What Price Diversity?
It seems that ethnic diversity is on the decline in Virginia’s inner suburbs (Alexandria and Arlington) and on the rise in Virginia’s more far-out suburbs. Some aren’t thrilled by this:
Alexandria City Council member Redella S. “Del” Pepper (D) said some of the study’s findings, such as a decline in the city’s Hispanic population, were “surprising.” Alexandria was the region’s most heterogeneous jurisdiction in 2000, with a minority population of 45.3 percent, but seven years later that share has slipped to 41.7 percent.
“This is a community that really prides itself on valuing diversity,” Pepper said. “I think [the decline] has occurred because of how expensive it is to live in Alexandria.”
Right. The key thing to note here, as Ryan Avent does, is that there’s something these jurisdictions can do about it. Right now, Arlington has a couple of high-density corridors along their Metro lines, but these are incredibly thin tendrils that give way to detached homes very quickly:
Of course there’s nothing wrong with detached homes. Indeed, those are some nice homes! But they’re also extremely expensive, since they’re located in an extremely desirable position. In a normal free market situation, the result of the appreciation in value of that land would be for more of those lots to be redeveloped as higher-density properties. That would make housing more affordable, and you would therefore get more economic and ethnic diversity. But we don’t have a free market, instead we have a market that’s highly regulated. The result:
Arlington has done better than Alexandria, thanks to its aggressive efforts to take full advantage of its Metro resources, but both provide nowhere near enough housing to meet demand. For most of the housing boom, new permits in Arlington and Alexandria fell well below those issued in outer suburbs (in 2003, Arlington and Alexandria approved 7 and 72 new units, respectively, while the outer burbs were adding between 4,000 and 6,000 each. Only in 2006, when the huge inventory additions of the housing boom began to come through the pipeline, did the two inner municipalities rival their outer suburb neighbors.
The result? Prices in the inner burbs started the bust much higher than prices in the outer burbs and they’ve fallen less. The housing bust increased the relative price of the inner suburbs.
The way for jurisdictions such as these to show that they really value diversity would be to allow for the development of more units. But of course some jurisdictions may really not value diversity. And there’s the rub. Policies that limit denser development in Arlington and Alexandria are arguably good policies for current homeowners in those areas. But they’re very bad policies for the region as a whole and for the country. They’re bad for the environment, for one thing. But they’re also quite bad for economic growth, leading resources to be allocated inefficiently, and bad for economic mobility. You want a situation in which it’s relatively easy for people of modest means to locate themselves where the economic opportunities are. But that requires a situation in which it’s possible to build relatively inexpensive, albeit cramped, dwellings in the high-value areas right nearby very expensive non-cramped dwellings. The system in which everyone’s dwellings are non-cramped but poor people need to live very far away makes it harder than it needs to be for people to move up the ladder.
82 Responses to “What Price Diversity?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
There’s nothing stopping proponents of higher density from using the political process to change zoning laws and other government policies that inhibit higher densities. If you are unable to achieve your political goals in Arlington or Alexandria or anywhere else, it is because there are so few of you.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
It is refreshing for an elected official in the suburbs to be worrying about high prices driving away minorities rather than the other way around.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
No Mixner, there’s an issue of local control. As Matt noted, the situation may be ideal for those already living there, and the outsiders who would benefit from the policies do not live there yet and therefore can’t influence the zoning.
Which is why urban planning is done much more efficiently at the regional level (more common in other countries).
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Matt the free market crusader?? That can’t be right because it isn’t. Zoning laws are simply mutually beneficial agreements between property owners regarding the conditions of use. When property is bought and sold these agreements get passed on to the next owner.
It is like if my neighbour and I agreed never to build a swimming pool. For him to be allowed to build a swimming pool at some later date because some legislator said so is a direct violation of my property rights. Taking away this contractual obligation by the government is de facto expropriation. I may still hold title to the property but the title has been dramatically reformed.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Although I am generally sympathetic to the points Matt is making here, i think there are legitamate concerns on the other side. I live in a pretty urban area just outside of Boston. I used to live on 8oth and 1st in Mannhattan. I would be pretty upset (from both a quality of life and value of my real estate holdings perspective) if coolidge corner in Brookline was as densely populated as my old neighborhood in NY.
One does not have to believe in the perfection of markets to believe that part of the premium people pay for inner suburd real estate reflects the fact that that real estate is more likely to retain value in a downturn. As we all know by now, the 3 rules of real estate investing are: location, location and location.
Our system of government has resulted in substantial local control over land use issues which in turn permits a fair amount of NIMBYism. I don’t think there can be a lot of general support for allowing a more central government more control.
BTW, Matt if you want to see any extreme case of local control in effect preventing highest and best use of land, check out Long Beach and Atlantic beach in NY. For evidence of central authorities royaly screwing up, look at Far Rockaway.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Although I am generally sympathetic to the points Matt is making here, i think there are legitamate concerns on the other side. I live in a pretty urban area just outside of Boston. I used to live on 8oth and 1st in Mannhattan. I would be pretty upset (from both a quality of life and value of my real estate holdings perspective) if coolidge corner in Brookline was as densely populated as my old neighborhood in NY.
One does not have to believe in the perfection of markets to believe that part of the premium people pay for inner suburd real estate reflects the fact that that real estate is more likely to retain value in a downturn. As we all know by now, the 3 rules of real estate investing are: location, location and location.
Our system of government has resulted in substantial local control over land use issues which in turn permits a fair amount of NIMBYism. I don’t think there can be a lot of general support for allowing a more central government more control.
BTW, Matt if you want to see any extreme case of local control in effect preventing highest and best use of land, check out Long Beach and Atlantic beach in NY. For evidence of central authorities royaly screwing up, look at Far Rockaway.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
No Mixner, there’s an issue of local control. As Matt noted, the situation may be ideal for those already living there, and the outsiders who would benefit from the policies do not live there yet and therefore can’t influence the zoning…
No, Mixner is (unfortunately) 100% correct. The very fact that we typically allow “local control” to determine what kind and what quantity of housing can get built — as opposed, to, say, formulating density-encouraging master land use rules at the regional or state level — is itself a matter of politics. I’d gladly sign a petition urging my state legislature to pass a law taking this control away from my state’s 350 municipalities. But not many people share my sentiment, and not many state lawmakers are unaware of the political peril they would face were they to attempt to do the right thing and take this price-setting power (which is what it is, after all) away from municipalities.
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Dilan Esper,
To put this in a progressive prospective, imagine if the urban planner was conservative. You own some land and have every intention and right to build an apartment for the poor. But now the conservative federal government tells you all property must be single occupancy houses. You paid a lot of money for this property and now, much like the Chinese government, the feds have in effect taken it away from you.
Changing the terms of property rights, even democratically, is just a cheap form of expropriation.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I swear, Yglesias. If you keep writing posts like this, you might just convince me that urban planning of the sort I was taught to loathe during my time in the free market movement is… actually not anti-market and actually pretty sensible.
Of course, I live on 13 acres in exurban Raleigh-Durham, so I’m not really doing my part…
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I would be pretty upset (from both a quality of life and value of my real estate holdings perspective) if coolidge corner in Brookline was as densely populated as my old neighborhood in NY.
Sash: It would be impossible to bring Coolidge Corner up to Manhattan-like population densities. You’d have to buy up many hundreds of parcels of land, demolish all the buildings, and build high rises and huge apartment buildings. Even if Brookline allowed this (which I gather is what Matt advocates, and is certainly what I do) it’s just not feasible. What is probably feasible — were it permitted by the town and supported by market forces — is a gradual increase in density playing out over decades. Rapid increases in density for Boston are surely much more feasible in cheaper areas served by public transportation like Dorchester, Allston-Brighton, Medford, East Boston, etc. It’s just astronomically expensive to do huge residential projects in and around Coolidge Corner, so you’ve got nothing to worry about.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
From the evidence of the picture above, I would say that a bigger problem than the detached houses are the multiple giant parking lots within a block or two of the metro station, one of which appears to be completely empty.
The claim above that higher density is a very unpopular position is, I think, wrong. A more walkable, affordable, and environmentally friendly society isn’t hated by the masses. Most people just don’t care–their eyes glaze over when you use terms like “zoning regulations.” So the battle is left to be fought between NIMBY suburbanites who are afraid of change and transit activists.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Changing the terms of property rights, even democratically, is just a cheap form of expropriation.
Gordon Gekko: stop spouting off such nonsense. If a change in land use rules benefits more people than it hurts, it can be done. And there’s obviously no rule of physics to prevent a law-making body from using tax money to provide compensation for those who lose money out of the deal.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Matt the free market crusader?? That can’t be right because it isn’t. Zoning laws are simply mutually beneficial agreements between property owners regarding the conditions of use. When property is bought and sold these agreements get passed on to the next owner. It is like if my neighbour and I agreed never to build a swimming pool. For him to be allowed to build a swimming pool at some later date because some legislator said so is a direct violation of my property rights. Taking away this contractual obligation by the government is de facto expropriation. I may still hold title to the property but the title has been dramatically reformed.
Of course, as anyone who has taken 1st year property law (or, indeed, has simply read and understood the term “zoning law”) knows, zoning laws are not in fact “mutually beneficial agreements.” They are laws imposed by a local government on property owners in a given area.
Yes, property owners buy property knowing that it and property around it has been zoned in a particular way. But just as when a local government decides it’s going to re-zone a parcel to allow a Wal-Mart to locate, eliminating zoning can dramatically affect the value of land around it. C’est la vie.
You’re probably thinking of covenants, which are agreements between property owners regarding the land and pass with the land, but even covenants can have pernicious effects if they extend into the future too long.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
dilan esper,
No Mixner, there’s an issue of local control. As Matt noted, the situation may be ideal for those already living there, and the outsiders who would benefit from the policies do not live there yet and therefore can’t influence the zoning. Which is why urban planning is done much more efficiently at the regional level (more common in other countries).
There’s nothing to stop you from using the political process at the “regional level” to achieve your goals, either. If you think zoning laws should be made at a higher level of government, you are free to lobby and vote at the county, state and federal levels accordingly.
Again, the fact that you have been so spectacularly unsuccessful at achieving your goals simply shows how unpopular those goals are. Only a small number of people share your preference for high-density, transit-oriented urban planning, and that is why you have such a hard time creating it.
For some strange reason, the “smart growth” crowd just seems incapable of accepting this. So we’re treated to all these silly narratives about how the true wishes of the people for transit and density are being thwarted by this or that obstacle (Zoning laws! Highway subsidies! Greedy homebuilders!) which have somehow remained immune to the forces of democratic government and the market for half a century.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
So Gekko, your position is that no law should ever be changed, because people who bought property did so under the assumption that the laws would remain the same and to change the law is to expropriate them. That’s consistent, I guess. Not very free-market, though.
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
> Sash: It would be impossible to bring Coolidge Corner
> up to Manhattan-like population densities. You’d have
> to buy up many hundreds of parcels of land, demolish all
> the buildings, and build high rises and huge apartment
> buildings. Even if Brookline allowed this (which I gather
> is what Matt advocates, and is certainly what I do) it’s
> just not feasible.
You might want to talk to residents of some near-north Chicago neighborhoods. Considered grungy post-student areas 20 years ago, there are now 75-story condo buildings sprouting amongst the brownstones and 4-story walkups. In fact I think one of those 125-story monsters was proposed for the middle of just such a rehabbed neighborhood.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
You might want to talk to residents of some near-north Chicago neighborhoods. Considered grungy post-student areas 20 years ago
Yes, but the point is Coolidge Corner Brookline is not a “grungy post-student” area. It’s a highly desirable, very pricey urban neighborhood abutting Boston’s medical district, and only a short trolley ride downtown. A lot of the property is owned by landlords who have been owners a long time, and who realize they’ve got a sweet piece of land, and who are in no hurry to sell, and who will therefore demand astronomical prices.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I’d gladly sign a petition urging my state legislature to pass a law taking this control away from my state’s 350 municipalities. But not many people share my sentiment, and not many state lawmakers are unaware of the political peril they would face were they to attempt to do the right thing and take this price-setting power (which is what it is, after all) away from municipalities.
They are doing the right thing. Government is supposed to represent the wishes of the people, not the wishes of Jasper.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
your position is that no law should ever be changed
No not at all. I only believe that people bought property under certain agreements (zoning, bylaws …) which are subject to conditions set forth by municipalities. There is already a mechanism which deals with change but it happens at the local level and protect property owners from change. What Matt is supporting is radical reform of property rights without, what appears to be, any concern for the welfare of property owners. If he were to propose a system to compensate property owners for the fair value of their rights lost (much like in expropriation) I would be less concerned.
If a change in land use rules benefits more people than it hurts, it can be done.
I agree entirely. However, nowhere in Matt’s support for free markets does he talk compensation for such an obvious injustice.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
By the way, Mixner. You really have to stop the ad hominem attacks. I am not part of the “smart growth” crowd. Indeed, I’m basically a straight libertarian on zoning issues– I think Village of Euclid v. Ambler was wrongly decided.
But on the merits of your point, actually regional planning is very tough to do in our federalist system, because the state constitutions divide the powers up all wrong. In my state, you’d probably need a constitutional convention to do regional planning (because it would constitute a revision and not an amendment).
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
They are doing the right thing. Government is supposed to represent the wishes of the people, not the wishes of Jasper.
Government isn’t supposed to be a rubber stamp, however. Government is supposed to, er, provide good governance — even when said provision occasionally entails taking actions with which many constituents disagree.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Matt can always get me with a post like this because it’s wrong on so many levels.
To start with, spending a few hundred million of public money building a metro line for a few unrestricted developers is hardly a free market.
Secondly, the free market does not build low income housing. After 50 years, when the original pricey stuff has deteriorated and the original condos and apartments have been divided into rooms to rent, you might get cheap housing. Or you might get the kind of stuff you see in lower Manhattan- incredibly expensive very small housing.
Thirdly, if people want to enact zoning so they’re not driven from their houses by developers acting in connivance with corrupt legislators and city officials, more power to them. Anyone who lived through the ‘urban renewal’ of the 50s and 60s will know exactly what I’m talking about.
Low income people can’t afford to buy houses because wages have not kept pace with the real rise in the cost of building housing. There are solutions to this and none of them involve ending zoning- in fact, most of them involve more assurances to the people who have already invested in the area that the proposed project will be fully discussed and proceed under rules that are public and adopted with due process.
Of course zoning laws are laws imposed by local government on property owners- property owners who, if they live there, elect that local government. An imperfect system to be sure, but still better, in the minds of many, than simply letting out-of-town billionaires buy some local officials and drive you out of your home.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
But on the merits of your point, actually regional planning is very tough to do in our federalist system, because the state constitutions divide the powers up all wrong. In my state, you’d probably need a constitutional convention to do regional planning (because it would constitute a revision and not an amendment).
Another feeble excuse. If voters in a state want to change a law relating to transportation/land-use/urban planning but are unable to do so because of their state constitution, they are free to amend their constitution to allow the change.
The nation has been sprawling and suburbanizing for fifty years. Car ownership and driving have increased dramatically. Transit use has declined dramatically. Housing has gotten dramatically bigger. Old, dense, transit-oriented cities have lost jobs and population to new, sprawling, car-oriented ones. These long-standing trends are not limited to a few states. They are a national phenonmenon. They’ve been happening all across the country. The same basic trend has also been happening in Europe. It doesn’t have anything to do with the structure of government or separation of powers. It’s about how people want to live and can afford to live.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Government isn’t supposed to be a rubber stamp, however. Government is supposed to, er, provide good governance — even when said provision occasionally entails taking actions with which many constituents disagree.
The key word there being “occasionally.” If low-density, car-oriented urban planning were some recent phenomenon that had only appeared within the last few years, and only in certain states or parts of the country, the transit-and-density crowd might be able to plausibly argue that it did not reflect the will of the people, but was the result of wayward public officials some other temporary subversion of democratic governance or market forces that would in due course be corrected at the ballot box or through changes in consumer behavior. But it isn’t a recent phenomenon and it’s not limited to a few states. It’s been going on for decade after decade, all over the country. And in Europe too. This is how most people prefer to live and get around.
The small number of dissenters, who inexplicably prefer to live in expensive oversized closets in high-rise apartment buildings and get around by slow, uncomfortable, inconvenient public transportation rather than by private car, are free to pursue their own preferred lifestyle.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I have no comment on urban planning, except to point out that there are currently two giant holes on Clarendon Blvd (and soon to be another one on Washington) where folks are building nice big retail/condo complexes. That must make Matt very happy. Bonus points for making it a pain to drive through that area (though walking also kinda sucks).
But my real point is that your map sucks. The Metro station is like two blocks from where the little logo appears. Whoever created that map should definitely not be in charge of the zoning.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I only believe that people bought property under certain agreements (zoning, bylaws …) which are subject to conditions set forth by municipalities.
Gekko, this describes every law ever. Everything everyone ever has done outside of a failed state was done under certain agreements (laws) that were subject to conditions set forth by municipalities, or states, or countries. What Matt is supporting is not radical reform of property rights, it’s the ordinary process of changing laws.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I’m curious: how is a policy that forbids those homeowners to sell their homes to developers of higher-density projects (probably at fat profits, since as you point out it would be a more valuable use of the land today) better for them than one that allows such sales? Simply because those who prefer to remain rather than cash in would also prefer for their neighbors not to make a different choice?
Mixner:
In the presence of huge subsidies for cars and roads, when the fuels used by cars are cheap and their externalities free, and when public transportation is poor to nonexistent, yes, that’s how people prefer to get around. All of the foregoing conditions were created or encouraged by governments. The fact that this governmental action has been widespread and relatively stable doesn’t somehow make it an ineffable mystery of the universe.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Shorter Mixner:
Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire. No advocacy, education, or leadership is allowed. So everyone else shut the hell up.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I grew up and went to high school about 2 miles away from the center of the map.
Growing up, Clarendon was the very model of the ‘new urbanism’ – a neighborhood where you you go out your door and walk two blocks to a boulevard of mom&pop stores (and a Sears).
The Sears closed up about 10 years ago, and most of the mom&pop stores have been replaced with various nightclubs. And the blocks immediately adjacent to the boulevard have had a considerable number of mid-rise (10 story or so) condo developments.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I’m curious: how is a policy that forbids those homeowners to sell their homes to developers of higher-density projects (probably at fat profits, since as you point out it would be a more valuable use of the land today) better for them than one that allows such sales?
Because it prevents their neighbors from making sales that would lower their property values.
In the presence of huge subsidies for cars and roads, when the fuels used by cars are cheap and their externalities free, and when public transportation is poor to nonexistent, yes, that’s how people prefer to get around.
I guess you haven’t been reading. Highway subsidies, such as they are (transit receives vastly higher subsidies than highways), didn’t appear out of nowhere. They’re the product of the democratic process. If people think their transportation choices are being wrongly distorted by subsidies in favor of cars and driving they are free to vote to change those subsidies.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Shorter DMonteith:
I can’t respond to what Mixner actually wrote, so I’ll pretend he wrote something completely different.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
There’s nothing stopping proponents of higher density from using the political process to change zoning laws and other government policies that inhibit higher densities. If you are unable to achieve your political goals in Arlington or Alexandria or anywhere else, it is because there are so few of you.
“Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire….”
…Again, the fact that you have been so spectacularly unsuccessful at achieving your goals simply shows how unpopular those goals are. Only a small number of people share your preference for high-density, transit-oriented urban planning, and that is why you have such a hard time creating it.
“Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire….”
They are doing the right thing. Government is supposed to represent the wishes of the people, not the wishes of Jasper.
“Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire….”
…If voters in a state want to change a law relating to transportation/land-use/urban planning but are unable to do so because of their state constitution, they are free to amend their constitution to allow the change…
“Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire….”
The nation has been sprawling and suburbanizing for fifty years. ….It doesn’t have anything to do with the structure of government or separation of powers. It’s about how people want to live and can afford to live.
“Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire….”
I guess you haven’t been reading. Highway subsidies, such as they are (transit receives vastly higher subsidies than highways), didn’t appear out of nowhere. They’re the product of the democratic process. If people think their transportation choices are being wrongly distorted by subsidies in favor of cars and driving they are free to vote to change those subsidies.
“Everything is, and will always be, exactly as the voters desire….”
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Mixner-
Voters “buy” policies in opaque, complicated, self-contradictory, historically contingent bundles. Without even touching Arrow, the notion that all, most, or even some voters are even peripherally aware of the long term social benefits of better zoning policy, let alone enough to outweigh the myriad of other factors which they weight in their voting decisions, is wrong.
The notion that existing urban policy is ipso facto proof that the world it created represents even the preferences (let alone the best interests) of voters is purely ludicrous.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
DMonteith
Voters “buy” policies in opaque, complicated, self-contradictory, historically contingent bundles. Without even touching Arrow, the notion that all, most, or even some voters are even peripherally aware of the long term social benefits of better zoning policy, let alone enough to outweigh the myriad of other factors which they weight in their voting decisions, is wrong.
What alternative method do you propose that would produce zoning policy more consistent with the will of the people than the current method? What evidence do you have that your proposed alternative method would produce policy more consistent with what the people want than the current method? If there is such a method, why isn’t it already being used?
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
And as others have said, practical political concerns make regional planning impossible to set up in a lot of places. In metro New York you’d have to do it at the state level, and NY Senate politics made that impossible until maybe this year. Even with the state government on board, you still couldn’t include a lot of the area because the NY metro area includes parts of three states, and New Jersey and Connecticut politicians aren’t going to modify zoning for the benefit of people who don’t yet live in their states.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
rufustfyrfly says: “From the evidence of the picture above, I would say that a bigger problem than the detached houses are the multiple giant parking lots within a block or two of the metro station, one of which appears to be completely empty.”
