It seems to me there's a bipartisan consensus forming -- at least among the pundit class -- that the sensible answer to our energy problems is a stiff gas tax (typically combined with reductions in other taxes, to cushion the blow to the poor). The idea is that such a tax will force people and businesses to start making the necessary changes.
But what are the necessary changes? Anthony Flint has a problem:
... the discussion always comes right up to the ultimate reason we use so much energy -- our physical environment and how we live -- and then backs away.
This is true. No politician has the stones to question sprawl -- where their most coveted voters live -- and most mainstream pundits fear the dread tag of "elitism." But Flint's right: You can't get around the built environment.
Here's what he suggests:
Across the country, innovative policymakers are also ready to level the playing field in terms of government regulation and infrastructure investments, which at least since World War II have heavily favored the creation of highways, gas consumption, and sprawling development. What needs to be done is clear, and really isn't even all that controversial: change zoning to allow mixed-use development in town centers, currently prohibited (perversely, in most cities it's illegal to build the kinds of development that more and more people are clamoring for). Cut red tape for urban infill development, which is too often too expensive and time-consuming. Shift investment to transit to make growth functional in urban neighborhoods and older suburbs, just as highways have enabled sprawl.
Flint points out, wisely I think, that change is building not because Americans are responding to moral exhortations, but because gas prices are serving as the straw that broke the camel's back. The personal calculus that makes living in far-flung suburbs worthwhile is changing.
Today, establishing alternative development patterns isn't going to hinge on saving farmland or protecting endangered species or preserving historic sites. It's going to come down to convenience, quality of life, and the pocketbook.
Word.
Comments
View as Flat
claxton6 Posted 10:05 pm
15 May 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:15 pm
15 May 2006
I want to agree with everything stated. Will policy makers really consider this?
We also need to look at the cost of housing. Many of our urban centers are incredibly expensive. One of the drawbacks to building up cities is the cost. We want to avoid (I hope) the European model where the well off live in lovely city centers and the poor are forced out to industrial suburbs.
patrick
Permalink
tjacorn Posted 3:26 am
17 May 2006
Slowly increasing the gas tax is by far the best solution to our oil problem I've seen. I think the increased revenue should either be used to increase spending on transit or should be redistributed to all citizens as a "citizen's dividend." That way, those who drive the least are rewarded the most for it.
The money could also be used to further subsidize bus and transit in such a way as to make it free (or nearly so) for all.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:03 am
17 May 2006
Can anyone bring forth some examples, I'm not very familiar with zoning/policy discussion.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:51 am
17 May 2006
Dear Atreyger,
Generally American zoning attempts to separate different types of uses, housing here, offices there, shopping over there, and way over there industry. (This is an oversimplification, but the basic idea holds).
This kind of zoning creates needs for more transportation (drive to work, drive to the store, drive to the park) than if they were all all allowed ot co-exist (mingle, if you will).
A mingled city might see a huge building complex that contained offices, housing, schools and retail/community entertainment all within a small area. In such a complex, cars would (for many people) be useful only to go "outside" for a distance. Such complexes might also contain mass transit stations (linking them to other parts of the greater urban area) and off course, parks and open space.
To some extent, Nimbyism and the desire to look on property as investment killed such ideas. (Anything near me that might lower the potential future value of my property is to be discouraged! And I don't want anything but quiet near my house).
There has always been demand for such projects, but in the American system, it is generally easier for small groups of determined nimbys to kill them than it is for them to succeed.
(I have worked with groups that might be regarded as nimby, so speak from the position of a reformed sinner.)
patrick
Permalink
accel2 Posted 12:28 am
18 May 2006
So, for example, in response to Bookerly's note that housing affordability is a major issue, the problem is not cities themselves but rather simple supply and demand. Through zoning, cities put caps on their housing supply, driving up costs for everybody, low-income to high-income. The solution to high housing costs in cities is to allow more housing to be built - ANY kind of housing. Even if it's all new luxury housing, that will drive prices down in the whole market because there will be more housing to go around.
