February 14, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Gramarye said: I agree that Fishtown and Brewerytown are better examples than Rittenhouse Square. But with that in mind, you have to acknowledge that a lot of blue-collar families still aren't going to want to drop $210k to live in a 1000sf townhome, and send their kids to Horatio Hackett Elementary and, worse, Penn Treaty High School. Some might call their views "racism". It is not. Race is not culture. Private school? Keep in mind that private schools are not required to do IEPs. So if parents need one for their kids, they are almost certainly heading out to the suburbs. My former neighbor, an apparently left leaning attorney who works downtown, did exactly that.
February 15, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, E Rocc said: Early to mid 50s for each. My grandpa and great uncle were the only ones who lived in the city, this was when they started working at Cleveland Pneumatic. My dad graduated from Nordonia in 1954, so we were the opposite of the "normal" flow in that regard. (Same with Holly, both her parents went to Nordonia, albeit much later, she went to Bedford). My maternal grandparents started building the house in Walton Hills sometime during the mid 50s. Interesting in that they were not a part of the post-WWII mass exodus. Your grandparents were older and would have likely served in front line capacity in the war. And your dad would have been a child during the war. Yet still they left...
February 15, 20232 yr 9 hours ago, Cleburger said: Interesting in that they were not a part of the post-WWII mass exodus. Your grandparents were older and would have likely served in front line capacity in the war. And your dad would have been a child during the war. Yet still they left... My maternal grandpa was a metallurgical technician at Alcoa during the war, my paternal worked at Cleveland Pneumatic. Both just under 30 when the war started and working in defense related jobs.
February 15, 20232 yr And they, more than anyone, earned the right to live wherever the f they want. So many of these posts are just pure ignorance, and holier-than-thou types proselytizing suburban sprawl was purely racism, racism, racism -- nothing else. Bollocks. My maternal grandparents didn't want to leave Buckeye in the 60s, but they sure as hell had to when the neighborhood and schools collapsed/shifted. Same thing with my paternal grandparents 10 years before at E.123rd/Superior. It's so much easier to blame the people leaving than those arriving. But if you lived then and experienced the collapse in real time, you'd have a completely different perspective.
February 15, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: My maternal grandpa was a metallurgical technician at Alcoa during the war, my paternal worked at Cleveland Pneumatic. Both just under 30 when the war started and working in defense related jobs. Understood--but my point was they were in their 40's in 1954 when they decided to move out. There lots of racial and socioeconomic factors happening as well. It all wasn't just soldiers returning home wanting more space...
February 15, 20232 yr 16 hours ago, E Rocc said: As I've said, cultural perfect storm. I've never really even heard of any prominent political figures who actively opposed sprawl in general during that era. Specific aspects, perhaps. Indeed. Most people moved further out for a better home amid all the promise and opportunity of rapidly-increasing national wealth and prosperity in the post-war period. Yes, there was a racist component. And the outward migration also was greatly facilitated by government policies. And I'll concede that by and large, there was no evil intent in the individual decisions to move outward. There also was no general understanding of the flaws of never-ending suburban single-family-housing-only construction and highway expansion at that time. Jane Jacobs, the pioneer leading the pro-urban charge didn't publish The Death and Life of Great American Cities until 1961, which doesn't seem to have become widely recognized for its significance until decades later. By the 1980s and 1990s, there was more awareness that massive highways weren't solving congestion problems and that highway maintenance costs were unsustainable. LA's notorious traffic problems were well known, despite having expanded to many lanes over the years. But nothing changed. Discussions of "what caused sprawl" can be debated by historians. I don't think the discussion here is advancing all that much. What is more important today is for urban planners (and urban planning hobbyists) to recognize the problem. We can't build more highways to relieve congestion, we need to right-size roadways for uses and maintenance budgets, we need to get more people out of their cars and into more-efficient transit (both for efficiency and to decrease the roadway congestion for those who continue to drive), we need to encourage pockets of density in the existing suburbs so that transit between suburbs becomes viable, etc. And "denser" does not require Manhattan+ levels of density. We can find ways to build great PLACES to counter the negative impacts of sprawl that will demonstrate to politicians and everyday voters that there is a better way than continued outward expansion of single-family-housing-only developments on former farmland and expanding roadways and utilities to serve them.
February 15, 20232 yr '50s sprawl wasn't really that bad. It's the successive rounds that came and went with economic cycles that put people 15 minutes by car from buying anything but maybe milk beer and cigarettes. The '50s were still mainly focused on the city.
February 15, 20232 yr On 2/13/2023 at 4:28 PM, Clefan14 said: Your world is not the world. Full stop. Yes white families terrified of sharing schools, neighborhoods, grocery stores, etc. moved out to further places. We get that was your story. But to say that at a large scale the US government did not incentivize this is so alarming. Many of these same families who had the means to do this was a result of being given favorable loans (or at least not being red lined), having educational/employment opportunities others didn’t, having generational wealth and stability, or having family that got legit very cheap or free land to settle upon. I know that in Columbus, school enrollment began collapsing literally the same year as busing started diversifying district schools. It happened everywhere around the country, though. A huge part of the early suburban flight was predicated on racism (and arguably still is to some degree)- along with subsidizing massive highways into the boonies.
February 15, 20232 yr 20 hours ago, Gramarye said: I agree that Fishtown and Brewerytown are better examples than Rittenhouse Square. But with that in mind, you have to acknowledge that a lot of blue-collar families still aren't going to want to drop $210k to live in a 1000sf townhome, and send their kids to Horatio Hackett Elementary and, worse, Penn Treaty High School. And I'm well aware that suburbs don't have to mean sprawl; my grandparents lived in Yeadon and my parents' first house was in Upper Darby. I think denser suburbs are in fact a large part of what we'd get if we did away with the kinds of exclusionary zoning discussed upthread (which, in case it needs to be repeated, I'm all for). We even see that happening in some Ohio suburbs: Dublin along the Scioto looks very different than it did when I was a kid (and of course also looks very, very different from Yeadon or Upper Darby, too--I have no idea what analogues to those I'd make in the universe of Ohio inner-ring suburbs). Given that fertility and birth rates are dropping locally, nationally and globally, the whole "but families won't like less space" is becoming much less relevant over time. And I don't think 1000sf for a small family is really all that unreasonable to begin with, especially within a walkable environment. We don't really need as much as space as most modern American houses provide. It's become more about status than any true necessity. 1200sf or so used to be the average size of a new US home, and they were built for families in mind. Edited February 15, 20232 yr by jonoh81
February 15, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, TBideon said: And they, more than anyone, earned the right to live wherever the f they want. So many of these posts are just pure ignorance, and holier-than-thou types proselytizing suburban sprawl was purely racism, racism, racism -- nothing else. Bollocks. My maternal grandparents didn't want to leave Buckeye in the 60s, but they sure as hell had to when the neighborhood and schools collapsed/shifted. Same thing with my paternal grandparents 10 years before at E.123rd/Superior. It's so much easier to blame the people leaving than those arriving. But if you lived then and experienced the collapse in real time, you'd have a completely different perspective. "Collapsed" how, though? I wonder what was going on in the 1960s with schools. Edited February 15, 20232 yr by jonoh81
February 15, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, GCrites80s said: '50s sprawl wasn't really that bad. It's the successive rounds that came and went with economic cycles that put people 15 minutes by car from buying anything but maybe milk beer and cigarettes. The '50s were still mainly focused on the city. The sprawl in the 1950s also largely predated most of the highway system, though. You would get things like Linden with its small single-family ranches that were still built on grids. But the 1960s were completely different, with endless cul-de-sacs.
February 15, 20232 yr You can tell Linden, Lockbourne Road and the parts of West Side acted as suburbs until busing happened. Dairy bars, pools, Pizza Huts that were only open 8 years, elementary schools added onto 3 times in the '60s.
February 16, 20232 yr 22 hours ago, TBideon said: And they, more than anyone, earned the right to live wherever the f they want. So many of these posts are just pure ignorance, and holier-than-thou types proselytizing suburban sprawl was purely racism, racism, racism -- nothing else. Bollocks. My maternal grandparents didn't want to leave Buckeye in the 60s, but they sure as hell had to when the neighborhood and schools collapsed/shifted. Same thing with my paternal grandparents 10 years before at E.123rd/Superior. It's so much easier to blame the people leaving than those arriving. But if you lived then and experienced the collapse in real time, you'd have a completely different perspective. The word "subsidized" gets overused as well. As if the people paying the taxes shouldn't have any say as to how the money was spent.
February 16, 20232 yr 33 minutes ago, E Rocc said: The word "subsidized" gets overused as well. As if the people paying the taxes shouldn't have any say as to how the money was spent. Overused? Isn't that essentially the definition of "subsidized" -- We The People send representatives to Congress to decide how much of our money to collect and spend. Generally, subsidies are used to monetarily encourage behavior through tax breaks, grants, or loans given to particular businesses or industries. Farm subsidies (produce more corn syrup!), petroleum subsidies (keep asphalt cheap!), exports, housing, healthcare, food, automotive, etc. Matching grants for road construction. Home loan guarantees. Mortgage interest tax breaks (but no rental payment tax deduction). Maybe it's not the word "subsidized" that is overused, it's that subsidies are overused.
February 16, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, E Rocc said: The word "subsidized" gets overused as well. As if the people paying the taxes shouldn't have any say as to how the money was spent. I wonder if the taxpayers who had highways plowed through their neighborhoods had any say in how their taxes were being used. I'm guessing not so much.
February 16, 20232 yr 10 minutes ago, X said: I wonder if the taxpayers who had highways plowed through their neighborhoods had any say in how their taxes were being used. I'm guessing not so much. True, or at least they didn't have enough say. But most highway constructions today are expansions of existing highways, or through exurban greenfields. Even by the time the east outerbelt was being built around Walton Hills and Macedonia (that section of I-271 and I-480 discussed above), I doubt it was bulldozing large numbers of blue-collar residential areas.
February 16, 20232 yr 29 minutes ago, Foraker said: Overused? Isn't that essentially the definition of "subsidized" -- We The People send representatives to Congress to decide how much of our money to collect and spend. Generally, subsidies are used to monetarily encourage behavior through tax breaks, grants, or loans given to particular businesses or industries. Farm subsidies (produce more corn syrup!), petroleum subsidies (keep asphalt cheap!), exports, housing, healthcare, food, automotive, etc. Matching grants for road construction. Home loan guarantees. Mortgage interest tax breaks (but no rental payment tax deduction). Maybe it's not the word "subsidized" that is overused, it's that subsidies are overused. Anything heavily subsidized will be overconsumed.
February 16, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, X said: I wonder if the taxpayers who had highways plowed through their neighborhoods had any say in how their taxes were being used. I'm guessing not so much. THIS is a good point. And I wonder what those communities had/have in common. Hmmm
February 16, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, X said: I wonder if the taxpayers who had highways plowed through their neighborhoods had any say in how their taxes were being used. I'm guessing not so much. I am sure they tried to spend as little on property acquisition as they could, that would mean cheaper property and by definition poorer owners.
February 16, 20232 yr 27 minutes ago, Clefan14 said: THIS is a good point. And I wonder what those communities had/have in common. Hmmm
February 16, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, E Rocc said: The word "subsidized" gets overused as well. As if the people paying the taxes shouldn't have any say as to how the money was spent. The reason I emphasize using the word “subsidized” is because so many people think that gas taxes completely cover the cost of roads and maintenance, which isn’t even remotely true. People who complain about the operating “subsidy” of mass transit clearly have no clue about what costs governments incur with regard to road based transportation. We really need to have apples-to-apples comparisons when looking at how our tax dollars are spent. And that means being honest about all the hidden costs of driving. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 16, 20232 yr 14 minutes ago, E Rocc said: I am sure they tried to spend as little on property acquisition as they could, that would mean cheaper property and by definition poorer owners. And why were they poorer? Maybe barriers to employment, education, or discrimination? LOL at the Reagan clip the one who started the income inequality explosion. Let’s not also forget where and how he announced his presidential campaign and what that played into and why. So on brand for the “states rights”, self segregating crowd that is mainstream desantis train. Edited February 16, 20232 yr by Clefan14
February 16, 20232 yr Just now, Boomerang_Brian said: The reason I emphasize using the word “subsidized” is because so many people think that gas taxes completely cover the cost of roads and maintenance, which isn’t even remotely true. People who complain about the operating “subsidy” of mass transit clearly have no clue about what costs governments incur with regard to road based transportation. We really need to have apples-to-apples comparisons when looking at how our tax dollars are spent. And that means being honest about all the hidden costs of driving. I get that, but I still consider this an intellectually dishonest or at least suspect perspective coming from anyone who isn't actually advocating privatizing the entirety of the nation's limited-access highway network, i.e., rendering it unsubsidized. In that world, the mobility of the poor would be severely circumscribed by the need to pay a monthly subscription fee for road travel of any kind--EZ Pass for every superhighway and quite possibly a number of US and state highways as well. At the end of the day, anti-sprawl progressives almost never actually go so far. In fact, anti-sprawl conservatives who are more dispositionally friendly to privatization don't generally go so far, either, not to mention that we're a vanishingly small bloc. You shouldn't complain about the things that, when it comes down to brass tacks, you still support, even if you simply don't support them as unreservedly as some others. The reality is that even in poorer urban areas, people generally like to have the highways available and free at the point of use, even if they don't use them for their daily commutes. What they really want is for their own city streets to get proper maintenance, too, which does not inherently have to come at the expense of the subsidization of highway construction and maintenance.