This is indeed a problem. There are also a lot of very low density commercial in the area. I don’t understand how low volume down market used car dealerships are still operating on land as valuable as this.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Mixner, nobody said there was a better political system. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out flaws and bad results in a system without having an alternative.
Hell, you don’t have a positive point in something like 3/4 of your posts here.
November 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Serial catowner worth 10 times the rest combined.
Look up inclusionary zoning. In any case, you can’t have smart growth without regulation. You can’t have a built environment without regulation, so can the foolish market fantasy. At least the last two months should have taught us a little bit about how stupid that fantasy is.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
What alternative method do you propose that would produce zoning policy more consistent with the will of the people than the current method? What evidence do you have that your proposed alternative method would produce policy more consistent with what the people want than the current method? If there is such a method, why isn’t it already being used?
I would suggest that people like Donald Shoup, Matt, Ryan Avent, Janette Sadik-Khan etc. continue to research, advocate, and implement better policies, and that we elect more leaders who can begin to show people an alternate vision of their lifestyle that they’d like to support.
I’d suggest that you’re welcome to (attempt to) make substantive arguments against that vision, but if you continue to suggest that pre-existing policies mean the argument is somehow by definition over before it even starts, I’ve got nothing but derisive laughter to offer you.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
No one is going to lay down Manhattan on Arlington’s neighborhoods. The fact is that if there wasn’t zoning in the single-family areas, developers would still need to assemble multiple properties in order to build the tall buildings on Wilson Blvd. But, developers could buy small parcels with one home, tear it down and put up small multi-family housing (of 2 to 10 or more units). A form based zoning code could allow this additional housing without destroying the “character” of the area.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Mixner, nobody said there was a better political system. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out flaws and bad results in a system without having an alternative.
There is if you’re also claiming that some alternative set of zoning/land-use/transportation laws and policies would have produced an outcome more consistent with what people want than the laws and policies we actually have.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Some specifics about Alexandria from a long-time resident (not now, but my family is still there). I don’t think density is the real issue.
Two big shifts – There used to be a huge swath of very cheap rental units in the Arlandria area. Four Mile Run flooded periodically and the apartment complexes would be underwater to the second level. There was a flood project and the area has been dry for at least 20 years. The city put the magnet elementary school there with preference for locals to get people to move in. Most of those formerly truly shitty apartment complexes filled with recent immigrants and recent divorcees (I had friends who got flooded out) are now condos filled with younger workers from the Pentagon and Crystal City.
Also, the huge railway yards that were nearby are now gone, and so the shitty apartments were along them are now condos few stops from Crystal City and the Pentagon.
And the Cameron Run Army base closed and turned into mostly condos. Which had some affordable housing, but probably not enough to offset the good stuff.
The huge growth of Crystal City in the last 25 years has made the very close in housing of Arlington and Alexandria highly desirable.
The coming of Metro 25 years ago has had a large impact, too. Del Ray, which was a vacation community for the District of Columbia in my grandmother’s day, is now walking distance to the subway. These are cute little cottages with backyards, mature trees and a friendly neighborhood. Was genuinely funky with a multiracial population, is now more yuppified funky with kids in private schools.
Remember Del Pepper fondly – but a lot of what has happened is structural.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
There is if you’re also claiming that some alternative set of zoning/land-use/transportation laws and policies would have produced an outcome more consistent with what people want than the laws and policies we actually have.
It’s a fallacy to assume that a system automatically produces one type of result, whether good or bad. The system produces different results depending on what we put into it, the people that run it, the background of knowledge and assumptions, the prevailing institutions, etc.
Anti-urban policies seemed like a good idea at the time. Now we know better, and we must work to change things again.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
DMonteith,
I would suggest that people like Donald Shoup, Matt, Ryan Avent, Janette Sadik-Khan etc. continue to research, advocate, and implement better policies, and that we elect more leaders who can begin to show people an alternate vision of their lifestyle that they’d like to support.
So you have no alternative method to propose for producing zoning policy that would be more consistent with the will of the people than the current method. Then there’s no basis for claiming that some proposed alternative zoning policy, such as a policy that would allow higher density, is more consistent with the will of the people than the current policy.
Given that the “alternate vision” you refer to above flies in the face of the demonstrated lifestyle preferences of Americans for decade after decade, it seems rather unlikely that they will embrace it.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
DMonteith,
Anti-urban policies seemed like a good idea at the time. Now we know better, and we must work to change things again.
If “anti-urban policies” is supposed to mean the kind of policies that produced our current land-use and transportation patterns, no, “we” most definitely do not “know” what you claim above. “We” don’t even believe it. You need to learn how to distinguish your personal preferences from facts.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
“we” most definitely do not “know” what you claim above.
If you want to be pedantic, let’s say some of us think we know. The point remains the same.
Abstractly, we have Policy X, adopted under Conditions P, and the leadership of Party/Person A.
Sixty years later, we have a greater understanding of the implications of Policy X, more knowledge about alternative Policy Y, and a wholly different set of leaders and economic and cultural conditions. If some of us decide Policy Y might be better than X, we can work to convince others, and eventually to change it.
In none of this is there any support for the absurd idea that Policy X is the implicit outcome of the American political system, that adopting Y would overthrow that system, or that Policy X somehow represents the full revealed, immutable preferences of “Americans”.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
So you have no alternative method to propose for producing zoning policy that would be more consistent with the will of the people than the current method. Then there’s no basis for claiming that some proposed alternative zoning policy, such as a policy that would allow higher density, is more consistent with the will of the people than the current policy.
The current system is called democracy, and is exactly what I propose to use to produce a better set of policies.
Basically, that just involves teaching people new things, new ways of seeing the world, and convincing people to change their minds. (Or, in many cases, just getting them to think about about the subject at all.)
You seem to making an assumption that there is such a thing as “The Will of The People”, that it is monolithic, immutable and uninfluenced by events in the outside world, and that its preferences are fully revealed in current policy.
I’d look at those assumptions more carefully. They don’t really have a lot of explanatory power or concordance with, you know, facts.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
DMonteith,
Abstractly, we have Policy X, adopted under Conditions P, and the leadership of Party/Person A. Sixty years later, we have a greater understanding of the implications of Policy X, more knowledge about alternative Policy Y, and a wholly different set of leaders and economic and cultural conditions. If some of us decide Policy Y might be better than X, we can work to convince others, and eventually to change it.
Of course you can work to change it. You’re just not very likely to achieve much of a change. The benefits of car travel that appealed to people sixty years ago are still benefits today. In fact, since cars today are so much better than the cars of sixty years ago, the benefits of car travel are even greater. And many more Americans can afford cars today than could afford them back then, which fuels more car sales and more road construction and more sprawl. And Americans can afford bigger housing now, too, so there’s more of that also. This isn’t just an American phenomenon. It’s also happening in Europe.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
DMonteith,
This, incidentally, is not only wrong, it also makes you look like a child.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
DMonteith,
The current system is called democracy, and is exactly what I propose to use to produce a better set of policies.
Terrific. Good luck. You haven’t had much success so far, though.
Basically, that just involves teaching people new things, new ways of seeing the world, and convincing people to change their minds. (Or, in many cases, just getting them to think about about the subject at all.)
What new things/new ways of seeing do you think you can teach people that will induce a large-scale shift from current housing and transportation patterns to the ones you seek?
And just how big of a shift are you seeking, anyway? Public transportation currently provides only about 1-2% of our total amount of transportation, while cars provide more than 90%. By how much do you seek to shift this in favor of public transportation? How big a shift do you think you could realistically achieve by, say, 2050?
November 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Of course you can work to change it. You’re just not very likely to achieve much of a change.
Fine, I say, to the rapidly retreating goalposts…
The benefits of car travel that appealed to people sixty years ago are still benefits today.
These “benefits” are difficult to isolate from the matrix of policy decisions they live in. I defy you to demonstrate that these policies, and the conditions they create, are explicitly in accordance with some “will of the people”.
In Tokyo, a different set of historical accidents resulted in far less “free” parking, and a very different distribution of the gains from transit-oriented development. The result is a far more transit dependent city. Is the “will” of Tokyo residents fundamentally different from that of other human beings?
Moreover, I believe you yourself have pointed out how American voters often express explicit preferences for rail expansion and transit subsidies. How does this fit into your model of the people’s “will”?
I’d even suggest that a great many people might move out of their suburban “Amsterdam Village” townhouse apartments and choose a denser, more walkable and transit oriented lifestyle. If they could be convinced it was compatible with their pets and children, that it needn’t involve astronomical rents, and that brown and/or foreign sounding people could be good neighbors, not just scary people who might mug them or steal their job…
November 4th, 2008 at 12:42 am
DMonteith,
Fine, I say, to the rapidly retreating goalposts…
Incomprehensible.
These “benefits” are difficult to isolate from the matrix of policy decisions they live in.
So what? All benefits we get from modern civilization and technology are “difficult to isolate from the matrix of policy decisions they live in.” They’re still benefits.
I defy you to demonstrate that these policies, and the conditions they create, are explicitly in accordance with some “will of the people”.
They are the result of the democratic process. You just conceded that you have no superior method to offer for determining the will of the people.
In Tokyo, a different set of historical accidents resulted in far less “free” parking, and a very different distribution of the gains from transit-oriented development. The result is a far more transit dependent city. Is the “will” of Tokyo residents fundamentally different from that of other human beings?
Their will is different because it’s been shaped by a very different set of historical and environmental forces. Japan is a small, mountainous densely-populated nation with a centuries-long tradition of small housing, dense development, and close physical proximity. Unless you’re proposing to try and reproduce these environmental and social conditions in the United States (and how would do that, exactly?), it doesn’t seem terribly relevant.
Moreover, I believe you yourself have pointed out how American voters often express explicit preferences for rail expansion and transit subsidies. How does this fit into your model of the people’s “will”?
As a very small piece of it. The overwhelmingly dominant preference is for roads and driving, which is why cars overwhelmingly dominate our transportation system.
I’d even suggest that a great many people might move out of their suburban “Amsterdam Village” townhouse apartments and choose a denser, more walkable and transit oriented lifestyle. If they could be convinced it was compatible with their pets and children, that it needn’t involve astronomical rents, and that brown and/or foreign sounding people could be good neighbors, not just scary people who might mug them or steal their job…
Well yes, “many” people “might” do that. In a nation of 300 million people, “many” might only be a minuscule fraction of the total. What share of current suburbanites do you think you can realistically persuade to do this and over what period of time? And how do you propose to persuade them? This brings us back to the question of what your basic goals are with respect to transportation and housing patterns, and how you propose to achieve them. Something more concrete than “teaching people new things, new ways of seeing” would be helpful.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:57 am
They are the result of the democratic process. You just conceded that you have no superior method to offer for determining the will of the people.
No. I just said there was no such thing as the “will of the people”.
Defining the “will of the people” as the end result of any nominally democratic process is merely tautological.
Sprawl and automobile-oriented development are the end result of policies set in motion before I, and most of the living population of the United States, was born. These conditions and policies are the result of not just democratic processes, but also complex feedbacks with para-democratic processes such as automobile advertising and popular media. No set of voters was ever offered an explicit choice between the kind of suburban auto-oriented development widespread today, and a hypothetical more walkable alternative. (And even if they had been, Arrow shows that that result isn’t necessarily anything we could label “the will of the people”.)
