American Dream

Business owners in downtown Portland are dismayed to realize that a two-year project of reconstructing the city's bus mall to accommodate light-rail trains will force Tri-Met, the region's transit agency, to reroute hundreds of buses to streets in front of their businesses. "Buses are noisy," says one. "They set off car alarms just from the vibrations."

This reconstruction is a part of Tri-Met's plan to blanket the region in expensive light-rail lines that will carry former bus riders. Existing light-rail lines traverse downtown in an east-west direction. Although there is no funding to build a light-rail line south of downtown, Tri-Met wants to build a north-south route through downtown so it can extend the route south when such funding becomes available.

The bus mall was installed in the 1970s. Fifth and Sixth Avenues were closed to through-auto traffic (though open in limited spots to access hotels), and sidewalks widened to make room for bus passengers. Construction of the mall destroyed numerous businesses on the streets and many were never replaced because few businesses can compete without auto access.

When Tri-Met first sought funding for a south-north light rail -- funding that was denied by voters in successive elections in 1996 and 1998 -- downtown businesses endorsed the plan provided the light rail would not be built on their streets. Businesses from Powell's Bookstore to a variety of restaurants all said they would move out of downtown if the light-rail line was built in front of their storefronts. Since most of the businesses on Fifth and Sixth were already gone, there was no one to protest construction of light rail on the bus mall.

The first problem is there is not enough room on Fifth and Sixth for both buses and light rail, so after construction is complete some 40 percent of the buses will have to go elsewhere. The second problem is that during construction even more buses must be rerouted to other routes. Many of the downtown businesses who conditionally endorsed light rail will have to suffer the consequences after all.

The estimated costs of "public amenities" for Portland's South Waterfront District -- known to its detractors as the "So What" district -- have doubled, and the final estimates are not yet in. Street improvements and parks are expected to cost $50 million more than their original estimates, and "affordable housing" will cost even more.

The district is planned as a high-rise, high-density office and housing complex connected to downtown by a streetcar and connected to several hospitals in the hills above downtown by an aerial tram. The city rejected an ordinary housing complex that originally proposed by the landowners because it was not dense enough.

Now Bob Durgan, a representative of the landowners, calls the city's original estimates "just bizarre" because so many important costs were left out. Although the original estimate was called a "due diligence statement," said Durgan, "this isn't even close to due diligence."

This is reminiscent of the cost overruns for the aerial tram that is supposed to serve the same district. The original estimate of $15 million, put together by a city employee who had no previous experience with tramways, was used to sell the tram idea to the city council. Now the projected cost has risen to $55 million.

The city is counting on TIF money to pay at least some of these costs. But with nothing yet built, there is not yet any TIF money, and up-front costs are already far greater than the original estimates used to justify the project.

In a five-to-four ruling, Washington state's supreme court refused to overturn the condemnation of someone's land for a train station. Sound Transit, the agency responsible for Seattle's light-rail boondoggle, wanted someone's land for a commuter rail station. The agency held a public hearing on the condemnation, but the only notice of the hearing was an agenda posted on the agency's web site. Thus, the landowners had no idea their land was being considered for condemnation until it was too late.

Washington state law requires prior notification, which is usually given by posting notices in local newspapers and on signs around the property being considered for condemnation. But the supreme court said a web site notification was sufficient.

Majority and dissenting opnions are both available on the web.

Opponents of eminent domain have so far focused legislation on the taking of private property to give or sell to another private party. But as more cities build rail lines that few people will ride, we are going to see more condemnation cases oriented around taking people's land so the transit agency can subsidize high-density development around the rail stations. People who care about property rights should consider legislation against this use of eminent domain as well.

The new mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, wants to turn Los Angeles into "Manhattan West" (or, more accurately, Toronto West) by building scores or hundreds of high-rise condos connected by subway trains. He hopes developers will build the condos without subsidy (at least, without anyone noticing any subsidies), but expects to build the subways with money "from the state and federal governments."

It is worth noting that the 2000 census found that 94 percent of the people in California live on just 5 percent of the state's land. Why is Mayor Villaraigosa in such a rush to stack people in high-rise condos? The answer is simple: Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties are all growing faster than Los Angeles, and Mayor Villaraigosa doesn't like seeing people pay taxes to other jurisdictions when they could pay taxes to him.

New Urbanists claim to favor midrises (four- to six-story buildings) rather than high rises, but as I show in Smart Growth and the Ideal City, that's about the only difference between smart growth and the "Radiant City" housing projects that turned out so badly in Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and all over Europe.

Los Angeles writer Joel Kotkin is not convinced by the mayor's vision. "You turn L.A. into a bunch of apartment buildings," he says, "and it's more like Tehran than it is like Paris."

In a ruling published this morning, Oregon's Supreme Court unanimously held that measure 37, the ballot measure restoring property rights to people whose land had been devalued by land-use regulation, is constitutional. The court's ruling overturns a district court decision that said the measure "impermissibly intruded on the legislature's plenary power." In other words, the legislature made its decision; what makes you, the voters, think you have the right to overturn that decision?

The district court's ruling was a source of great frustration to property rights advocates, who believed it was based on specious grounds. An attempt was even made to recall the judge from office, but the attempt failed when the recall petitions were found to violate some obscure rule. (With conservatives using petitions more and more, Oregon's Democratic leaders have greatly tightened the rules for accepting petitions, especially those submitted by those with whom they disagree -- as Ralph Nader will testify.)

The Supreme Court's decision affirms the view of property rights advocates and will be a cause for celebration at Oregonians in Action's annual land-use conference, scheduled to take place on March 11. You can read the court's ruling here.

In response to the ruling, the Blue Oregon blog emphasizes that the Supreme Court did not endorse the wisdom of measure 37. But that is not the job of the Supreme Court, so this is rather pointless.

The best thing the Los Angeles Times can say about the Gold light-rail line between LA and Pasadena is that the few people who ride it "love its uncrowded cars" because they can always find a seat, even at rush hour. The $900 million line carries half its projected ridership, and in an effort to attract riders by speeding it up, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has just alienated other passengers. Not only that, but ridership declined 8 percent in 2005 and so far in 2006 carrying 2 percent fewer people than last year.

MTA decided to try running some "express" trains that would stop at only five of the line's thirteen stations. But, like most light-rail lines, the route has no passing tracks so express trains cannot run at the same time as locals. This means people at the stations that the trains don't stop at have lengthy waits between trains. "I'm getting frustrated," says one. "I'm going to drive."

It turns out that the line was only built for reasons of political equity: one part of the LA region demanded that it get its "fair share" of rail pork. MTA didn't even want the line, and had cancelled it, only to have it revived by political pressure. Now, says an MTA spokesman, "We don't have enough funds to operate the service we have."

The environmental impact statement for a proposed commuter train between Sonoma and Marin counties says that the train will cost $1.2 billion and carry just 191 commuters to and from work each day.

I once debated a rail advocate and asked him what he considered to be a measure of success. "If a few people ride the train and save time, then it is a success."

By that criterion, California should definitely start running the Sonoma-Marin commuter train.