Fisking Tierney

While there are a few excellent points in John Tierney's The Autonomist Manifesto (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Road) there is also bunch of cant and misinformation.

Who is going to fisk it? Virtually every line deserves commentary; the man just starts from such ill-informed premises. I don't have the time to do it; but it would make a great assignment for a planning class. (Hint: look at his statements about mass transit and traffic congestion.)

Certainly the Tierney piece needs a critical read, not just bombastic nukes.

Of course such critical reading won't come from cheer-leaders like Jane Galt here and Tyler Cowan here. They are thrilled by Tierney. Like him, they also pose the issues in such a way as to discredit anything which might be called 'progressive traditional planning' i.e. new urbanism, smart growth, etc etc. That's my take on their posts, anyway. There seems to be a me-tooism about the way they deal with the Tierney piece. But that's not uncommon when people comment in an area where they have never worked with the material.

As a counterpoint which does get at the issues, see A New-Style Indian Village Rises From the Dust.

Comments

[Tim Hulsey]

I'm no expert on urban design, but Tierney seems correct to note that when Americans are given a choice between urban and suburban living, most tend to choose suburbs. I can't see a good reason for that preference to change; we seem to value our mobility, and like the idea of being able to drive ten or fifteen miles to the local Wal-Mart.

To put it another way: Even if the Winnebago tribe manages to complete its smart-growth Ho-Chunk Village, many middle-class tribal members may still prefer to live twenty miles away in sprawly old Sioux City, because the suburbs have the big-box stores and spacious living arrangements that families seem to desire. (Plus, homeowners in Sioux City are permitted to resell their home at a fair market value to the buyer of their choice -- a fundamental private-property right that I'm not sure the Winnebago nation, with its complicated land-ownership agreements, can or will respect.)

I see only one major shortcoming in Tierney's piece: He dismisses the role of government policies like the interstate highway system, and fails to mention that people who live in urban areas pay more taxes to state and federal governments than they ever receive in benefits. So in this respect, suburbs are governmentally subsidized spaces -- they're large-scale housing projects for middle-class and wealthy Americans.

One could, perhaps, make the counterargument that Americans prefer the suburbs because they want a better return on their taxes (better schools, better roads, etc.), but I think that might overstate the case. After all, the greatest beneficiaries of government largesse are small towns, yet they're currently losing population.

[David Sucher]

Tim.

Tierney's main problem is a failure of imagination.

Plus he fails to provide any sources for his straw-men.

[Tim Hulsey]

In his opening paragraphs, Tierney cites Al Gore and Gray Davis, as well as James Kunstler's "The Geography of Nowhere." He may be attacking straw men (though you have yet to prove it), but he does give sources.

As for the "failure of imagination" canard -- well, that's always what innovators say about people who refuse to buy their ideas, isn't it? If "smart growth" is a good idea, it's one the American public isn't buying. And when a good idea doesn't sell, the fault usually lies with the seller.

One problem with "smart growth" may be that many of its advocates -- on the local level of practical politics -- tie its implementation to big-government initiatives. For example, the unfinished Ho-Chunk Village, which you cite approvingly, is merely a public housing development for the middle class. As failures of imagination go, this one's about as big as it gets. We all know the success rate of America's public housing projects, even allegedly innovative ones.

Tierney's article is important, because it explains why so many of us prefer sprawl to smart growth. He notes, quite correctly, that many smart-growth advocates propose greater governmental interference, in order to force individuals to do what is "good for them" instead of what they would ordinarily choose. Suburban sprawl and the pervasive car culture, however odious and unpalatable they may initially seem, are still preferable to a "smart-growth" lifestyle rammed down the public's collective throat. Unless smart growth can be reconciled to limited government and individual choice, freedom will always lie on the open road.

[Laurence Aurbach]

We all know the success rate of America's public housing projects, even allegedly innovative ones.

Tim, what are your observations of new urbanist public housing developments (a.k.a Hope VI)? From what I've learned, the design, construction, public approval, market success, and positive impact on neighboring communities resulting from these projects has been impressive. On the negative side, some local housing agencies have suffered from administrative problems that caused excessive delays. And some former residents have been displaced, although the most recent projects have been more careful about relocation.

[Tim Hulsey]

My thoughts on the "Hope VI" program? Well, the "demolition grants" and the housing vouchers are excellent and long-overdue ideas -- especially the demolition grants. (One is reminded of the chant from Pruitt-Igoe: "Blow it UP!") But designing "mixed-income" neighborhoods is unnecessary and redundant, and I don't know how the government will guarantee this "mixed-income" outcome. Will wealthy city-dwellers be forcibly relocated to "the PJs"? God forbid.

Individual developers and entrepreneurs are perfectly capable of creating healthy urban neighborhoods on their own, without federal interference. All we need do to revitalize decaying, low-income urban neighborhoods is to implement the "three rules," cut property taxes dramatically (by one-third to one-half), replace housing projects with a voucher system, and let the developers go.

Clients tend to prefer voucher systems to government-run projects, because vouchers allow them as individuals to make their own decisions as to where and how they live. (Another major advantage of vouchers over public housing units, is that nobody has to wait for seven years to receive a voucher.) Private developers can create workable, affordable low-income housing -- including SRO hotels -- quicker, cheaper, and better than government can. You'll see fewer of those "administrative problems," fewer "excessive delays," no use of eminent-domain law, and no forced relocations.

[Laurence Aurbach]

Yes, I'm aware of the libertarian dogma. I even agree with some of it, although there are some neighborhoods where that program would turn existing war zones into smoking rubble. Since you mentioned the success rate of innovative public housing projects, I wondered what you were talking about. I still don't know what you meant.

[Tim Hulsey]

Actually, if I held to "libertarian dogma," I'd advocate getting rid of vouchers, too. But I'm only a limited-government conservative, so I like the idea of small-scale social welfare programs that respect the dignity of the individual. Call it a weakness.

Private development tends to turn "war zones" into hip, gentrified urban enclaves, not piles of smoking rubble. (Look at Dupont Circle and Adams-Morgan in D.C. for two terrific examples. Anacostia may be next; it's a beautiful turn-of-the-century neighborhood patiently awaiting its renaissance.) If city property taxes weren't so high, developers could turn a profit on low-income housing, too, so that the "mixed-income neighborhood" would appear without governmental prodding.

When I speak of "innovative public housing projects," I'm referring to things like Pruitt-Igoe (which won several architectural awards upon completion), or Chicago's infamous Cabrini Green. These were the products of visionary, imaginative thought, which combined with federal paternalism to create hell on earth. Less innovative public housing projects -- like the blocks upon blocks of low-slung cinderblock FHA houses I saw in rural Arkansas -- have fared marginally better over the years, but they're still run-down and awful. No one in his/her right mind would choose to live there.

[David Sucher]

I apologize for suggesting but not doing a fisking of Tierney.

But I'm a bit lost here Tim, but are you suggesting that Pruitt-Igoe is somehow related to new urbanism/smart growth? (Tell me I misunderstand!)

[David Sucher]

Tim.
"If city property taxes weren't so high, developers could turn a profit on low-income housing, too, so that the "mixed-income neighborhood" would appear without governmental prodding."

1. Where and how are property taxes are not a determinative factor in a development deal?

2. The "mixed-income" neighborhood (depending on how big an area is a neighborhood) is not natural and will never appear without government intervention.

[Brian Miller]

But, David my neighborhood, the downtown neighborhood in a small (100,000 population) exurban suburb of the central Bay Area (Vacaville, which is too obnscure to be known by anyone outside the area)is very mixed income. I live in a townhouse complex with nine units. Mostly middle-to-lower-middle class professionals (I count three municipal or county employees) but trending upward. There is a very, very basic apartment complex at the end of our alley. Rented by short termers (Mormon missionaries seem to favor the place). The street across the alley is a row of cottages in various states of repair, from very nice to somewhat decrepit. Two blocks away is Vacaville's traditional mansion row, Buck Avenue, lined with very nice historic Victorian-through-1970s homes.

So-maybe such a neighborhood couldn't be created from scratch today except by government fiat. But, they exist, contine to exist, and even evolve over time (a lot of new paint jobs and remodels going on right now) Part of the reason for that is that development today only occurs in large packages of monolithic "housing product type." Not much chance for diversity in "Whispering Oaks Estates, starting at $459,999."

[Tim Hulsey]

I'm a bit lost here Tim, but are you suggesting that Pruitt-Igoe is somehow related to new urbanism/smart growth? (Tell me I misunderstand!)

You do. Projects like Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini Green occur when the federal government creates a neighborhood with "vision" and "imagination," but without community input -- the way most government housing projects, innovative or not, get developed. My point is that when the federal government gets involved in this type of large-scale urban planning, the results are dependably unbearable, whether the model is good or not.

Where and how are property taxes are not a determinative factor in a development deal?

I think you're asking about how high property taxes put the kibosh on development deals? Surely you're familiar with developers who buy buildings, allow them to sit empty and untenanted, then write the lossess off their taxes. It's a good way to offset profits from other buildings -- and it's one major reason many inner-city areas look like bombed-out war zones. Now, when you lower property taxes in these areas, you make it more profitable for developers to build or rehabilitate their property, instead of merely sitting on it and passing the losses to Uncle Sam. So they get to work, and the city recovers. (I'm basing this model on Jersey City, as I recall.)

Property taxes and housing demand affect rent. More housing means less demand, and therefore lower rents. If property taxes are high, landlords will have a vested interest in keeping housing units scarce: The value of their property (and thus their property tax) will be lower, and individual rents will be higher. But this is not an optimal level of profit, because the market is operating below capacity; attempted solutions like "rent control" make matters worse, because they encourage landlords to let their property decay.

Yet if property taxes are low, landlords will have an economic interest in building more housing, because additional income from these new units will more than offset the taxes accruing from their property's increased value. In this situation, lower-income housing can be profitable -- and when a thing becomes profitable, private developers will provide it with governmental prodding.

Mixed-income neighborhoods occur naturally as developers scramble to erect housing according to the "Three Rules" (which don't provide zoning restrictions, but instead allow developers to use their property for maximum profit). Since low property taxes and minimal government interference are the conditions under which "mixed-income neighborhoods" originally developed, I can't think of a reason they couldn't do so again were these conditions replicated.

[bkmiller]

Well, I would point out that most citizens-particularly affluent ones, want government interference to prevent just the type of mixed income neighborhood that I live in from occurring. And, if they can't get government regulations to do it, they will use private covenants. Remember, it isn't too long ago that "government interference" negated the racist CC&Rs found in most subdivisions and developments in this country.

[Tim Hulsey]

Remember, it isn't too long ago that "government interference" negated the racist CC&Rs found in most subdivisions and developments in this country.

True. I have no problem when the government protects the individual's right to buy and sell as s/he chooses. That's precisely what government should do. But those basic protections extend to developers as well as tenants. Private developers can't be forced to admit low-income tenants. They have to provide housing to individuals at a profit to themselves, or they go out of business (and nobody has housing). Now, private companies can provide this necessary low-income housing, if government would simply reduce property taxes and stay out of their way (aside from basic "three rules" regulation and safety concerns). What's more, they're likely to come up with innovative solutions to low-cost housing that the federal government hasn't even considered.

There's another issue, too. If citizens don't want to live in mixed-income neighborhoods, as you claim, then even the most well-designed mixed-income housing project, like Ho-Chunk Village or those redesigned Hope VI neighborhoods, will stand at least half-empty -- unless, that is, our government forces middle-class and wealthy residents to live there. Trust me, you don't want that to happen.

[Tim Hulsey]

By the way, this "no-interference" policy applies to suburbs as well. Urban areas currently pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, while rural and suburban areas receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. So my primary beef with the Tierney article is that it presents suburban sprawl as a matter of individual choice, while ignoring the social engineering that has made suburban life more attractive. We can't know whether middle- and upper-class Americans would freely choose to live in suburbs until their choice is truly free -- that is to say, until federal and state governments cease to lavish goodies on the suburbs at the expense of the urban core.

It's no exaggeration to say that our suburbs constitute a public-subsidized housing project for the middle and upper classes. This is part of the old-urbanist mode of thinking that informs our social policy, and turns our country into a vast "automobile slum."

[bkmiller]

Well, I certainly won't disagree with your last point.

Less true in California though. Very little development-especially residential development-doesn't pay its own way through pretty stiff impact fees.

[Tim Hulsey]

Impact fees and environmental studies have actually proven helpful ... in preventing basic New Urbanist ideas from taking hold. They reinforce a bland uniformity among contractors, and prevent them from making creative improvements to their site plans (as has occurred in several instances with big-box construction around Charlottesville).

Developers have plenty of imagination, but local regulators won't let them use it. Government officials tend to regard innovative ideas with suspicion; New Urbanism and mixed-income neighborhoods invite so much scrutiny that they're not worth the extra bother. So in the end, contractors find it cheaper and easier to build the same type of development they've built a thousand times before.

Things like this happen all the time, it seems, around Charlottesville.