November 4th, 2008 at 1:16 am
DMonteith,
No. I just said there was no such thing as the “will of the people”.
Huh? Whose will do you think it is, then, that is represented in democratically-enacted laws? And you said that you propose to use “democracy” “to produce a better set of policies.” What do you mean by “better” here if not “more consistent with the will of the people?”
Sprawl and automobile-oriented development are the end result of policies set in motion before I, and most of the living population of the United States, was born. These conditions and policies are the result of not just democratic processes, but also complex feedbacks with para-democratic processes such as automobile advertising and popular media. No set of voters was ever offered an explicit choice between the kind of suburban auto-oriented development widespread today, and a hypothetical more walkable alternative.
This gets another “huh?” People who would prefer “a hypothetical more walkable alternative” are free to use the political process to try to achieve that goal. They can run for elected office on a platform of “a more walkable alternative.” They can donate money to candidates who run on such a platform. They can write to their elected representatives urging them to adopt such a platform. They can lobby their fellow citizens to support such a platform. And so on and so forth. Nothing is preventing Americans who seek “a more walkable alternative” from trying to achieve that goal using the democratic process. Since it hasn’t been achieved, there aren’t enough people who want it badly enough to achieve it.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:19 am
So what? All benefits we get from modern civilization and technology are “difficult to isolate from the matrix of policy decisions they live in.” They’re still benefits.
Not necessarily. That’s the point. Revealed preferences certainly can’t generally be expected to tell us.
Is the QWERTY keyboard layout superior to the DVORAK (or some other layout)? Technically, no. It is demonstrably inferior. It’s only “benefit” is that everyone else uses them. And because everyone learns to use them in school because eveyone uses them. And everyone uses them because some engineers over a century ago developed the layout based on now obsolete technology and, as much as anything else, a marketing gimmick.
Astonishing numbers of similarly inferior goods are purchased everyday. Especially when they are inextricably bundled with other needed goods. It can be true of houses in the suburbs and it’s certainly true of public policy.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:30 am
DMonteith,
Not necessarily. That’s the point.
Your arguments just get more and more bizarre. I would say the benefits of travel by car over travel by public transportation include speed, comfort, convenience, flexibility, the ability to transport large amounts of shopping or other cargo, the ability to travel more easily with children, and others. If you really believe these are not genuine benefits, you are perfectly free to make that claim to people and try and persuade them to believe it. Good luck.
Still waiting for the elusive explanation of what you’re trying to achieve here. How much less use of cars do you seek? How much more use of mass transit? How much housing space do you want people to give up? Give us a sense of your basic goals.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Huh? Whose will do you think it is, then, that is represented in democratically-enacted laws?
No one’s, particularly. The democratic process isn’t some mechanism where we plug in magical, immutable, well-defined preferences on one side and receive a matched set of public policies on the other.
And you said that you propose to use “democracy” “to produce a better set of policies.” What do you mean by “better” here if not “more consistent with the will of the people?”
I see very little evidence that anyone’s collective will is being expressed in any coherent way here. I’d like to see human beings living and working together in pleasant, healthy, environmentally healthy environments. I think that’s pretty universally unobjectionable, and most people ultimately have the same basic values, but haven’t necessarily thought through the policy implications, or even realized there are any. I’d like to see the relevant policies implemented by people who have.
This gets another “huh?” People who would prefer “a hypothetical more walkable alternative” are free to use the political process to try to achieve that goal.
This is an enormous, tautological, Panglossian “everything is as people want it to be” assumption. Like “perfect information”, it doesn’t really exist in the wild.
In real life, most people either have more immediate needs to worry about, or don’t even realize some alternative exists in the first place.
In other words, it just hasn’t been achieved yet. It takes more than a few years to unravel six or seven decades of government policy and cultural feedbacks.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:59 am
I would say the benefits of travel by car over travel by public transportation include speed, comfort, convenience, flexibility, the ability to transport large amounts of shopping or other cargo, the ability to travel more easily with children, and others.
Well, that’s funny. I’d say the benefits of urban rail transit include comfort, speed, convenience, health, the ability for small children to ride unattended and attend a wider variety of activities in their neighbor, reduced need for massive parking lots, denser development supporting a greater variety of shops and restaurants, reduced energy use, greater land values, and others…
I guess we disagree. Luckily everyone has compared both options and chosen freely. Oh. Wait.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:05 am
DMonteith,
No one’s, particularly.
Hilarious. So when people vote, you think they just make some random or arbitrary selection between candidates or laws or policies, rather than making a choice that reflects their will about which alternative they prefer? Seriously?
I see very little evidence [blah, blah]
You didn’t answer the question. You said that you propose to use “democracy” “to produce a better set of policies.” What do you mean by “better” here if not “more consistent with the will of the people?”
And why do you think democracy produces “a better set of policies” if, as you just said, you don’t think democratically-enacted laws represent anyone’s will, “particularly?”
In real life, most people either have more immediate needs to worry about, or don’t even realize some alternative exists in the first place. In other words, it just hasn’t been achieved yet. It takes more than a few years to unravel six or seven decades of government policy and cultural feedbacks.
You’re deep into fantasyland now. What evidence do you have either that “most people” want to “unravel” our long-standing policy on housing and transportation but are just too busy with “more immediate needs” to vote and act accordingly right now, or that “most people” “don’t even realize some alternative exists?” The claim is absurd on its face. What’s stopping people from running for public office on a “transit-and-density” platform? What’s stopping people from voting for such a candidate? What’s stopping millions of people from leaving their car at home and taking the bus or train instead? You’re just inventing fantasies.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:17 am
DMonteith,
No one’s, particularly.
Hilarious. So when people vote, you think they just make some random or arbitrary selection between candidates or laws or policies, rather than making a choice that reflects their will about which alternative they prefer? Seriously?
Spongebob,
No. I think people choose from a very limited menu of candidates based on limited information about the complex basket of views and qualifications those candidates may hold, viewed through a prism of a handful of largely indoctrinated “key issues”, mixed with a very large dose of tribal attachments and emotional reactions.
It’s the best system we’ve got, but calling it the “will of the people” is a bit grandiose.
And pretending it generally expresses any well-considered views from the electorate on urban zoning policy is downright nonsensical.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:26 am
DMonteith,
Well, that’s funny. I’d say the benefits of urban rail transit include comfort, speed, convenience, health
Transit takes on average over twice as long as the same journey by car, so “speed” is certainly not a benefit. I’d love to know why you think urban rail transit is either more convenient, more comfortable or “healthier” than car travel. And why do you say “urban rail transit?” The vast majority of transit is buses.
the ability for small children to ride unattended and attend a wider variety of activities in their neighbor,
I’m not sure most parents would consider that a benefit at all.
reduced need for massive parking lots, denser development supporting a greater variety of shops and restaurants, reduced energy use, greater land values, and others…
Denser development means smaller and/or more expensive housing and retail and makes access by car more difficult and/or expensive. Since cars are so much faster than transit (and walking) they allow for bigger housing and access to a much larger selection of shopping and dining in a lower-density environment.
If the benefits you claim for transit are real, why aren’t people using transit more? Why aren’t they voting to build more of it? Why have they instead been shifting away from transit towards greater use of cars for more than half a century?
November 4th, 2008 at 2:35 am
DMonteith,
No. I think people choose from a very limited menu of candidates based on limited information about the complex basket of views and qualifications those candidates may hold, viewed through a prism of a handful of largely indoctrinated “key issues”, mixed with a very large dose of tribal attachments and emotional reactions.
This is all beside the point. You said you think democratically-enacted laws do not reflect anyone’s will, “particularly.” So what determines these laws, if not anyone’s will? Randomness? Murder laws are random? Zoning laws are random? Consumer safety laws are random? Your claims just get sillier and sillier.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:44 am
DMonteith,
You still haven’t answered these questions, either:
You said that you propose to use “democracy” “to produce a better set of policies.” What do you mean by “better” here if not “more consistent with the will of the people?”
Why do you think democracy produces “a better set of policies” if, as you just said, you don’t think democratically-enacted laws represent anyone’s will, “particularly?”
How much less use of cars do you seek? How much more use of mass transit? How much housing space do you want people to give up? Give us a sense of your basic goals.
November 4th, 2008 at 7:32 am
I think development in the USA since 1945 has been driven by the “will of the people” to keep poor people (i.e., black people) out.
There is no reason people shouldn’t have cars. That doesn’t mean that every person in a household should need to have a car to get a loaf of bread or fill a prescription. Or to go to work every day.
We need to devise and encourage walkable cities with green space, mixed use, mixed income, and common areas.
November 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Dude, you’re fucking mental.
Just saying.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:02 am
This is all beside the point. You said you think democratically-enacted laws do not reflect anyone’s will, “particularly.” So what determines these laws, if not anyone’s will? Randomness? Murder laws are random? Zoning laws are random? Consumer safety laws are random? Your claims just get sillier and sillier.
Complexity != randomness, Princess.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Real estate speculators determine the laws.
November 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I’ve worked in Arlington for nearly 8 years and lived there 5 of those years as well before moving to D.C. this spring. Rather than reworking zoning and pushing density into the nice single family residential enclaves of Lyon Village & Lyon Park (which surround Clarendon) the county still has plenty of other options. Washington Boulevard, Glebe Road and Lee Hwy can support more density without disrupting much of the fabric of any neighborhood. The street car on Columbia Pike can make that corridor into the next big thing. Get that rolling…
November 4th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Another feeble excuse. If voters in a state want to change a law relating to transportation/land-use/urban planning but are unable to do so because of their state constitution, they are free to amend their constitution to allow the change.
Mixner, I know that you know something about transportation policy. You may be wrong about your conclusions, but you have clearly studied this stuff.
You DO NOT know anything about the California state constitution. Essentially, we the people are NOT allowed to change the rules for local control over zoning decisions, because that constitutes a “revision” and not an “amendment” and thus cannot be done by popular initiative but only by means of a state constitutional convention where we rewrite the entire Constitution.
We are not unique in this respect either. Many, many state constitutions have provisions that lock in, even against constitutional amendment, the local control of planning and zoning decisions. This is simply an area where many state founders decided that the public would NOT be allowed to change the rules.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
dilan esper,
The particular structure of land-use-related and transportation-related laws in the state of California are completely irrelevant to the general point that voters in every state are free to change such laws through the political process (including amending or “revising” their state constitutions).
But you since you seem obsessed with this distraction, please cite the sections(s) of the California Constitution that you believe prevent “we the people” from “chang[ing] the rules for local control over zoning decisions” other than “by means of a state constitutional convention where we rewrite the entire Constitution.”
November 5th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Mixner:
I won’t do your research. Pick up a copy of Witkin’s summary of California law and look up the section on constitutional revisions. You’ll see the caselaw on the issue.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:07 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
cialis
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 4:18 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 12th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Incredible site!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:56 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:57 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra