Saturday, October 29, 2005
Portland moratorium on subsidies?
Okay, so Portland offers huge tax breaks and other subsidies to developers who put in high-density housing provided that developments have a certain amount of "public benefits" such as mixed use or low-income housing. International developer Trammell Crow proposes a high-rise condo on the South Waterfront (aka "so-what") district with the minimum number of low-income housing units to get the subsidies.
But Portland has already given out $920 million worth of subsidies to get just 5,000 housing units, so the city freaks out and says, "Just the minimum number? No!" In other words, it is not enough to do enough, you have to do more than enough. At least sometimes.
So the city says, "Maybe we'd better rethink this subsidy policy" and decides to have a six-month moratorium on accepting applications for tax abatements beginning on October 27. So, the day before the moratorium goes into effect, Trammell Crow makes another application for the same building in a slightly different configuration.
This sends self-described lefty, Jack Bog into hysterics. "I wouldn't mind so much these guys' ruining Portland," says Jack, "if they weren't making us all pay for it." Apparently Jack didn't get the memo saying that lefties are supposed to support high-density developments.
Jack Bog's blog, by the way, is an excellent source of information about Portland's wacko planning programs. Jack may think the root of the problem is evil developers while I think it is evil planners, but we both see the same symptoms.
But Portland has already given out $920 million worth of subsidies to get just 5,000 housing units, so the city freaks out and says, "Just the minimum number? No!" In other words, it is not enough to do enough, you have to do more than enough. At least sometimes.
So the city says, "Maybe we'd better rethink this subsidy policy" and decides to have a six-month moratorium on accepting applications for tax abatements beginning on October 27. So, the day before the moratorium goes into effect, Trammell Crow makes another application for the same building in a slightly different configuration.
This sends self-described lefty, Jack Bog into hysterics. "I wouldn't mind so much these guys' ruining Portland," says Jack, "if they weren't making us all pay for it." Apparently Jack didn't get the memo saying that lefties are supposed to support high-density developments.
Jack Bog's blog, by the way, is an excellent source of information about Portland's wacko planning programs. Jack may think the root of the problem is evil developers while I think it is evil planners, but we both see the same symptoms.
Winning Nike with subsidies
In response to Nike's conflict with Beaverton, Oregon, Oregonian editor Doug Bates pens a humerous "confidential memo" from the city of Portland to Nike founder Phil Knight offering all sorts of tax breaks and subsidies if only Nike will move its headquarters to Portland.
"we'll help you build the Nike Tower, the tallest, coolest skyscraper in the Northwest," Bates promises. "We'll surround it with a cluster of sleek spires with condos for your employees. We'll hook you to the airport with your own light-rail train, one that goes really fast." (As opposed to the existing one, that doesn't go fast at all.)
Of course, Nike is located in the suburbs because it wants a low-density area where it can provide its employees with spacious athletic facilities. But Bates suggests that Nike "won't miss . . . those gyms and soccer fields and running tracks." In their place, Portland can offer "Memorial Coliseum and PGE Park" -- one a basketball court that was surplused when the Portland Trailblazers built a new one and the other a football-baseball statium that the city invested heavily in that proved to be a financial boondoggle. "And we'll connect them all by tram or trolley -- your choice," says Bates.
This wouldn't be so funny if it weren't all true -- the city is building trams, trollies, and subsidizing buildings throughout the greater downtown area. The tax burden required to do so is one reason why Nike is the last Fortune 500 company to still be headquartered in Oregon -- the rest have moved to Georgia, Tennessee, and other more business-friendly states.
"we'll help you build the Nike Tower, the tallest, coolest skyscraper in the Northwest," Bates promises. "We'll surround it with a cluster of sleek spires with condos for your employees. We'll hook you to the airport with your own light-rail train, one that goes really fast." (As opposed to the existing one, that doesn't go fast at all.)
Of course, Nike is located in the suburbs because it wants a low-density area where it can provide its employees with spacious athletic facilities. But Bates suggests that Nike "won't miss . . . those gyms and soccer fields and running tracks." In their place, Portland can offer "Memorial Coliseum and PGE Park" -- one a basketball court that was surplused when the Portland Trailblazers built a new one and the other a football-baseball statium that the city invested heavily in that proved to be a financial boondoggle. "And we'll connect them all by tram or trolley -- your choice," says Bates.
This wouldn't be so funny if it weren't all true -- the city is building trams, trollies, and subsidizing buildings throughout the greater downtown area. The tax burden required to do so is one reason why Nike is the last Fortune 500 company to still be headquartered in Oregon -- the rest have moved to Georgia, Tennessee, and other more business-friendly states.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Automobile Apartheid?
Extreme smart-growth advocate Joel Hirschhorn has a new take on Hurricane Katrina: the problem was "automobile apartheid" in which first-class citizens drive autos while second-class citizens walk, cycle, or ride transit. That's nice rhetoric, but it doesn't cover up the fact that poor people as well as rich who had cars were able to escape from Katrina and Rita.
If you haven't read it, my view of the problems in New Orleans can be found in this article.
If you haven't read it, my view of the problems in New Orleans can be found in this article.
Rosa Parks fought the government
Thomas Sowell points out that, in refusing to go to the back of the bus, Rosa Parks was not fighting discrimination by a private transit company. She fought government-enforced discrimination. The transit companies, said Sowell, actively opposed discrimination laws because they were afraid they would lose black customers.
"Black people's money was just as good as white people's money," says Sowell, "even though that was not the case when it came to votes."
Today many people expect government to solve their problems for them. Yet a close look reveals that most of those problems are actually caused by government. Rosa Parks and her Birmingham supporters may have been lucky that they had a private transit agency. A publicly owned agency such as the ones we have now would probably have responded to the bus boycott by simply raising taxes.
"Black people's money was just as good as white people's money," says Sowell, "even though that was not the case when it came to votes."
Today many people expect government to solve their problems for them. Yet a close look reveals that most of those problems are actually caused by government. Rosa Parks and her Birmingham supporters may have been lucky that they had a private transit agency. A publicly owned agency such as the ones we have now would probably have responded to the bus boycott by simply raising taxes.
Kat Haney, ADC Grassroots Organizer
Property Rights After Kelo
Recall petition filed against measure 37 judge
Supporters of property rights have filed a petition to recall Oregon Judge Mary Mertens James, the judge who invalidated ballot measure 37 in a decision earlier this month. If petitioners gather 14,400 valid signatures of Marion County voters in the next 90 days, an election will be held in late February or early March to see if a majority of voters agree that Judge James should be removed from office.
Measure 37, which was passed by more than 60 percent of Oregon voters last November, provides that anyone whose property values have been reduced by land-use rules imposed since they purchased the property may apply for compensation or have the rules waived. Judge James rules that the measure was unfair because it treated people who purchased their property before the rules were passed differently from those who purchased it afterwards. Economically, there is a difference between these people: the ones who purchased it before expected to be able to use it in certain ways that were later proscribed by the rules, while the ones who purchased it afterwards did not expect to use it in such ways, and presumably paid less for the property.
Advocates of measure 37 say that the measure's different treatment of different property owners is no different than zoning's treatment of the owners of land on two different zones. Under Judge James' reasoning, all zoning and urban-growth boundaries should be ruled unconstitutional. Unfortuately, Oregon judges seem to have a strong prejudice in favor of zoning and planning and against property rights, so a ruling against zoning and urban-growth boundaries is unlikely.
As 61.8 percent of Marion County voters supported measure 37, recall petitioners think they have a good chance of success. As Mr. Dooley (a fictional political commentator from the nineteenth century), "The supreme court reads the 'lection returns." So a successful recall may lead other Oregon judges to take a more positive view of property rights. Still, voters may be reluctant to recall a judge simply for making an unpopular ruling.
Measure 37, which was passed by more than 60 percent of Oregon voters last November, provides that anyone whose property values have been reduced by land-use rules imposed since they purchased the property may apply for compensation or have the rules waived. Judge James rules that the measure was unfair because it treated people who purchased their property before the rules were passed differently from those who purchased it afterwards. Economically, there is a difference between these people: the ones who purchased it before expected to be able to use it in certain ways that were later proscribed by the rules, while the ones who purchased it afterwards did not expect to use it in such ways, and presumably paid less for the property.
Advocates of measure 37 say that the measure's different treatment of different property owners is no different than zoning's treatment of the owners of land on two different zones. Under Judge James' reasoning, all zoning and urban-growth boundaries should be ruled unconstitutional. Unfortuately, Oregon judges seem to have a strong prejudice in favor of zoning and planning and against property rights, so a ruling against zoning and urban-growth boundaries is unlikely.
As 61.8 percent of Marion County voters supported measure 37, recall petitioners think they have a good chance of success. As Mr. Dooley (a fictional political commentator from the nineteenth century), "The supreme court reads the 'lection returns." So a successful recall may lead other Oregon judges to take a more positive view of property rights. Still, voters may be reluctant to recall a judge simply for making an unpopular ruling.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Government takeover of New Orleans properties?
"The government" -- not clear whether federal, state, or city -- is considering simply taking all the property in New Orleans that belongs to people who, in the government's judgment, don't have the means to rebuild. The government would rebuild the homes and rent them out, although the rents would likely be subsidized. The property would not be taken by eminent domain but by "usufruct," meaning the government would manage the land on behalf of the former owners. Technically, the former owners would still hold title, but would not get to live in the homes or receive the rents paid on them. Maybe after five years the government would "sell" the properties back to the owners for the cost of construction or, if they couldn't pay, sell them on the market and "share the profits" with the owners.
As fark.com would say, "Nothing could go wrong here!" Let me count just of few of the ways:
The people who are seriously considering this proposal clearly have a child-like faith in government. Perhaps we can get the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and tooth fairy to be a part of the program as well.
As fark.com would say, "Nothing could go wrong here!" Let me count just of few of the ways:
- Because the government is not the real owner, it will have no incentive to make sure any work is done well
- Because the real owners get no benefit, they have no incentive either
- So the program is likely to be hijacked by building contractors who overcharge for shoddy work
- No doubt all sorts of New Urbanists and other utopians will jump in to get their pet but unmarketable projects built
- With the government building a likely surplus of housing, no other private developers will want to invest their own money in New Orleans, particularly for rental properties that would have to compete with government-subsidized rentals
The people who are seriously considering this proposal clearly have a child-like faith in government. Perhaps we can get the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and tooth fairy to be a part of the program as well.
Las Vegas considers light-rail bull
The Las Vegas Review Journal, Nevada's largest newspaper, assesses light rail and gets it right -- which is a surprise as most major metropolitan newspapers are boosters for rail and other urban monuments. Las Vegas' regional transportation commission wants to build a 33-mile light-rail line, but the paper editorializes that any claimed benefits of light rail are "delusional."
Of course, the editorial writers had a good source of information, namely the American Dream Coalition's report, Rail Disasters 2005. Based on this report, the Review Journal concluded that light rail "costs a fortune, it doesn't relieve congestion, it never pays for itself and it actually hurts mass transit ridership."
The paper brilliantly summarizes the issue in one paragraph:
Of course, the editorial writers had a good source of information, namely the American Dream Coalition's report, Rail Disasters 2005. Based on this report, the Review Journal concluded that light rail "costs a fortune, it doesn't relieve congestion, it never pays for itself and it actually hurts mass transit ridership."
The paper brilliantly summarizes the issue in one paragraph:
Cities with successful bus lines get a sniff of the federal subsidies available for mass transit and want a bite. Consultants and bureaucrats provide inflated ridership estimates. Local and state governments then bury themselves in construction debt, convinced that people will abandon their vehicles for expensive, inconvenient trolley rides. When the riders don't materialize, already high fares are raised to cover operational costs and bus service is slashed. Ridership drops, and taxpayers cover the debts.The proposed Las Vegas light-rail line, the paper concludes, "is a multi-billion-dollar white elephant that will leave valley taxpayers trampled." Let's hope this reasoning prevails both in Las Vegas and in other regions considering rail construction.
Growth has to wait for planners
The Portland area has been growing at the rate of about 30,000 people per year, and the planners can't keep up. Metro, Portland's regional planning agency, expanded the urban-growth boundary to accommodate some of those new people. But, says Metro's president, "Just because we’ve voted to expand the boundary to include more land doesn’t mean that it’s ready to be built on." Construction must wait "until the land is planned and zoned and the services are ready." But they don't have any money to hire planners to do the work.
What is this crap? The San Jose urban area grew by 40,000 people a year during the 1950s and 1960s. They didn't have any planners, very little zoning, and the taxes generated by new growth paid for the necessary infrastructure. (That stopped with California's passage of proposition 13, but that's another story.)
The fastest growing county in the Portland area is not in Oregon, where the planners dominate, but is Clark County, Washington. From 2000 to 2004, Clark County grew by more than 11,000 people per year, compared with fewer than 10,000 in Washington County, Oregon, and only 6,000 for Clackamas County and less than 300 for Multnomah County (which is where the city of Portland is located). The main reason for Clark County's rapid growth is that its relative lack of planners mean that people can afford homes there that would be much more expensive on the Oregon side of the Columbia River.
So the suburbs are growing faster than the city, but the relatively unplanned Clark County is growing faster than suburban Oregon counties. Clark County has more planners than San Jose had in the 1960s, but somehow it manages that growth without having as many planners as Oregon seems to need. Maybe if we just got rid of the planners, Oregon could grow and people could afford to buy homes.
What is this crap? The San Jose urban area grew by 40,000 people a year during the 1950s and 1960s. They didn't have any planners, very little zoning, and the taxes generated by new growth paid for the necessary infrastructure. (That stopped with California's passage of proposition 13, but that's another story.)
The fastest growing county in the Portland area is not in Oregon, where the planners dominate, but is Clark County, Washington. From 2000 to 2004, Clark County grew by more than 11,000 people per year, compared with fewer than 10,000 in Washington County, Oregon, and only 6,000 for Clackamas County and less than 300 for Multnomah County (which is where the city of Portland is located). The main reason for Clark County's rapid growth is that its relative lack of planners mean that people can afford homes there that would be much more expensive on the Oregon side of the Columbia River.
So the suburbs are growing faster than the city, but the relatively unplanned Clark County is growing faster than suburban Oregon counties. Clark County has more planners than San Jose had in the 1960s, but somehow it manages that growth without having as many planners as Oregon seems to need. Maybe if we just got rid of the planners, Oregon could grow and people could afford to buy homes.
