Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Crain’s Chicago Business: U of C honors Friedman with $200M center Eventually, the Friedman Institute will be housed in buildings now occupied by the Chicago Theological Seminary on 58th Street between Woodlawn and University avenues. The U of C is buying the buildings and has agreed to build a new home for the seminary at 60th Street and Dorchester Avenue. The seminary is expected to move in 2012 and will lease the building from the U of C for 100 years at a cost of $1 a year. Milton Friedman Institute webpage
Austin Contrarian discusses an article that describes how Seattle has become less affordable in recent years. He prescribes a recipe for Austin to become what he calls a “Superstar City” such as New York, Boston, San Francisco, or Seattle. By “Superstar City”, I assume he means an ultra-hip place where housing prices rise rapidly, NIMBY activism grows, and development is restricted, making it even less affordable for many, except the wealthy and subsidized. The agenda would work for any city: Here’s the agenda I’d propose for propelling Austin into the “Superstar City” pantheon: (1) discourage the construction of traditionally affordable housing like garage apartments and duplexes; (2) restrict the amount of land available for multi-family housing; (3) strictly limit multi-family density; (4) limit the construction of upscale condos and townhomes in order to force affluent homebuyers to compete for the scarce supply of close-in housing; (5) ban small-lot and “urban home” zoning; (6) require property owners/developers who build dense developments to shoulder the financial burden for things like affordable housing, parks and infrastructure; and (7) impose onerous design standards to increase the cost of new construction. We can call it the “progressive” agenda. We’ll be in the superstar ranks in no time. Austin Contrarian: Sound familiar?
John McCain and Hillary Clinton have both supported the idea of a “Gas Tax Holiday“. The whole idea of a Holy Day to celebrate the worship of socialized transportation catered by Santa Clinton/McCain seems pretty absurd to me. Nonetheless, they expect pandering to gas-addicted voters to pay off in their election hopes. Unfortunately, such a gas holiday would burden the deficit, incentivize the burning of fossil fuels, and further socialize our transportation system. Highway advocates currently cling to arguments that roads are more “free-market” than transit because the costs of maintaining the highways are paid by the user through gas taxes and user fees. That is a myth to be debunked in future posts, but the argument would be void during McCain’s new “holiday”. And, with future tax money footing the bill instead of gas users, we would have a full blown transfer of wealth from the responsible taxpayers who don’t depend on petroleum to the gas guzzlers and petroleum industry. I propose a more free-market solution at the federal level – get out of the transportation business altogether! The federal government would end the gas tax permanently, but at the same time deed the entire federal highway system over to the individual states where the highways are located, and abolish the Department of Transportation over a span of a few years. The individual states would be free to handle their transportation as they see fit, as long as the they do not diminish the military’s ability to mobilize forces for defense. States could pay for maintenance of the assets in ways that best suit them, whether it be a gas tax, tolls, property taxes or states could actually raise money through complete privatization of the new assets. Besides easing the burden on the deficit, getting the federal government out […]
This isn’t some crazy proposal, they have been private since the 20’s and 30’s. It seems there are advantages and disadvantages. You don’t have to worry about street parking when you own the street, but you have to hire your own contractor to make repairs. My main concern is that those homeowners are still paying taxes, but not benefiting from public services. From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle – Community Board 10 Meeting Sparks New Effort to Solve Cul-de-sac Problems: The 19 private unmapped streets in Bay Ridge are now a public matter as nearly a hundred residents of these cul-de-sac havens came together at a Community Board 10 meeting to learn how they can get city services that they pay for in taxes but don’t get. It would be interesting to see what would happen with more private streets.
Curbed: Rent-Stabilzation War: Tenants Strike Back New York Times: Questions of Rent Tactics by Private Equity Rent-regulated apartments account for 57 percent of the total in the Bronx, 42 percent of the apartments in Brooklyn, 59 percent in Manhattan, 43 percent in Queens and 15 percent of those on Staten Island, the Guidelines Board says. There’s a long way to go. Phasing out the free ride won’t be painless or popular, but New York needs to let the marketplace decide what rents should be and where people locate. By freeing-up units to the marketplace, much of the current supply constraints can be alleviated and rents won’t skyrocket as drastically on the market-rent payers. Not only that, the beneficiaries of the regulation have had a disincentive to relocate closer to better jobs and affordable areas since they don’t want to give up their sweet deal. Rent price control and the resulting supply constraint is more guilty than zoning restrictions in driving up market rents throughout New York. Under the current regulations, some landlords pay more to their lenders than they collect from tenants of rent-regulated apartments. This helps explain the scale of the wealth transfer to each renter: Vantage’s debt service is an estimated $1,098 monthly on each unit, almost 50 percent more than the average rent. Learn more about the consequences of rent control in a informational series here: Rent Control Part 1: Microeconomics Lesson & Hoarding
If Chicago’s Midway Airport is privatized, I’ll be looking forward to flying in there. (And it won’t just be to satisfy cravings of Italian beef sandwiches and hot dogs at the food court.) It’s success may depend on the how much (or hopefully how little) the city regulates the airport’s contracts and operations as well as how much wasteful patronage will be eliminated by the private operator. From Reason.org‘s Out of Control Blog: Leasing Chicago’s Midway Airport If there was any question whether investors would be interested in a long-term lease of Chicago’s Midway Airport, it was answered in the affirmative at the beginning of April. If Midway does generate significant value for the city, the lease could be as precedent-setting as the city’s January 2005 lease of the Chicago Skyway. That transaction focused global attention on the United States as a new market for privatization of toll roads. But for the same thing to be possible in the airport sector would require Congress to amend the Airport Privatization Pilot Program legislation it enacted in 1996 . If it is as successful as the Skyway lease, it could usher in a wave of privatization of airports and highways across the US as governments try to shore up their budgets.
Watch it right here: And also, Kunstler on oil & suburbia:
LA Times: Los Angeles limits ‘mansionization,’ downtown hotel conversions Reason: In Soviet Los Angeles, Housing Affordables You! LA’s City Council voted unanimously to treat the symptoms of the City’s gentrification problem by restricting property owner’s right to improve their property. Did anyone ask the council what would be the long-term effects of restricting the supply of upscale housing? As supply is restricted, eventually what was once considered middle class housing will be needed to meet the needs of the wealthy. With less stock for the middle class to afford, they will move downscale as well and gentrify the most affordable areas. Then, when the affordable housing is gobbled up, the City Council will probably enforce even greater restrictions. It won’t be long before upper-middle-class people will be living in tiny studios just like New York and everyone else is priced out. So, the solution is to do the opposite of what the council did. Remove restrictions on property and allow developers to build densely to meet the needs of the market. Some single family neighborhoods would gradually be redeveloped as multifamily, allowing the city to meet the housing needs of more people. Otherwise, gentrification will sweep over LA faster than ever and affordable market-rate housing will be a thing of the past.
It’s a beautiful project. I sure hope he gets his condo! Wouldn’t it be great if more entertainers joined in the fight to allow urban density instead of other silly stuff? Kanye’s Blog: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN SOMETHING SO GOOD YOU THOUGH YOU’D DIE WITHOUT IT? More articles on HL23 on Curbed Highline Blog
Limousine Liberals aren’t the only ones who oppose change. In Harlem, neighbors fought to keep new people out of their neighborhood, and want to force gentrification upon other neighborhoods. In the process they created such a stir at Wednesday’s Council session, they had to be cleared out. It’s such a strange phenomenon: progressives who act conservative; they preach tolerance, while excluding others from what they feel they own collectively. They applaud “Change” as a buzzword, then fight change when it effects them. NY Daily News: Council OKs Harlem rezoning plan; cops called to clear opponents The Real Deal: Council approves Harlem rezoning AMNY: Council approves controversial Harlem development plan Recent Market Urbanism post: 125th Street Rezoning