age" in the '70's.

39 posted on 04/24/2002 8:14:30 AM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
There is nothing wrong with trying and advocating that people limit the number of children they have. Go all out and enjoy yourself.

But, if the "voluntary" method fails (and who sets the standard for "success") that leaves one option to achieve the goal... Mandatory reduction or elimination of child births. And who decides who can and who can not have children, and how many?

And with your apparent philosophy you should change your handle to GovernmentKnowsBest. And not in a sarcastic tone.

40 posted on 04/24/2002 8:14:43 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
We havent tried it in most of the world? What do you call the uncountable UN programs that promote abortion and "family planning" around the globe and the wide distribution of condoms and other birth control devices? Not to mention the steralization of women in many countries by chemical means.
41 posted on 04/24/2002 8:16:20 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
there is always mars, and the space colonies.
42 posted on 04/24/2002 8:24:12 AM PDT by CJ Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
In fact, if you do some research you'll find that people who live in suburbs are one of the most heavily-subsidized groups in the U.S. Homes can only be big and cheap if someone beside the buyer is picking up the cost of providing road and utility access, etc.

You beat me to it. Reinforcement bump. We have socialized the infrastructure costs of sprawl. Take the subsidies away and the financial incentives would tend to shift toward more intensive development and redevelopment of the existing infrastructure base. There would still be 'burbs, just not as many, for those who want them and are prepared to pay the freight, while the cities would be healthier.

43 posted on 04/24/2002 8:35:43 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"Homes can only be big and cheap if someone beside the buyer is picking up the cost of providing road and utility access, etc."

Here in TN, the developer and the home buyer pay the freight. You want water? Okey dokey, Smokey. That'll be $1500 hook 'em up fee. Sewer? Same story. Roads? For the most part, the developer builds them and rolls the $$ into each house. Gas? The gas company will only lay mains if enough people on each road or street sign up to pay the aggregate cost. We couldn't get natural gas here until just a few years ago, and we're right in the middle of town. Finally, six homeowners on the block signed up, and that was enough to cover laying the mains.

Michael

44 posted on 04/24/2002 8:46:37 AM PDT by Wright is right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
While the points raised in this article were good ones, it should be noted that in most parts of the U.S. a "big, roomy, and cheap" home is an oxymoron. In fact, if you do some research you'll find that people who live in suburbs are one of the most heavily-subsidized groups in the U.S. Homes can only be big and cheap if someone beside the buyer is picking up the cost of providing road and utility access, etc.

I'd like to see the numbers on this one. I live on 8 acres about 20 miles from a small city. I pay for maintenance of my own well and my own sewage treatment system; I live on a gravel section road whose maintenance costs amount to a grader driving down it twice a year. I pay extra for insurance because we don't have a regular fire department. My 'phone rates are substantially higher than city residents. We still pay county property tax at a rate very similar to that of city residents (who live in the same county). Almost all my neighbors live the same.

I'm not complaining; I chose to live here, love it, and knew the costs when I moved. But if we're getting subsidized services, I'd like to know how.

45 posted on 04/24/2002 8:49:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
I don't believe it. Let's see the numbers.
46 posted on 04/24/2002 8:51:09 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I live on 8 acres about 20 miles from a small city.

There's your answer. I know you don't drive all the way to work on your gravel road! If you look at the cost of building and maintaining interstate highways over a long period of time, you'll find that the road users themselves only pay about 30%-35% of the cost.

Do you carry a mortgage on your home? Do you deduct the interest on your taxes?

47 posted on 04/24/2002 9:00:14 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Wright is right!
Developers may pay the cost of building roads to specific subdivisions, but the construction of these subdivisions is only feasible because they are readily accesible to a larger network of limited-access highways. Developers pay $0 for that benefit.
48 posted on 04/24/2002 9:03:08 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You're claiming that highway 77, which existed long before my house was built and connects two major towns, is a subsidy to me, rather than to the folks who live in those towns? That's voodoo economics. And gosh, Free Republic is te last place I thought I'd read that paying less tax is a 'subsidy'. In any case, folks who live in the city, whose mortgages are just as high as mine, get the same deduction.

Like I said, let's see a citation to a real breakdown of costs.

49 posted on 04/24/2002 9:14:11 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Here's my question, which is important because most of my remarks are based on my experiences in the Northeast (where most cities and major towns existed long before the roads were built) -- Did those towns exist before Highway 77 was built?

Also: While paying less taxes is not a "subsidy" in and of itself, it sure is a subsidy when a tax deduction applies to specific people. People who own their homes can deduct their mortgage interest and local property taxes, but people who rent cannot even though they pay these costs indirectly as part of their rent.

50 posted on 04/24/2002 9:33:46 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson