Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

The deal-making behind the Silver Line

In political transactions, players cannot make deals using dollars, but nonetheless they engage in trades to pursue their goals. Policymakers may engage in trades both with other policymakers and with private sector actors . While these deals are not denominated in dollars, their gains from trade can still be considered “profit” that goes to the parties to the trade. In the decision to create the DC Metro’s silver line extending from West Falls Church to Dulles International Airport, many public sector and private sector parties profited from the complex dealmaking that facilitated the extension. The Silver Line was accompanied by redevelopment planning for Tysons Corner, a suburb of DC along the line’s route. These rail construction and accompanying rezoning benefitted three primary groups. The first and most obvious beneficiaries of the development of the Silver Line were the individuals and corporations that owned large parcels of land near the planned stations. The value of their holdings increased not only because of the new infrastructure, but also because the planning for the Silver Line involved significant upzoning, making more intensive and profitable use of their land legal. The combined promise of upzoning and the new metro stations ensured local policymakers that powerful landowners would support their efforts. These large landowners who benefited from upzoning include West Group, Tysons Corner Property, and West Mac Associates among other. The leadership members of these corporations were active in commenting on the proposed changes to the area’s land use and transportation plans. Because of its large investment in Tysons Corner and its corresponding importance in the development process, West Group has had special involvement in the redevelopment process. Implementing the proposed grid of streets relies heavily on West Group properties and other major developers cooperating to minimize the need to use eminent domain to achieve the infrastructure requirements to facilitate increased […]

How land use regulations hurt the poor

Sandy Ikeda and I have published a new Mercatus paper on the regressive effects of land use regulation. We review the empirical literature on how the effects of rules such as maximum density, parking requirements, urban growth boundaries, and historic preservation affect housing prices. Nearly all of the studies on the price effects of land use regulations find that — as supply and demand analysis would predict — these rules increase the price of housing. While the broad consensus on the price effects of land use regulations is probably to no surprise to Market Urbanism readers, some policy analysts continue to insist that in fact rules requiring detached, single family homes help cities maintain housing affordability. Ed Glaeser, Joseph Gyourko, and Raven Saks estimate the effects of regulations on house prices in their paper “Why Is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices.” They estimate what they call the “zoning tax” in 21 cities. The zoning tax indicates the proportion of housing costs that are due to land use regulations. The chart below shows the percentage of housing costs that this “tax” accounts for: Policies that increase housing costs have a clear constituency in all homeowners, but they hurt renters and anyone who is hoping to move to an expensive city. The burden of land use regulations are borne disproportionately by low-income people who spend a larger proportion of their income on housing relative to higher income people. These regressive effects of land use policy extend beyond reducing welfare if the least-advantaged Americans. Additionally, rules that increase the cost of housing in the country’s most productive cities reduce income mobility and economic growth. In our paper Sandy and I also discuss proposals for reducing the inefficiency of cities’ current land use regulation practices. David Schleicher has proposed some […]

Smart city data and political opportunism

The term “smart cities” encompasses the interaction of the Internet of Things, the urban environment, and city dwellers. While these innovations have facilitated some very successful new services, smart cities have important limitations in the public sphere. Smart city technology includes city services like bike share systems and pedestrian, transit, and driving directions conveniently accessible on smart phones. Beyond these services, however, some city leaders have plans to revolutionize city planning through smart city data. Their ideas include facilitating evacuation during emergencies, reducing traffic congestion, and lowering crime. The proliferation of data arising from smart city tools has fostered many public policy experiments. In his book Smart Cities, Anthony Townsend covers how big data has opened up new opportunities for government service provision and government control. Townsend cites the example of Rio de Janeiro’s implementation of IBM technology as an example of the utopian thinking that smart city tools have inspired: What began as a tool to predict rain and manage flood response morphed into a high-precision control panel for the entire city. […] Just how effective Rio’s operations center will be in taming the wild metropolis remains to be seen. Urban security experts with whom I have spoken are skeptical that it will dramatically improve the effectiveness of law enforcement, and technology experts point out that beyond the video streams there has been little investment in new sensor infrastructure to feed real-time data to the center. Townsend points out that a key motivation of city leaders in adopting smart city technology has been creating the impression of being high tech rather than actually improving city services. He quotes the IBM team that implemented Rio’s weather forecasting and surveillance system saying, “That was a big surprise to us. We thought that this was going to be about ROI models, and the efficiency that we can produce. To […]