February 16, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Gramarye said: I get that, but I still consider this an intellectually dishonest or at least suspect perspective coming from anyone who isn't actually advocating privatizing the entirety of the nation's limited-access highway network, i.e., rendering it unsubsidized. In that world, the mobility of the poor would be severely circumscribed by the need to pay a monthly subscription fee for road travel of any kind--EZ Pass for every superhighway and quite possibly a number of US and state highways as well. At the end of the day, anti-sprawl progressives almost never actually go so far. In fact, anti-sprawl conservatives who are more dispositionally friendly to privatization don't generally go so far, either, not to mention that we're a vanishingly small bloc. You shouldn't complain about the things that, when it comes down to brass tacks, you still support, even if you simply don't support them as unreservedly as some others. The reality is that even in poorer urban areas, people generally like to have the highways available and free at the point of use, even if they don't use them for their daily commutes. What they really want is for their own city streets to get proper maintenance, too, which does not inherently have to come at the expense of the subsidization of highway construction and maintenance. I use the term subsidized roads in the same way that people complain about public transit operating subsidies. My point is that virtually all transportation systems throughout the world are subsidized (i.e. user fees do NOT cover the full government costs). I think that the “intellectual dishonest” argument is to ignore those road subsidies. They are wildly excessive! If we use honest accounting of government expenditures for our various transit options, the benefits of public transit become much more obvious to everyone. I’m ok with subsidizing roads as long as we are also subsidizing the more efficient forms of transportation, and as long as we are honest about costs. Also, I’m a huge proponent of the VMT that ODOT is discussing. Not much difference between that and highway tolls. We HAVE to be honest about government costs in these discussions. When is the last time I-71 turned a profit?
February 16, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said: I use the term subsidized roads in the same way that people complain about public transit operating subsidies. My point is that virtually all transportation systems throughout the world are subsidized (i.e. user fees do NOT cover the full government costs). I think that the “intellectual dishonest” argument is to ignore those road subsidies. They are wildly excessive! If we use honest accounting of government expenditures for our various transit options, the benefits of public transit become much more obvious to everyone. I’m ok with subsidizing roads as long as we are also subsidizing the more efficient forms of transportation, and as long as we are honest about costs. Also, I’m a huge proponent of the VMT that ODOT is discussing. Not much difference between that and highway tolls. We HAVE to be honest about government costs in these discussions. So I completely agree it is also intellectually dishonest for people to argue against public transit on the basis of it being "subsidized" if they're also supporting the subsidies for highways (which, of course, almost all such detractors are), and even moreso if they deny that highways are subsidized at all. But the notion that highway subsidies are "wildly excessive" is obviously subjective, and even being "honest about costs" has a lot of judgment calls involved. Accounting is not a completely formulaic discipline.
February 16, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Gramarye said: True, or at least they didn't have enough say. But most highway constructions today are expansions of existing highways, or through exurban greenfields. Even by the time the east outerbelt was being built around Walton Hills and Macedonia (that section of I-271 and I-480 discussed above), I doubt it was bulldozing large numbers of blue-collar residential areas. Most urban areas have already been totally choked by highways so expansion of the existing ones are basically all that you can do. It would be pretty hard to fit another new highway in the spaghetti junctions surrounding the downtown areas of Cincinnati, Columbus, or Cleveland (or any of our smaller cities for that matter).
February 16, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Gramarye said: I get that, but I still consider this an intellectually dishonest or at least suspect perspective coming from anyone who isn't actually advocating privatizing the entirety of the nation's limited-access highway network, i.e., rendering it unsubsidized. In that world, the mobility of the poor would be severely circumscribed by the need to pay a monthly subscription fee for road travel of any kind--EZ Pass for every superhighway and quite possibly a number of US and state highways as well. At the end of the day, anti-sprawl progressives almost never actually go so far. In fact, anti-sprawl conservatives who are more dispositionally friendly to privatization don't generally go so far, either, not to mention that we're a vanishingly small bloc. You shouldn't complain about the things that, when it comes down to brass tacks, you still support, even if you simply don't support them as unreservedly as some others. The reality is that even in poorer urban areas, people generally like to have the highways available and free at the point of use, even if they don't use them for their daily commutes. What they really want is for their own city streets to get proper maintenance, too, which does not inherently have to come at the expense of the subsidization of highway construction and maintenance. They may also understand how food and other items get to their neighborhoods. One thing building new roads like the OC does it allows others to be worked on without as much disruption of traffic.
February 16, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said: The reason I emphasize using the word “subsidized” is because so many people think that gas taxes completely cover the cost of roads and maintenance, which isn’t even remotely true. People who complain about the operating “subsidy” of mass transit clearly have no clue about what costs governments incur with regard to road based transportation. We really need to have apples-to-apples comparisons when looking at how our tax dollars are spent. And that means being honest about all the hidden costs of driving. And we cannot forget that tax breaks also are a subsidy. It's a cost to the government, whether they forgo receiving the money in the first place or pass it out after they get it.
February 16, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, Foraker said: And we cannot forget that tax breaks also are a subsidy. It's a cost to the government, whether they forgo receiving the money in the first place or pass it out after they get it. That assumes it's the government's money first and foremost, which it is not.
February 16, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, E Rocc said: 2 hours ago, Foraker said: And we cannot forget that tax breaks also are a subsidy. It's a cost to the government, whether they forgo receiving the money in the first place or pass it out after they get it. That assumes it's the government's money first and foremost, which it is not. It still counts as a subsidy if it's set up as "your taxes are X if you do this thing we are subsidizing but X + 1 if you don't."
February 17, 20232 yr 17 hours ago, E Rocc said: That assumes it's the government's money first and foremost, which it is not. I disagree. That is not being assumed, and it is absurd to think that the government has no right to any of your money, or that individuals get to decide how much of *their* money the government can rightfully acquire. And it completely ignores the Constitution's grant to Congress (including your representatives) of the right to levy taxes. 16 hours ago, Gramarye said: It still counts as a subsidy if it's set up as "your taxes are X if you do this thing we are subsidizing but X + 1 if you don't." Exactly. And too often we ignore such tax breaks as "not government spending" when they are effectively equivalent to government spending. Spending X on housing or providing a tax break for housing expenditures (that reduces tax receipts by X) is the same thing. We choose to fund things different ways for different reasons, but both have the same effect on the government's bottom line.
February 17, 20232 yr 45 minutes ago, Foraker said: Exactly. And too often we ignore such tax breaks as "not government spending" when they are effectively equivalent to government spending. Spending X on housing or providing a tax break for housing expenditures (that reduces tax receipts by X) is the same thing. We choose to fund things different ways for different reasons, but both have the same effect on the government's bottom line. I won't go as far as to say effectively equivalent; I think the better framing is that they are an indirect subsidy, which is not necessarily equivalent to a direct one, even when it comes to the bottom line--and of course the "middle lines" matter, too. Taking the "effectively equivalent" framing too far invites the conclusion that any dollar the government lets you keep "subsidizes" your lifestyle: if the government increased the income tax to 100% for all taxpayers for one theoretical instant, then dropped it right back to the current rates, the "tax breaks are just government spending" trope would demand that we account everyone's net income as government spending.
February 17, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Gramarye said: Taking the "effectively equivalent" framing too far invites the conclusion that any dollar the government lets you keep "subsidizes" your lifestyle: if the government increased the income tax to 100% for all taxpayers for one theoretical instant, then dropped it right back to the current rates, the "tax breaks are just government spending" trope would demand that we account everyone's net income as government spending. I agree that anyone who says that "all money is the government's" or that "all money not taxed is government spending" has gone too far around the bend. If you misunderstood my point, let me try again. The "effectively equivalent spending" I'm talking about is the dollar you keep that others do not get to keep because of a tax incentive. Where the government did levy a tax, but exempted only certain persons/activities, that is effectively "spending" some of the government income that the tax would have generated but for the exemption. Your example fails that test. The 100% tax applied to everyone, and when the rates returned to "normal" that also applied to everyone. Even though everyone pays 100% on every dollar on the first day, and varying rates depending on income the second day -- the 1st, 100,000th, and 1,000,000th dollars are each taxed at the same rate each day. The 1,000,000th dollar is taxed at less than 100% on the second day, but changing the rate (the 10millionth-dollar taxed at only 90% instead of 100%) is not government spending just because the government decided to change the rate. But if the government said that the tax rate is 90%, but if you do this thing (buy a home and take a mortgage instead of paying rent, for example) then the rate is only 10% (or you can deduct X amount from the taxable income), then that reduction (in dollars) is hidden government "spending" that should be recognized as such, particularly when the time comes to consider spending cuts. When the government allows ranchers to graze their cattle on federal land at below-market rates, or to drill for oil on federal land at below-market rates, the difference from the market value also is a subsidy, and is a kind of "spending" that is not recognized as such. If the deficit really is a problem, and we do not want to increase tax rates, then why shouldn't reducing tax breaks be on the table along with reductions in more direct spending? This is getting away from the discussion of sprawl, but federal and state subsidies for roadways over transit, tax breaks for single-family mortgages and federal loan guarantees that favor single-family homes over midrise condos, etc., are all incentivizing sprawl. If we accept that continuing to build further and further from city centers and rely on cars for all transportation needs is fiscally unsustainable, then those government subsidies need to be changed as well.
February 17, 20232 yr 20 minutes ago, Foraker said: When the government allows ranchers to graze their cattle on federal land at below-market rates, or to drill for oil on federal land at below-market rates, the difference from the market value also is a subsidy, and is a kind of "spending" that is not recognized as such. If the deficit really is a problem, and we do not want to increase tax rates, then why shouldn't reducing tax breaks be on the table along with reductions in more direct spending? I appreciate the point, but this is also another example of something I wouldn't classify as spending. What you just described in your first quoted paragraph there is an opportunity cost, or more colloquially, money left "on the table." If the government could have leased a given acre of federal land for $1000 and leases it for $600, it left $400 on the table and that's an opportunity cost. (And in fairness, AFAIK more and more such economic opportunities for federal property rights are done via auction, which is pretty efficient at figuring out the maximum someone will actually pay for an asset.) As to your second point: Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a big if. Even many Democrats who would be OK with increasing taxes across the board (at least in areas where that's not political suicide) would also want to preserve a fairly broad, comprehensive incentive-by-deduction structure. And many would be also OK increasing spending along with increased revenues, so in response to "if the deficit is really a problem," they'd say, "eh, not as much as these other 50 priorities that come ahead of it." I remember applauding George Voinovich's stand against part (not all, mind you, just part) of the Bush Jr. tax cuts and then realizing how lonely he was on that island. The number of politicians who pay lip service to concern over the deficit is high; the number able and willing to make genuinely uncomfortable decisions to control it is low. And now it's become even worse; truly sober deficit concerns are completely swamped by cynical opportunism and grandstanding, e.g., government shutdown threats with ostensible deficit-conscious motives that are transparent fig leaves. More specifically back on the topic of sprawl: I question things like the "spending" on the home mortgage tax deduction as a sprawl incentive (whether characterized as government spending or an indirect non-spending subsidy) because that kind of assumes that those who live in the city are renters and those who live in sprawlburbia are owners. That may even be true today but it's not structurally inevitable and it wouldn't surprise me if it's less true than it was in the past. If what potential owner-occupants really wanted was to live downtown long-term, there would be nothing stopping people from getting a 30-year mortgage on an expensive condo in the city and taking the exact same tax deduction on it available to someone buying a house in the suburbs. In practice, what I see happening (including in my own life) is that people live downtown for comparatively short periods of time and rent, and then move out to single-family homes and own for longer. Since mortgage interest is front-loaded because of the way amortization schedules work, the longer you stay, the more sense a mortgage (and ownership) makes. If we were going to stay downtown long-term, we'd have bought a large condo to replace our small apartment and the mortgage interest deduction would be just as available to us there as where we are now.
February 18, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, Gramarye said: More specifically back on the topic of sprawl: I question things like the "spending" on the home mortgage tax deduction as a sprawl incentive (whether characterized as government spending or an indirect non-spending subsidy) because that kind of assumes that those who live in the city are renters and those who live in sprawlburbia are owners. That may even be true today but it's not structurally inevitable and it wouldn't surprise me if it's less true than it was in the past. If what potential owner-occupants really wanted was to live downtown long-term, there would be nothing stopping people from getting a 30-year mortgage on an expensive condo in the city and taking the exact same tax deduction on it available to someone buying a house in the suburbs. In practice, what I see happening (including in my own life) is that people live downtown for comparatively short periods of time and rent, and then move out to single-family homes and own for longer. Since mortgage interest is front-loaded because of the way amortization schedules work, the longer you stay, the more sense a mortgage (and ownership) makes. If we were going to stay downtown long-term, we'd have bought a large condo to replace our small apartment and the mortgage interest deduction would be just as available to us there as where we are now. Practically speaking, its nearly impossible to find a condo downtown, primarily because banks have been extremely skittish to finance them since the Great Recession. Which of course, is another driver of sprawl- financial institutions prefer financing single family homes in developments- comps are easier to acquire, HOA's and zoning limits risk of adverse externalities for the property, etc.
February 18, 20232 yr All true, but they were still too scared to finance speculative SFH after 2016 when we finally got through the glut of SFH from the early-mid 2000s. So now we are way behind on SFH since they would only fund multifamily rentals (which almost all filled within one year of completion) from 2009-2020 and SFH that already existed or was pre-sold before construction. Had they funded spec SFH in those years we would certainly have even more sprawl. This affects commercial as well since if enough SFH goes up commercial follows.
February 20, 20232 yr A thread "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
February 20, 20232 yr On 2/17/2023 at 4:50 PM, Gramarye said: I appreciate the point, but this is also another example of something I wouldn't classify as spending. What you just described in your first quoted paragraph there is an opportunity cost, or more colloquially, money left "on the table." If the government could have leased a given acre of federal land for $1000 and leases it for $600, it left $400 on the table and that's an opportunity cost. (And in fairness, AFAIK more and more such economic opportunities for federal property rights are done via auction, which is pretty efficient at figuring out the maximum someone will actually pay for an asset.) You missed my point. The opportunity cost of not taxing everyone at 90% rather than 100% is not "spending" the untaxed 10%. The tax break on storefronts for hat-makers-only would be spending, because everyone else with a storefront would have to pay the tax and it was only some particular group or activity that was carved out as exempt from the tax. (And yes, the government should hold more auctions, but if they auction off grazing rights on *some huge number of acres* blocks, not too many family farmers are going to be able to bid. So the existence of an auction by itself does not guarantee the highest price unless it is set up to attract a lot of bidders -- competition.) On 2/17/2023 at 4:50 PM, Gramarye said: More specifically back on the topic of sprawl: I question things like the "spending" on the home mortgage tax deduction as a sprawl incentive (whether characterized as government spending or an indirect non-spending subsidy) because that kind of assumes that those who live in the city are renters and those who live in sprawlburbia are owners. That may even be true today but it's not structurally inevitable and it wouldn't surprise me if it's less true than it was in the past. If what potential owner-occupants really wanted was to live downtown long-term, there would be nothing stopping people from getting a 30-year mortgage on an expensive condo in the city and taking the exact same tax deduction on it available to someone buying a house in the suburbs. In practice, what I see happening (including in my own life) is that people live downtown for comparatively short periods of time and rent, and then move out to single-family homes and own for longer. Since mortgage interest is front-loaded because of the way amortization schedules work, the longer you stay, the more sense a mortgage (and ownership) makes. If we were going to stay downtown long-term, we'd have bought a large condo to replace our small apartment and the mortgage interest deduction would be just as available to us there as where we are now. If there were a lot of empty condos downtown I would agree that people choose to live in the suburbs rather than downtown when they are ready to build equity. Since condos are very rare (and almost exclusively luxury units), I don't think we can conclude that it is only choice that is driving people to single family homes in the suburbs. On 2/17/2023 at 8:23 PM, X said: Practically speaking, its nearly impossible to find a condo downtown, primarily because banks have been extremely skittish to finance them since the Great Recession. Which of course, is another driver of sprawl- financial institutions prefer financing single family homes in developments- comps are easier to acquire, HOA's and zoning limits risk of adverse externalities for the property, etc. I disagree that bank skittishness has that much to do with it. Shouldn't banks also be skittish about single family homes? Perhaps zoning and federal loan guarantees being more readily available for single-family homes make that kind of building preferable -- skewing the market, making condo construction more difficult and weighting the scale for single family construction. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/housing-market-needs-more-condos-why-are-so-few-being-built
February 21, 20232 yr Somewhat related to sprawl, here were the density profiles for the 3-C counties in 2020. Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Density Cuyahoga 160604- 26613.0 160603- 17636.9 1033- 14305.9 101101- 14270.8 119502- 13644.2 1023- 12925.3 1053- 12787.6 119501- 12648.4 102101-12636.3 101501-12428.9 Franklin 1121- 34759.3 1810- 28261.4 1302- 24707.3 1301- 20588.7 17- 20171.7 12- 20081.1 1110- 17693.4 10- 16269.7 16- 12693.1 6992- 12445.4 Hamilton 25- 20656.7 10- 17620.6 26- 15726.8 2901- 15496.8 33- 14447.6 9- 14241.3 17- 13861.0 30- 11422.1 7- 11339.8 264- 11009.9 Columbus continued to have the highest density tracts of any of the major cities in the state. % of Tracts 10Kppsm or Higher Cuyahoga: 6.54% Franklin: 5.47% Hamilton: 5.3% % of Tracts 5K-9,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 36.67% Franklin: 33.53% Hamilton: 26.55% % of Tracts 2K-4,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 38.56% Franklin: 42.68% Hamilton: 45.13% % of Tracts Less than 2Kppsm Cuyahoga: 18.24% Franklin: 18.29% Hamilton: 23.02% % of tracts can be somewhat deceiving given that tract sizes in the counties differ significantly, but they do line up with the density rankings overall. A better measurement, though, would be how much land area of each county is represented by density levels. Total Land Area in Square Miles and % of Total County Land at 10Kppsm or Higher Cuyahoga: 6.4/1.39% Franklin: 5.47/1.01% Hamilton: 2.7/0.66% At 5K-9,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 67.6/14.76% Franklin: 66.76/12.26% Hamilton: 29.6/7.31% At 2K-4,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 157.5/34.41% Franklin: 179.05/32.93% Hamilton: 127.3/31.38% Below 2Kppsm Cuyahoga: 226.3/49.44% Franklin: 292.41/53.78% Hamilton: 246/60.65% Cuyahoga and Frankling are far more similar with each other than they are with Hamilton, which has the lowest density levels across the board. Attached is a more detailed breakdown of density for each county.
February 21, 20232 yr 26 minutes ago, jonoh81 said: Somewhat related to sprawl, here were the density profiles for the 3-C counties in 2020. Top 10 Tracts with the Highest Density Cuyahoga 160604- 26613.0 160603- 17636.9 1033- 14305.9 101101- 14270.8 119502- 13644.2 1023- 12925.3 1053- 12787.6 119501- 12648.4 102101-12636.3 101501-12428.9 Franklin 1121- 34759.3 1810- 28261.4 1302- 24707.3 1301- 20588.7 17- 20171.7 12- 20081.1 1110- 17693.4 10- 16269.7 16- 12693.1 6992- 12445.4 Hamilton 25- 20656.7 10- 17620.6 26- 15726.8 2901- 15496.8 33- 14447.6 9- 14241.3 17- 13861.0 30- 11422.1 7- 11339.8 264- 11009.9 Columbus continued to have the highest density tracts of any of the major cities in the state. % of Tracts 10Kppsm or Higher Cuyahoga: 6.54% Franklin: 5.47% Hamilton: 5.3% % of Tracts 5K-9,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 36.67% Franklin: 33.53% Hamilton: 26.55% % of Tracts 2K-4,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 38.56% Franklin: 42.68% Hamilton: 45.13% % of Tracts Less than 2Kppsm Cuyahoga: 18.24% Franklin: 18.29% Hamilton: 23.02% % of tracts can be somewhat deceiving given that tract sizes in the counties differ significantly, but they do line up with the density rankings overall. A better measurement, though, would be how much land area of each county is represented by density levels. Total Land Area in Square Miles and % of Total County Land at 10Kppsm or Higher Cuyahoga: 6.4/1.39% Franklin: 5.47/1.01% Hamilton: 2.7/0.66% At 5K-9,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 67.6/14.76% Franklin: 66.76/12.26% Hamilton: 29.6/7.31% At 2K-4,999.9ppsm Cuyahoga: 157.5/34.41% Franklin: 179.05/32.93% Hamilton: 127.3/31.38% Below 2Kppsm Cuyahoga: 226.3/49.44% Franklin: 292.41/53.78% Hamilton: 246/60.65% Cuyahoga and Frankling are far more similar with each other than they are with Hamilton, which has the lowest density levels across the board. Attached is a more detailed breakdown of density for each county. It's amazing how dense colleges are, Most of Columbus high performing tracts are in and around OSU. It'd be interesting to see how some of Ohio's other big colleges compare.
February 21, 20232 yr 19 minutes ago, Ethan said: It's amazing how dense colleges are, Most of Columbus high performing tracts are in and around OSU. It'd be interesting to see how some of Ohio's other big colleges compare. Ohio State is truly an industry in itself.
February 21, 20232 yr 23 minutes ago, Ethan said: It's amazing how dense colleges are, Most of Columbus high performing tracts are in and around OSU. It'd be interesting to see how some of Ohio's other big colleges compare. College students usually don't have kids or cars.
February 21, 20232 yr OSU enrollment: 60K Population 900K = 6.7% students UC enrollment: 40K Population 300K = 13.3% students
March 25, 20232 yr "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
April 21, 20232 yr If you love sprawl you adore government and hate people "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 4, 20232 yr I blame sprawl, the most anti-social disorder ever invented "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
May 4, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, KJP said: I blame sprawl, the most anti-social disorder ever invented Sprawl doesn't help. But let's not lay all this at the feet of sprawl. Some of this is the downside of good things that we're not about to change, including social and economic mobility. I might have one or two more close friends if I'd stayed in Kirkersville (though honestly doubtful, because they all headed for the city limit signs after HS graduation and didn't look back, same as I did), but I probably wouldn't have a job as good as the one I have now, not to mention that I wouldn't have met my wife. But I moved to this town when I was 27, and it's just harder to form new close friendships at that age, let alone in your 40s.
May 4, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, KJP said: I blame sprawl, the most anti-social disorder ever invented I mean sprawl at some level has to do with it. But if you look at the data, it has severely changed in the last couple of decades. What happened two decades ago? The rise of the internet and the beginning of social media and the smart phone.
May 4, 20232 yr On 2/21/2023 at 3:42 PM, GCrites80s said: OSU enrollment: 60K Population 900K = 6.7% students UC enrollment: 40K Population 300K = 13.3% students Urban area would be a better measure. Just sayin' and all. OSU: 60K enrollment population 1,567K = 3.8% students UC: 40K enrollment population 1,686K = 2.4% students
May 4, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, KFM44107 said: I mean sprawl at some level has to do with it. But if you look at the data, it has severely changed in the last couple of decades. What happened two decades ago? The rise of the internet and the beginning of social media and the smart phone. The data KJP quoted began in 1990. I agree that that was two decades ago, because 2000 was one decade ago. But there are people who firmly maintain alternative facts on that front.
Create an account or sign in to comment