Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Emily Hamilton

Emily Hamilton

  • Joined: May 21, 2025
  • Articles: 154

DC Office of Planning releases an underwhelming study of proposed new streetcar network

Last week the DC Department of Transportation DC Office of Planning released a Streetcar Land Use Study describing the impacts that the proposed DC streetcar network will have for the city. Greater Greater Washington accepts the study as proof that the streetcar will be great for DC. The report is full of the feel-good economics that really bothers me about Smart Growth in general, and I think that this sort of treatment of the trade offs of public policy hurts the urban agenda in the long run. The study finds that the streetcar will pay for itself by raising the property tax base. From a Smart Growth perspective, though, this is a problem because it will make housing less affordable. The study suggests that inclusionary zoning will provide the necessary affordable housing after the streetcar raises property values. Current zoning laws require new multifamily buildings with 10 or more units to comply with inclusionary zoning requirements for low-income housing. As Stephen has pointed out before, inclusionary zoning is just a more complicated policy that ultimately has many of the same unintended consequences as rent control or subsidized housing. Subsidizing the cost of housing for a select group necessarily makes it more expensive for those of all income levels who are not lucky enough to secure this subsidy. Forcing developers to provide this subsidy does not change its economic impact on those who are left paying market rate. DDOT  The Office of Planning predicts that by far the greatest gains in real estate value will accrue to property owners within one quarter of a mile of the stops along K Street (see graph on page 24 of the study). It’s important to note that the vast majority of these gains will be realized in higher per-square-foot prices rather than new square footage since […]

Street art: violation of property rights or positive emergent order?

Among Egypt’s pro-democracy protesters, graffiti has played an important role in the communication, providing a platform for free speech under military rule. The Associated Press reports: Graffiti has turned into perhaps the most fertile artistic expression of Egypt’s uprising, shifting rapidly to keep up with events. Faces of protesters killed or arrested in crackdowns are common subjects — and as soon as a new one falls, his face is ubiquitous nearly the next day. The face of Khaled Said, a young man whose beating death at the hands of police officers in 2010 helped fuel the anti-Mubarak uprising, even appeared briefly on the walls of the Interior Ministry, the daunting security headquarters that few would dare even approach in the past. Other pieces mock members of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the council of generals that is now in power, or figures from Mubarak’s regime. While this artistic movement in the Arab Spring puts the importance of freedom of expression in sharp relief, we of course more typically see graffiti and street art in freer societies where the act is often seen not as political uprising but as mindless vandalism. As a big believer in the power of property rights, I feel like I should be against street art as clear violations of building owners’ rights. However, it’s hard to argue that illegal street art doesn’t add something valuable to cities both visually and culturally, in times of peace as well as times of civil uprising. It would be nice to suggest that a signalling mechanism could show artists on which buildings their work is permissible, but, not knowing much about the culture of street art or graffiti, I imagine that decriminalizing this art form would destroy it. What do you all think of unsanctioned street art? Does it make […]

“Really Narrow Streets” project in the planning stages in Maine

In Maine, a group of residents are hoping to start a new community based on the principles of urban design advocated by Nathan Lewis at New World Economics and J.H. Crawford at Carfree.com. The group, led by Tracy Gayton, is hoping to attract enough individual investors to buy 125 acres of land which will be home to Piscataquis Village, a community of narrow streets. They’re using a Kickstarter-like investment model, in which individuals pledge to buy land contingent upon the group reaching the critical mass needed to get the project underway. The development would use covenants to limit building to require attached buildings, arcade sidewalks, and a building height limited to four stories based on the Really Narrow Streets model of dense low- to mid-rise buildings. On a previous post, some commenters came out strongly against covenants as a means for determining land use restrictions. What do you all think of them here? To me, this case illustrates the effectiveness that covenants have for shaping land use over an area broader than individual lots without the coercion of zoning. Tracy has created a presentation on the preliminary objectives for Piscataquis Village. He writes: We envision a settlement evolving organically and growing incrementally. Those people or groups of people that wish to pursue their own, various versions of the Good Life within the bounds of the Village are welcome. This project reminds me a bit of seasteading, the libertarian vision of a bottom-up society living on a water vessel to escape government coercion and violence. While I believe that most of the initial Piscataquis Village investors are from Maine and wish to continue living there, the projects’ rural location draws attention to the impossibility of a similar village emerging in the open space of, say, Howard County or Loudoun County because the […]

“Upzoning means up yours!” Links

1. The title quote comes from this gem of an LA Weekly article about proposed changes to Hollywood’s zoning code which would allow for taller buildings and denser development. According to the Weekly, “For decades, zoning that governs height and size has preserved thousands of affordable, low-slung, older apartments, bungalows and commercial buildings in Hollywood.” The words “preserve” and “affordable” rarely belong in the same sentence. 2. Once again in New York upzoning is linked with affordable housing. Expanding student housing at NYU also depends on the university providing land and potentially a building for a public school. 3. In San Francisco, an activist is working with developers to achieve upzoning approval for waterfront property. Despite the positive upzoning, on the surface this deal wreaks of crony capitalism. But the real kicker comes from the proposed funding: First up, the plan to build a high-rise residential tower near the waterfront at 8 Washington St. with funding from the state teachers’ retirement fund. The plan is being backed by Pak’s business allies, developer Simon Snellgrove and lobbyist Marcia Smolens. The project spokesman is P.J. Johnston, former spokesman for Brown. Approval of the deal could yield millions of dollars in affordable-housing money to help fund one of Pak’s pet projects, a $32 million apartment complex being built on Stockton Street by the nonprofit Chinatown Community Development Center. In my job I do a lot of work with pension reform, and this project would be an egregious abuse of CalSTRS, one of the most underfunded public pension plans in the country. Public pension funds should be managed to minimize risks for retirees, employees, and taxpayers, not to provide kickbacks to business interests. 4. Last note on special interests in upzoning: At least some property owners must hope to sell in the future rather than hold on to their […]

Market Urbanism Flickr Group

Small streets are all over urban planning blogs right now. Nathan Lewis at New World Economics is leading the way with beautiful images of really narrow streets along with Charlie Gardner at Old Urbanist, Small Streets, and Cap’n Transit. They have all compiled photographs of pedestrian-centric streets from all over the world with very inspiring results. Some of my favorite posts on small streets are here, here, here, and here. I’ve started a Flickr group with the hopes of providing another way for urbanists to share their own images of beautiful (or not beautiful) streets and talk about city design. I’ve started it off with some of my own photos with a couple of disclaimers. I know nothing about photography except that I’m not good at it, and I’ve never been to many of the cities known for really narrow streets. I hope to add some photos of nice small streets right here in the Mid-Atlantic sometime soon. I’m sure you all have many better pictures of really narrow streets and pedestrian environments, and I hope you’ll share some. I would suggest flagging your photos as Creative Commons which means that any bloggers would be free to use them with attribution, but if you’d prefer not to allow others to use them, feel free to add them to the group as copyright protected. To add photos to the group, you just have to create a Flickr account, upload photos, and then add away. You can also comment on any of the photos I’ve added or on the group’s discussion board.

“Battle for Brooklyn” playing this weekend. Meetup?

For readers in the DC area, the movie Battle for Brooklyn is playing at the Dome Theater in Arlington this weekend. The film explores eminent domain in the Forest City Ratner development at Atlantic Yards. It will be playing Friday, Saturday, and Sunday with a Q&A with the directors Michael Galinsky and Suki Hawley after each screening. The Atlantic Yards development relied on obtaining many properties through the standard of eminent domain made possible by the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London . Before the Kelo decision, eminent domain could only be used for public use, accepted to mean government purposes such as road or transit building. That landmark decision widened the potential use of eminent domain to any development that will benefit the public by, for example, increasing the tax base. Battle for Brooklyn has received positive reviews and has been shortlisted for and Oscar. The film follows the work of Daniel Goldstein, the Jane Jacobs-style community activist who has been leading the losing battle against eminent domain. I’m planning to attend the  movie this Sunday, January 15th at 6:00 pm. If any of you would like to go to that showing as well, would you like to meet up for drinks before or after? I would suggest Galaxy Hut but I’m open to somewhere closer to the theater also. If you’re interested, please comment or send me an email at [email protected]. The film is also playing this week in Chicago, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh. In March it will be in Boston, so check the movie’s website if you’re interested in seeing it in any of these cities.

The Coase Theorem in Land Use

On a recent post about property rights in the land market, commenter David Sucher brought up the issue of transaction costs. He commented here and at his blog City Comforts: The “least intrusive means” should be always kept in mind. The only issue for me is the huge transaction costs which, I believe, make private agreements for land use quite impossible. The very reason we have government is because “voluntary private contracts” are too complex. We got rid of tort law (as to land use) because it was much easier to have uniform area-wide regulations. While David brings up very valid points, I think that economist Ronald Coase offered a persuasive argument against these area-wide regulations. The Coase Theorem, which interestingly, I don’t think we’ve written about in depth here, addresses this issue of transaction costs. In 1960, Coase published his most famous paper, “The Problem of Social Cost,” exploring a common problem for city dwellers: annoyance at their neighbors’ behavior. Coase uses as an example a confectioner whose business is adjacent to a doctors office. The confectioner uses loud machinery which causes vibrations next door and bothers the doctor. We can imagine a variety of solutions to this problem: the doctor could sound proof his office, the confectioner could upgrade to quieter machinery, one of them could move his business, the confectioner could compensate the doctor for the bother, or the doctor could pay the confectioner to stop making noise during his business hours. Assigning property rights would help any of these solutions emerge; if the confectioner has a right to make noise, the responsibility lies with the doctor to remedy the situation (or learn to live with the noise) or the reverse if the doctor has a right to quiet. In a standard Micro 101 class, in my experience, the […]

NYC Taxi Reform Doesn’t Go Far Enough

This post originally appeared at Neighborhood Effects, a Mercatus Center blog where we write about the economics of state and local policy. Next week, New York Governor Cuomo is likely to sign a bill that will marginally increase competition in the NYC cab market. The new rule will allow passengers to hail some livery cars in outer boroughs and add 2,000 additional medallions for yellow cabs with wheelchair access. The auction of these medallions  is projected to raise $1 billion. This figure might seem outlandish, but last month two medallions sold at auction for over $1 million. That’s right, it costs $1 million for the right to drive a cab in NYC, not accounting for any of the costs associated with owning and operating the vehicle. The price tag of these medallions that are sold to the highest bidder demonstrates that in a free market, many more drivers would enter the cab industry. Artificially constraining the supply hurts both consumers and those who are not able to drive a cab because they are unable to purchase a medallion. Unsurprisingly, the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade remains strongly opposed to this bill. The increase in the supply of medallions will lower the value of the medallions that cab drivers and larger medallion companies already own. Their lobbying efforts reflect their desire to profit through the political system. While this increase in the number of medallions available for yellow cabs and allowing some livery cars to be hailed represents a small improvement for New Yorkers, the reform does not go nearly far enough. For real reform, Mayor Bloomberg should look to Indianapolis. Before Stephen Goldsmith was elected as the city’s mayor in 1991, the number of cabs permitted in Indianapolis was limited to 392. Goldsmith created a Regulatory Study Council whose first […]

Tea Partying at Planning Meetings

At the Atlantic Cities, Anthony Flint writes on recent Tea Party activism in urban development arena. Tea Party groups across the country have spoken out against all manner of urbanist plans, from CAHSR to Smart Growth in Florida. Flint opines: What’s driving the rebellion is a view that government should have no role in planning or shaping the built environment that in any way interferes with private property rights. Both Flint and the Tea Party members that he’s writing about are seeing right past an essential property right.  Don’t landowners have a right to employ their property as they see fit without explicit approval from their communities? Smart Growth tends to limit the right to build sprawl although its historic presercation component creates competing objectives. Traditional land use planning limits property owners’ right to build too though. In an article all about the Tea Part and land use, Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones quotes a Tea Party activist who said, “”We don’t need none of that smart growth communism.” I love this as a stand alone quote, but this activist is ignoring the other side of the issue. Traditional planning, at least as top down as Smart Growth, has shaped his or her presumably suburban neighborhood. How about, “We don’t want these socialist setback requirements,” or “Down with pinko minimum lot sizes?” Property rights in land use are, of course, a contentious and debatable issue. Charlie Gardner offers a summary of the court decisions that have led to a world where municipal governments are permitted to take away property rights without compensating land owners for these takings by limiting the density and uses that they are allowed to build. The suburbanist side of this debate is that property rights include the right to control a certain degree of land use for […]

Two Notes

1) Commenter Mike Chlanda: I’ve randomly picked you to receive my copy of The Heights. Please email me at [email protected] with your shipping information so that I can send it to you. Thanks all for your interest in the book. 2) Russ Roberts gave a fantastic and humbling talk at the Mercatus Center holiday dinner last night that I wish that I could link to here. It was broadly about the limitations of economics as an objective science. Economists have a strong tendency to see what they want to see in data. It seemed particularly relevant to yesterday’s post. I can look at the evidence and see that clearly cities are essential for productivity growth, while Randall O’Toole dismisses  those studies as insignificant. Also given yesterday’s topic, Russ had a great quote that was something like, “there are many things that economics isn’t good for. It’s too bad that one of them is macroeconomics.”

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation