
Recognizing the signs of disruption in our urban habitat - oftenwrong
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/8/21/whats-wrong-with-this-picture
======
burlesona
This kind of economic dysfunction is often cited as the reason to switch to a
Land Value Tax, which is explained pretty well on Wikipedia[1].

It's also why so many people were interested in SB-50[2], which would have
overridden local zoning controls to allow higher density development around
transit stops.

I think the biggest challenge is the transition. The current system is broken,
but we typically look at changes in terms of the desired end-state, and when
we look at it that way it's clear that the change will be very disruptive to a
lot of people who are benefiting from the status quo. Those are the people who
turn out and ensure that the changes cannot go through - even if they might
agree that the long-term outcome would be better.

Strong Towns has done a good job emphasizing incrementalism in its approach to
urban problems[3], but I'd love to see more of a conversation around this in a
legal / regulatory context. Are there ways that we can undo the harm of bad
regulations and transition to better ones that aren't so disruptive to the
people who have built their lives around the current rules? What would those
look like?

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)

2:
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50)

3:
[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/5/incrementalism](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/5/incrementalism)

~~~
zeveb
One way would be to buy people off: figure out the net economic benefit to the
city, county or state of changing the rules, and as part of the rule change
grant some fraction of those dollars to those who change in the way we want.

I can see two bug problems with this, one practical and one political. The
practical one is that estimating benefit is a black art — we really can't
trust anyone, partisan or non-partisan, to make accurate predictions of future
economic benefits (there's a secondary practical sub-problem, which is that
such an estimate would be ripe for capture). The political problem is that
we'd end up rewarding those who have been benefiting all these years (e.g. all
the homeowners with unrealistically low property taxes for the last four
decades).

~~~
ergothus
I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-
rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU
(condos and apartments vs the single family homes that are here now). Plus,
the city is widening the main road my house is on (overdue anyway, but will
definitely be further needed with the traffic to the rail station).

So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city,
whichever comes first.

It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-
ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My
objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST
uncertainty.

* Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far)

* Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort?

* And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.)

When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of
"suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the
greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty.
Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been
a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping
into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5
years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why
someone might push back.

I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to
move". It's been much more.

~~~
sologoub
Sorry to hear about your situation and impacts! Definitely sounds like a lot
of stress!

Is the uncertainty because of eminent domain that the city is planning to use
to force the relocation? If that’s the case, I don’t know that all that many
on here are arguing in favor of the government forced sale.

It doesn’t sound like you’d be forced to sell because of the potential
appreciation in property alone, as that would be somewhat in your control.

~~~
ergothus
It's a split. There's the eminent domain question from the city - they need
space for the road, which would eat my front yard and put traffic a few feet
from the front door. There are various kinds of eminent domain (some other
comments have discussed the more speculative kind), but this is the more
straightfoward "take your land, give you something of theoretical equal value,
and use your land for city improvement". The uncertainty there comes in:

\- If it would happen at all. The city (technically Shoreline, not Seattle,
but I'm literally across the street from Seattle) can't afford it, but it got
federal funding to make a plan. Following the plan would take another infusion
of cash from somewhere, but there are potential sources. Potential. Or maybe
the street will just get more congested because they can't afford to fix it.

\- If it does happen, what form will it take? They are now talking
"relocation", which I imagine would be easier on the city budget since they
could use properties they own that have value on paper without having to find
a way to make that value "real". But info is scarce, and until there's a real
offer it will continue to be scarce. If it was an outright purchase there
would still be questions (how much, when, would there be an interim where we
can live/rent while finding a new home) and with the relocation it gets more
uncertain (where, when, etc)

Then there's the flip side of the coin: If the city doesn't use eminent
domain, or does so in a way that leaves the property usable (perhaps my front
yard is halved), there's still the chance where I'm not "forced" to leave, but
I may be stupid not do. My neighbors and I are considering selling to a
developer as a block. Developers, sure to be able to build a profitable
apartment/condo on what was multiple single lots, could pay a decent amount
per sq/ft. I have no idea what numbers to trust, but the middle of the range
of what I've heard being speculated about could very well put us in the "dumb
not to take it". I like my house, and it is convenient and awesomely close to
the light rail when it opens, but I'm not so attached I wouldn't sell,
particularly if traffic on the street will get worse and louder (and possibly
closer). In such a case, the house itself is meaningless, they just want the
land. But this is also fully speculative. I don't know if there will be real
offers, if there are I don't know what they would be, and I don't know how the
_possible_ eminent domain would impact it.

And there's no real way to get answers to those questions without waiting out
the clock. Which is what we've been doing. For years, and probably another
year or two to go.

~~~
sologoub
Thank you! That paints a very clear (and clearly stressful) picture.

Hope it all works out for you and yours in the end!

------
standardUser
This reminds me of a similar land use issue I've seen a hundred times over. In
major cities, in the middle of some of the densest, most trafficked, most
transit-oriented neighborhoods, you'll find vacant lots and storefronts that
sit there for _years_. Places that could, presumably, bring in many thousands
of dollars every month in rent instead bring in $0 month after month. And the
prime real estate sits unused, despite the thousands of residents and tourists
that walk buy every single day. I've seen it in many different cities and
towns.

Maybe there is some real-estate-specific knowledge I lack that can explain
this phenomenon?

~~~
karthikb
The land value appreciates over time regardless of use. Why worry about
setting up a business and trying to make money when you could do nothing and
make a lot of money 10 years down the line when you sell?

~~~
hellisothers
The value of commercial real estate is also tied directly to what it can rent
for so you’re encouraged to wait to maximize rent which may mean leaving it
abandoned or vacant.

~~~
bmurphy1976
That's the ironic part. The more valuable the local market is, the more
incentive there is for some people to sit on their asses.

That tells me that taxes are too low. Not necessarily taxes for used property,
but vacant/unused property could be taxed more effectively to promote
development.

~~~
yitianjian
Would love to see a gradually increasing tax on unused/underused property - so
small time landlords who lose a lease aren't screwed over but no one should be
leaving storefronts empty for years

It's terrible in Toronto, you'll see complete sections of the street literally
empty since there's so many tax benefits for empty commercial-retail space

~~~
willhslade
Where in Toronto? I don't really notice this phenomenon.

------
mmanfrin
I'm glad the article brought up Prop 13. It is my belief that Prop 13 is the
biggest cancer on the state of California, and one that we will almost never
be rid of. Prop 13 is why people don't move. Prop 13 is why California
occasionally has budget issues. Prop 13 makes my parents home property taxes
1/4th the amount of my own, despite their home being 4x the value of mine.

~~~
dbcurtis
Prop 13 was a reaction against confiscatory taxes that broke an important
social contract.

The contract: If you save, invest, and pay off your home mortgage so that you
own it free and clear, later in life when you are retired and living on a
fixed income no one can come along and confiscate the property that you bought
and paid for fair and square.

The contract breech: Property taxes going up so fast that the only possible
solution was to sell your home. Now, of course the value of the home was going
up, which was what was driving the taxes. But forcing pensioners to sell their
homes, disrupting/destroying a life-time of plans and work was never going to
be a smooth ride -- who could have thought that it would be?

The government pre-Prop 13 was viewed as kleptocratic by a sizeable portion of
the population, with arguably good reason.

So, do you have a better solution that has empathy for pensioners that played
by the rules all their lives and have plans to settle into modest enjoyment of
their so-called "golden years"? Prop 13 was an attempt to stop perceived
thievery, a crude bludgeon, perhaps, but a sufficient number of desperate
people saw it as a solution to get it enacted.

~~~
troydavis
> The contract breech: Property taxes going up so fast that the only possible
> solution was to sell your home. Now, of course the value of the home was
> going up, which was what was driving the taxes.

The State of California offers another solution. It's called Property Tax
Postponement:
[https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html](https://www.sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html)

"The State Controller’s Property Tax Postponement Program allows homeowners
who are seniors, are blind, or have a disability to defer current-year
property taxes on their principal residence if they meet certain criteria
including 40 percent equity in the home and an annual household income of
$35,500 or less."

The taxes are deferred until a change of control, like due to a sale or
transfer to next of kin. Many or most high-cost-of-living jurisdictions have
similar programs.

~~~
zeveb
That’s a _really_ low annual household income, particularly for California.
But perhaps it's tweakable.

~~~
jacobolus
This is aimed at elderly people making a living from a pension, social
security, etc. Not for people currently earning a full-time salary.

~~~
zeveb
Yeah, but $35,000 from one's pension/401(k)/Social Security is still peanuts
for California. That's got to be well below effective poverty level for
someone living in San Francisco, LA or San Diego, even without rent.

------
achenatx
In texas we only have property taxes. Commercial property tends to be
undertaxed because the appraisal districts are not allowed to see actual sales
prices. Property taxes tend to be around 2-2.5% and for non homestead
properties there is no limit to the increase.

We regularly hear about older people getting taxed out of their homes (though
there are programs to somewhat hold their taxes constant).

In austin we are starting to have an affordability crisis, whereas cities like
houston are doing much better.

The taxation is the same, what is different is the restrictive zoning in
austin. In austin permitting can take 6-9 months and single family zoning
restricts what can be built. The city council tried to revise zoning and
failed due to NIMBYs, but they are trying again this year.

This is a reminder that the more competing systems of laws we have the better.
Every program implemented at the federal level only gives us one chance to get
it right. The state level gives us 50 chances and the local level gives us
thousands of chances.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
No opinion on the specific issue at hand, but wouldn't you eventually want to
take the winning system of laws and implement it on federal level? Or would
you expect better performing systems to naturally spread over? Are there any
examples of that actually happening?

~~~
filoleg
I think it is not state spread vs. federal, but more like state spread ->
federal. Disclaimer: talking about the US.

For something simple that can stand on its own, that was what we saw with gay
marriage and, I personally believe, what we will see with cannabis
legalization.

For something as complex and interconnected as property taxes, I don't think
it will be that easy to convert it to federal, so state spread is what we can
hope for in the near future. An example of a similar issue is income taxing,
where we ended up with a two-tiered solution: one federal (same for every
state) + one state (differs for each state, with some having none at all).

------
com2kid
Around Seattle, people bought up land in anticipation of light rail coming in
a decade+ later. The gambling ones bought up the land before the propositions
to fund light rail to those areas had even passed.

One of my friends took that gamble, in another decade it is going to pay of
handsomely.

~~~
taffer
Is there no way that the government can buy large plots of land around planned
stations, build the railroad and then sell back the land?

~~~
jdavis703
Sure the government _could_ do it. But any city council that tried to do this
would likely find themselves voted out.

Case in point: it was a tough push to get AB 2923 through the CA legislature.
It allowed BART to build dense housing on their own parking lots. Thankfully
common sense prevailed. The bill was approved and BART is now using their
power to plan for more transit oriented development.

~~~
taffer
> Sure the government could do it. But any city council that tried to do this
> would likely find themselves voted out.

Who votes them out and with what arguments?

~~~
cgy1
Mostly people who moved into what was a sleepy suburb 30 years ago wanting it
to remain a sleepy suburb.

~~~
wbl
Sleepy suburb with Sun headquarters.

~~~
Decade
This makes it not just unnatural but an injustice.

The sleepy suburb gets the commercial revenue from having a major tech firm,
and then most of the workers leave and the residentialists get to keep the
revenue for their city services.

The service workers who had to drive until they qualified, they go home to
more far-flung suburbs with financial problems and poor services. This is
segregation by deliberate policy.

But it’s starting to fall apart. When there were still nearby orchards to pave
to put up parking lots, the new homes were cheaper than they are today, and
the rich suburb could still hire workers to provide the services. Now that
there’s not enough room for both new single-family homes and parking lots, and
they are refusing to allow sufficient multi-family housing, the housing supply
is not keeping up with demand and the service workers are increasingly
refusing to take the jobs. This is manifesting as chronic short-handedness in
the schools, in the police and fire departments, in the transit agencies. By
greedily holding onto commercial revenues, these suburbs are destroying their
own ability to provide services.

------
mjevans
I like the concept of living near strong connectivity; however there are other
downsides that NEED to be addressed.

1) The building code isn't good enough. I should not be able to hear my
neighbors, let alone the train, at all when things are closed. I should also
have fresh air that doesn't smell like laundry, perfumes, the garbage chute,
or whatever cooking experiments are happening in other apartments.

2) Outside of cities cars are still needed; more so in America. That rail
network needs to connect to multiple potential 'apartments for my car'. Those
are also the places that would be a dropoff / interface for external to the
city users to drive to and then take transit infrastructure the rest of the
way in.

~~~
davidw
There's an argument that outside of actual safety issues, maybe it's best to
leave this up to the market.

My wife and I looked at a house once in Padova, where we lived, that was
_right next_ to the train tracks. You couldn't help but feel the trains go by,
let alone hearing them. It was not for us, but it _was_ super cheap, and might
have been an option for someone without a lot of other good options - or a
great option for someone hearing impaired who didn't care too much.

------
Endy
I can speak to the NJTransit example briefly buzzed past. In NJ, train
stations are not destinations. Most people I see get off the train and into
either an Uber or some other NJTransit vehicle.

Edited because of a misclick.

~~~
EliRivers
_In NJ, train stations are not destinations._

Isn't that the point the writer is making? That they should be bustling hives
of residential, retail and commercial activity.

~~~
Endy
Yes, and the issue is that the trains were put in places that never were
destinations. You would have to change the long-standing habits of businesses
and commuters to alter that. Even they light rail doesn't change that. Mass
transit fits in the edges and cracks here, and is something of a "necessary
annoyance" to the state. For proof, look no further than the aggressive
privatization of bus lines to companies who can't or won't run the buses on
the schedule set by NJTransit. And they aren't being penalized in any
meaningful way.

------
m463
There might be a stigma associated with being close to a railway.

It's a meme in some movies - someone is staying in a run-down apartment or
hotel near railway tracks and train will go by at night causing dust to shake
loose from the ceiling.

Caltrain stations are subject to these kinds of noise and vibration - during
the day the baby bullets bypass stations at 60 mph, and at night endlessly
long freight trains barrel past.

~~~
izzydata
I just wanted to say that you should have used the word trope instead of meme.

~~~
m463
Yes, you're right (I would change my comment but missed the edit deadline)

------
Animats
This is only a problem for a very few areas of the United States. Remember, US
population is leveling off. The current growth rate is 0.8% per year. Without
illegal immigration, that number will go negative, as it already has for Japan
and most of Europe. The current US fertility rate is 1.8. 2.1 is breakeven.

New York City had about the same population in 1950 and 2000. Chicago,
Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland have all shrunk. New York was
once the largest city in the world; now it's in 9th place. Nationwide, there's
no great need to build.

Remember the 2008 recession in the Bay Area? FOR SALE signs everywhere? No
traffic jams? It's coming again, probably within the next year.

~~~
novok
Japan is also having a concentration effect. Japan might be shrinking, but
tokyo is growing as everyone moves there. There is no signs of this general
trend abaiting. Recessions are also only a few years long, the growth trend is
the status quo for the majority of the time.

~~~
Animats
Yes, Tokyo and Osaka are up. The rest of Japan is emptying out.

------
mempko
This is definitely not true for older cities like NYC and Chicago. The land
around train stops is valuable there. Chicago area grew outward from the train
lines before cars showed up. Each stop has a town with its own higher density
downtown.

------
ImaCake
North Sydney around Ryde used to be like this. Low density with lots of
shuttered shopfronts. But Sydney has undergone a massive apartment development
boom and the areas around these train stations often have high rise apartments
now. The shops are all occupied. Eastwood even has a minimum height
requirement for new buildings.

------
musicale
Low density notwithstanding, the Menlo Park example does seem like a nice,
walkable downtown area near the train station.

(And apparently the Menlo Park station was built in 1867, making it one of the
oldest passenger rail stations in California!)

------
carapace
Keep in mind, Redwood City will be literally underwater along with the rest of
the Bay Area in a few decades.

~~~
dhruvrrp
If the Bay is still relevant at that time, then all it would take is a few
hundred million to contain the rising water levels, in the form of barriers,
flood walls, etc.

~~~
quickthrower2
Who's paying?

~~~
asdff
How about the property owners whose property this build will protect.