I'm not a radical neo-liberal or libertarian, I do believe that some controls are obviously needed on land use, but just enough to ensure orderly, reasonable, safe, fair, healthy development in our cities.
This was another great Planetizen article that Dave had linked to previously, that kind of gets at what I'm talking about:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/19010
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:33 pm
18 May 2006
Dear Accel2,
You are completely mistaken. The market has done nothing to provide more affordable housing. Nor is it ever likely to do so without massive government intervention.
Why not?
Affordable housing is not only a factor of how many units are built, but their cost. No one is going to sell a widget for 3 cents that cost them 300 dollars to produce.
There will never be a completely free market in housing (nor would most "free-market" advocates support a truly free market). Zoning laws are generally supported by almost all Americans. Such laws contribute to the costs of housing, as well as the types of housing that can be built in a given location.
Try goint to a gate community full of free market advocates and telling them you want to put up a bunch of tall cheap apartment buildings in their midst. Then, run, as fast as you can!!!
The housing market is very complicated, but there is no evidence of any substantial support for a market that is free enough to address the needs of those without a lot of money.
Most of the time (and I am not accusing you, don't know you)) those who advocate free markets in housing mean that they want to maximize their profits and build more for the rich.
Frankly, the libertarians are using smarth growth concepts as a Trojan Horse. They suggest that freedom from government regulation will lead to all the things the smart growth people desire.
Well, they would, if developers, freed from regulation, made those choices. However, there is neither historical evidence or any reason to believe that they would do so. Most likely, they would build merely to maximize profit, and the environment be damned. That is what they have done in the past.
While I certainly want changes in zoning, I definitely have no faith in the market.
patrick
Permalink
accel2 Posted 4:27 am
19 May 2006
We'll have to agree to disagree.
It should be clear that once a sufficient quantity of something is provided, prices go down. If the market has not provisioned enough affordable housing yet, it is mostly because insufficient housing has been built. Does it cost money to build housing? Yes. But there is only so much demand to go around - so if you build more luxury housing, the cost of less-than-luxury housing goes down. I agree that current zoning, taxation, and regulatory regimes make it far from a free real estate market, for better and worse. However, I firmly believe that building more housing, no matter whether it's "affordable" or not (and "affordable" housing drives up the cost of all "non-affordable" housing to all those not lucky enough to get the affordable housing), will bring housing costs down. When people were vacating New York City in the 70's, brownstone fixer-uppers uptown and in Brooklyn became quite cheap. Now they are selling for $millions.
I come from a progressive background and am the furthest thing from a libertarian (I am also the furthest thing from a greedy real estate developer - I work as a sustainable transportation planner). But if you claim to want one end (affordable housing) and the means you are promoting (increased government intervention and regulation) have never proven themselves to result in that end, whereas providing increased supply HAS, then who is the REAL progressive, you or me?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:38 am
19 May 2006
Dear Accel2,
First, of all, let me aplogize. It is not my intent to attack you personally, I don't know you, and have no right to criticize you personally. So, I am sorry if anything I say has made you feel personally attacked. This is not an issue of who is more progressive (egos), but for me a practical issue. (I used to live in SF, but was forced out by the high cost of housing).
First of all, regarding the absolute numbers of buildings. It is true that if you build too many multi-million dollar condos, the market will force the price down. In this way, you are correct. However, the market will NEVER (has never) forced the price of such down to the point where poor people can afford them. The greated lack of housing in most markets is not for rich people, but for poor people (including the working poor).
I am not familiar with the period in New York you are talking about, so I will ask, how cheap?
It seems like you are talking about cheap to purchase, which is fine for those with money. But there are a lot of people who never have that kind of money. They are permanent renters.
I don't understand your statement "and "affordable" housing drives up the cost of all "non-affordable" housing to all those not lucky enough to get the affordable housing"
How does affordable housing drive up the cost of all housing?
Secondly, my point about removing government regulations may not have been absolutely clear. It is true that removing them will free developers up to make choices they can't make now. But there is no guarantee that those developers will make "green" choices.
There are two issues, one is affordablity, one if environmental. There is no evidence that the market really addresses those for people below medium income (which is a lot of people).
patrick
Permalink