Neither Public nor Private: Rethinking the Dichotomy

Cato recently kicked off an essay series they’re calling “What Can’t Private Governance Do?”. The series questions how far we can take private governance in replacing public institutions. The most recent essay by Mark Lutter questions where to draw the line between private and public in territorial governance. And, more importantly, whether drawing that line even makes sense. Mr. Lutter concludes that it does, but I’ll politely disagree. We should instead abandon the public vs private dichotomy. It doesn’t accurately describe reality. It’s not useful for understanding policy problems. And it distracts us from the more interesting lines of inquiry we could otherwise be pursuing. A Tale of Two Cities Imagine two different cities, one proprietary and the other public. The former is run as a private, for-profit firm. It has an executive team, board of directors, and shareholders. The latter is a traditional municipal corporation. It’s run partially by elected officials and partially by appointees. It’s what we would call non-profit. No one “owns” the government as a legal entity. Now imagine that both cities raise revenue through land values. Greater demand to live in either city translates into a higher price for land. And the more that either city does to make their jurisdictions attractive, the more revenue that either stands to collect. In this scenario, price signals in the form of land valuations give both cities an incentive to make positive sum investments. Those same price signals also provide both cities with the ability to understand what those positive sum investments might be. Each city is responding to price information and making positive sum investments. So what difference does it make to call one public and the other proprietary? In all fairness, there’s still one place we could draw a line. We could make the choice of […]

Shell Games in NIMBYism

Yesterday the Cato Institute hosted an event featuring William Fischel’s discussion of his new book Zoning Rules! with commentary by Mark Calabria, Matt Yglesias, and Robert Dietz. Fischel explained his theory that zoning was an effective tool for minimizing nuisances between land uses through the 1970s. Until that time, he asserts that city planners did a good job of separating incompatible land uses, such as industrial and residential uses, benefiting residents and protecting home values in the process. His theory is that in the 1970s, inflation increased the value of homeownership relative to cash savings, leading homeowners to increasingly view their houses as investments. At the same time, the rise of environmentalism provided the policy justification for using zoning as a tool to limit the growth of housing supply. According to his theory, homeowners then began using their power to lobby for downzoning to protect their large, undiversified asset, and valued minimizing any potential downside risk in their home value. In his discussion of Fischel’s book, Matt Yglesias pointed out that today, NIMBYism has gone far beyond keeping out polluting land uses and low-income neighbors. For example, some residents in San Francisco’s Mission District are supporting a moratorium on luxury housing development, and some Brooklyn residents are fighting to keep vacant industrial properties in place on the waterfront. Permitting high-end residential development in these neighborhoods would be more likely to raise than lower nearby homeowners’ property values. This opposition to development is at odds with Euclidean zoning in these neighborhoods where expensive housing now abuts abandoned warehouses. It’s also demonstrates that NIMBYs are not motivated by narrow profit interests, but have complex preferences that are not easily understood by observing the policies that they advocate for. In the private sector, profit is measured in money, and it’s generally safe to say that both parties to a transaction […]

Systemic bias against small scale development

In recent years, some of the country’s largest mixed-use real estate developments involved disposition of government-owned land directly to developers. For example, Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and DC’s City Center and Marriott Marquis came about when municipal governments issued requests-for-proposals for underutilized land that they owned. Last week, Mid­Atlantic Realty Partners and Ellis Development Group closed on a deal to purchase 965 Florida Avenue NW from the District of Columbia. In 2012 the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) issued an RFP for this 1.45 acre at the intersection of the Shaw, U Street, and Columbia Heights neighborhoods. The RFP specified that any development on the site include affordable housing. Ultimately two developers submitted proposals. The winning developer purchased the land for just $400,000, at least $5 million less than appraisers estimated the land’s value to be, even after factoring in the affordable housing provision and needed environmental cleanup. By choosing to allocate very large parcels of land through this process rather than auctioning off small parcels of city-owned land, municipal officials favor large developers not only because smaller developers can’t afford such large parcels, but also because the RFP process favors established developers with political connections. In DC, large development firms provide some of the largest contributions to local campaigns. Not only does the sale of large parcels of public land exclude small developers who have less financial capital, it also reduces the pool of potential buyers to include only those with the political capital needed to navigate the RFP process. In the case of a private owner selling off a large tract of land, we would expect him to list the property for sale, accepting the best price he could get. If he thought smaller parcels would sell for more, the owner would likely try to subdivide before selling, expanding […]

San Francisco Turned Sisyphus: Why the City Can’t Fix the Housing Crisis On its Own

Housing prices in San Francisco are obscene. And, in large part, that’s because the city hasn’t permitted enough new construction. But that’s not the entire story. For as hard as San Francisco has resisted development, the Peninsula cities have resisted it even more. And in so doing they’ve pushed the responsibility of development onto their Northern neighbor. If San Francisco’s housing crisis is to be resolved, the Peninsula cities will have to quite literally grow up. Bad Neighbors San Francisco is synonymous with tech, but there’s plenty going on just down the road. Menlo Park has Facebook. Mountain View has both Google and Linkedin. These two cities alone are home to over 1,300 other tech companies and the story’s much the same elsewhere on the Peninsula. But where firms have sprung up and jobs have become abundant, housing has remained in short supply. Tech companies bus an estimated 7,500 workers from San Francisco apartments to Peninsula offices every day. They don’t do this for fun. There’s simply not enough housing near major employers. And what is available is often unaffordable, even for tech workers. But if housing prices are as bad or worse on the peninsula, one might ask why we only hear the word “crisis” in San Francisco. The reason is simple. What makes for crisis in San Francisco is nothing but windfall to the South. According to the U.S. Census, San Francisco’s homeownership rate is 36.6%. Mountain View’s is 41.8%, San Mateo’s is 53.6%, Palo Alto’s is 55.4%, Menlo Park’s is 56.2%, and Cupertino’s is 63.7%. Homeowners in these cities aren’t faced with skyrocketing rent. And thanks to Prop 13, they also pay almost nothing in property tax–no matter how much their homes appreciate in value. They not only face no downside from the anti-development status quo, they […]

Urban Density, Mass Transit, and Uber

Over at FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver and Rueben Fischer-Baum claim mass transit is Uber’s best friend.  They use data from New York to show that Uber is most frequently used in areas with effective mass transit. They explain that residents in areas with poor access to mass transit are more likely to assume the fixed cost of car ownership. Once that overhead has been assumed, these residents are more likely to use the personal vehicle they’re already paying for rather than rely on alternative modes of transportation. There’s variation in use depending on the intersection of income level and transit accessibility, but that the big takeaway is that mass transit supports Uber. And that Uber as well as other TNCs will be most successful where effective mass transit is already in place. It’s a great analysis. And it’s partially right–but not entirely.   Mass transit does support TNC growth just as the authors describe. But TNCs, in turn, support mass transit by solving the last mile problem. The two systems are complementary. But without a supportive urban environment, neither system stands any chance of success. Mass transit and TNCs may be allies, but both rely on urban density as their benefactor. Residents in densely developed cities with mixed land use consume less transportation per capita because the distances between work, housing, and recreation are all much shorter. And below a certain level of consumption, the minimum fixed cost of car ownership ceases to make sense. Alternative forms of transportation like a mass transit system or a TNC platform entail only marginal cost, so they begin to look more attractive. Imagine putting a mass transit system–commuter rail, BRT, whatever you’d like–in the middle of Houston or LA style sprawl. It might be a net positive for a TNC, but in no way […]

Engineering in the dark

The similarities of urban design across American neighborhoods is no coincidence, but neither is it the result of city planners’ uniform adherence to best practices. Infrastructure is often built based on shockingly little information about the demands of its users. And while poorly reasoned infrastructure policy in one city is bad enough, the United States’ broad adherence to poorly reasoned policies has resulted in a nation in which swaths of neighborhoods are built on poor design foundations. Parking Requirements In The High Cost of Free Parking, Donald Shoup explains the origin of municipal parking requirements. Municipal planning offices do not have the resources to study the amount of parking that businesses should provide. Even with more staff, it’s not clear that planners would be able to determine optimal parking requirements unless they allowed business owners themselves to experiment and choose the amount of parking on their own in a learning process of how to best serve their customers. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is one of the only organizations that provides estimates of the number car trips that businesses generate. Given the lack of information planners have to determine parking requirements, they often rely on ITE’s information to set their parking requirements. However, ITE studies are often conducted at businesses that already provide ample free parking, ignoring the potential for businesses to manage demand for parking on their property through prices. Furthermore, ITE estimates of trip generation are typically based on a very small sample of locations, which are unlikely to be representative of businesses and cities in general. In the example below, the ITE provides a recommendation for fast food parking requirements based on their floor area. Even though the chart includes a line of best fit for the plot of peak parking spot occupation and floor area, the ITE hasn’t demonstrated a correlation between these two variables. Shoup points out: We cannot say much about how […]

Trickle-Down Housing Economics? Laying Reagan’s Ghost to Rest

In a recent 48 Hills post, housing activist Peter Cohen aimed a couple rounds of return fire at SPUR’s Gabriel Metcalf. The post comes in response to Mr. Metcalf’s own article critiquing progressive housing policy. Mr. Cohen bounces around a bit, but he does repeat some frequently used talking points worth addressing. Trickle-down economics Mr. Cohen calls the argument for market-rate construction ‘trickle down economics’.  Trickle down economics actually refers to certain macro theories popularized during the Reagan years. These models assumed a higher marginal propensity to save among wealthier individuals. And given this assumption, some economists concluded that reducing top marginal tax rates would result in higher savings. This would then mean higher levels of investment which would, in turn, have a positive effect on aggregate output. And from there we get the idea of a rising tide lifting all ships. Note that none of that has anything to do with housing policy. Labeling something ‘trickle down’ is a way to delegitimize certain policy proposals by associating them with Ronald Reagan. It’s somewhere between rhetorically dishonest and intellectually lazy. Though to be fair, it’s probably pretty effective in San Francisco. The concept Mr. Cohen is trying to critique is actually called filtering. In many instances, markets do not produce new housing at every income level. But they do produce housing across different income levels over time. Today’s luxury development is tomorrow’s middle income housing. The catch, however, is that supply has to continually expand. If not, prices for even dilapidated housing can go through the roof. For a more thorough explanation, see SFBARF’s agent based housing model.   If you build it, they’ll just come But even accurately defined, Mr. Cohen still objects to the concept of filtering. He cites an article by urban planning authority William Fulton to make […]

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire