Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Emily Hamilton

Emily Hamilton

  • Joined: May 21, 2025
  • Articles: 154

Irrational, or responsive to incentives?

In the Washington Post Brad Plumer editorializes on the choice of many Americans to accept longer commutes by car in exchange for larger homes far from their workplaces. He says that consumers are unable to accurately calculate the cost of their commutes, including time spent driving, leading them to make “irrational” choices about where to live. However, Plumer downplays the policies that encourage consumers to buy homes rather than rent and that allow them to partially externalize the costs associated with driving. Plumer asserts that when buying a house, consumers think they will value additional space more than they do, but he gives no convincing reason that their subjective valuation of home size is incorrect. If in fact if consumers did undervalue the time they spend commuting in relation to home size when they purchased a home, he gives no reason why they would not eventually realize this error and improve their situation by moving to a smaller home closer to a city center. His piece is written in response to Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s recent report on the topic of shielding Americans from volatility in the oil market. Blumenauer does credit the policy environment dating back to the 1944 Federal Highway Act for shaping the car-centric culture that many Americans live in today, and he supports policies that provide incentives for decreased reliance on cars. Blumenauer asserts, “For too long, the Federal government has disproportionately subsidized highways at the expense of other modes, reducing consumer choices.” Rather than moving away from determining transportation and urban development through legislation, he provides policy prescriptions at the federal, state, and local level to decrease consumers’ dependence on oil. For example, Blumenauer suggests that mortgage lenders should be encouraged to take transportation costs into account, making it easier for those living close to their […]

More fuel for the transit policy fire

Controversy over the construction of high speed rail in California provides a glaring example of the rigidity inherent in using infrastructure projects as economic stimulus. A state study suggests that the Central Valley is not the most efficient location to begin the project’s construction, and that construction should begin in a population center such as Los Angeles or San Francisco. However, US Department of Transportation officials said funding would be revoked with a major change to existing plans because construction must begin by 2012.  The LA Times reports: Until those issues could be addressed, analysts called on the rail authority to push back its federally required construction deadline and consider relocating the initial segment to a major urban area where there was more potential for trains to run sooner. Analysts further recommended that the Legislature not spend any more money on the project if the federal government did not allow the changes in the route and construction schedule. Because the federal funding for the project comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the project must be comply with the federal timeframe. However, for the long-run benefit of California residents, the flexibility to adjust plans as the market is reassessed makes more sense than adhering to the stimulus schedule. Furthermore, many politicians and academics have questioned whether or not the train will be a long-run drain for California taxpayers.  The federal funding is contingent upon $9 billion in state bonds to fund construction of the rail line, but will allegedly be operated at a profit by a private company once construction is complete. In fact, Proposition 1A that voters passed to fund the project forbids subsidies to the train operator. The rarity of profitable high-speed rail systems and the US track record of rail subsidies call into question the feasibility […]

Clear case of the damages inherent in policy uncertainty

Current policy evolution in Los Gatos, CA demonstrates the power that urban planners have to alter property rights.  The Silicon Valley municipality is currently debating whether or not to upzone a parcel where a developer would like to build 550,000 square feet of office space, replacing 250,000 square feet of an older office park. The lots, located near the Netflix headquarters, are thought to be the potential site for the company’s needed expansion. However, the Bay Area is already home to ample vacant office space, so the developer would like the alternative option of building multifamily housing in the location. In response to this request for a change in zoning that would allow either use, the planning commission chairwoman said she was “blindsided” by the owner seeking permission for options to use the land in various ways. In today’s world of master plans that dictate acceptable uses for each parcel of a city’s land, asking for the freedom to build different types of buildings, rather than approaching a commission with a plan in place for a specific zoning change, may seem out of line. In reality the owner is simply seeking permission to put his land to its most efficient use given future uncertainties. Entrepreneurs profit by seeing through these uncertainties to put resources to their most profitable uses, but in the market for land, policies limit their ability to do so. In curent conditions, in which developers are not building much new office space unless it is pre-leased, the planning commission has the power to determine the land’s expected value by requiring the owner to commit to a plan before moving forward with redevelopment. This is a classic Coasean case of the care that policy makers must take in assigning property rights. Russ Roberts and Richard Epstein did a […]

A fresh rejection of commerce from Metro

Stephen has previously written on DC Metro’s potential to make money by leasing its valuable real estate to vendors, but Metro officials have now further entrenched the organization against making efficient use of its property. WMATA denied a weekend farmers market use of the parking lot at the Naylor Road station. The Washington Post reports, “Angela Gates, a Metro spokeswoman, said it is against WMATA rules to allow the sale of food and drink on its property.” In this instance, it sounds as if the Temple Hill, MD residents who proposed the market were not intending for vendors to pay Metro to use the parking lot; however, suggesting a user fee for the parking lot space could have made much more sense than outright prohibiting potentially profitable endeavors on Metro property. The Post continues: Officials say the market falls in line with the transit-oriented development envisioned for the area. Renee Sprow, director of the Maryland Small Business Development Center Network, said the group has not given up. Informal discussions continue. And Funn said a formal request for reconsideration will be submitted. Assuming that Metro remains opposed to vending in stations, WMATA could at least revisit the issue in its parking lots given its dire fiscal condition. Riders often shop for food adjacent to stations and carry food purchases onto trains in other locations around the city. At the Clarendon Metro, a farmers market already operates directly outside Metro escalators. While Metro remains completely opposed to using its valuable real estate to benefit its finances and its customers, the Chicago Transit Authority is taking the opposite approach. Recently, CTA hired Jones Lang LaSalle as a property manager to undertake improvements at its vacant properrties available for lease. In the last two years, CTA made about $32 million from leasing its retail and office space. Given WMATA’s staggering operating deficits, the […]

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