Hello All,

 

I am new to UrbanOhio although I have been reading it regularly for quite some time.  I use the site primarily to keep track of the happenings back home as I am overseas in London.  I enjoy the information very much. 

 

I ran across this story the other day.  It is written by Harvard professor Ed Glaeser about the environmental costs of suburban sprawl and argues against current government policies that incentivize migration away from city centers.

 

Here is the link to the article in the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/05/with_tax_break_a_big_carbon_footprint/

 

Would love to hear your ideas on this.

 

Cheers!

Hi Cypress and welcome to being a poster instead of just a lurker.  I think your post probably belongs elsewhere in an already existing thread and will get more commentary there.  I'm going to let a moderator know so they can move it.

I have to agree that government policies have favored suburbanization/sprawl at the expense of inner cities.  However at this point, I don't think people are going to be convinced to move back to cities just because of environmental issues.  As others have pointed out, there seems to be a backlash against anything environmentally-conscious/"green"/Al Gore/Prius related (yes, I think people lump all of these together).  It has become too much of a buzzword.  While I'm concerned about environmental issues myself, I don't think it should be the main factor played up when trying to sell cities.

 

One of the best ways to sell cities in relation to environmental issues is to talk about the cost of energy.  With the price of energy going up, the cost of commuting will continue to rise indefinitely until it is unaffordable (or just not worth the cost) for the average person.  I just don't think the average person cares how many tons of CO2 they are releasing into the environment because of their lifestyle.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I care, I just don't think most people do.

I have to agree that government policies have favored suburbanization/sprawl at the expense of inner cities. However at this point, I don't think people are going to be convinced to move back to cities just because of environmental issues. As others have pointed out, there seems to be a backlash against anything environmentally-conscious/"green"/Al Gore/Prius related (yes, I think people lump all of these together). It has become too much of a buzzword. While I'm concerned about environmental issues myself, I don't think it should be the main factor played up when trying to sell cities.

 

One of the best ways to sell cities in relation to environmental issues is to talk about the cost of energy. With the price of energy going up, the cost of commuting will continue to rise indefinitely until it is unaffordable (or just not worth the cost) for the average person. I just don't think the average person cares how many tons of CO2 they are releasing into the environment because of their lifestyle.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I care, I just don't think most people do.

 

And that is good reasoning as I am in the same boat as you.  In addition to not using this as a way to get people to move back to cities, they shouldn't use this as a way to get people on trains.  As you stated, there are definately not nearly enough people who care about CO2 emissions.

The counter argument is that the tax credit is for home buyers, not "suburban home buyers of big houses with large lots".  And - at least in Cleveland - housing is more affordable in the city proper than it is in the suburbs, there are plenty of homes on the market, and with the property tax credit, there are more than enough opportunites for new construction in the city and/or rehabbing older homes in the city and not paying property tax on the new construction.

 

So if you're a first time homeowner looking for the most affordable and tax advantageous home to buy, that would be in Cleveland proper.

So if you're a first time homeowner looking for the most affordable and tax advantageous home to buy, that would be in Cleveland proper.

 

In order for that statement to be true, IN MY OPINION, as well as that of many others, we would need to fix Cleveland City schools, big time.

Backlash is a funny thing.  I don't know how much of the "backlash" is reaction from the average person, and how much is just increased squawking from the reactionaries that always saw environmentalism as a socialist plot.

So if you're a first time homeowner looking for the most affordable and tax advantageous home to buy, that would be in Cleveland proper.

 

In order for that statement to be true, IN MY OPINION, as well as that of many others, we would need to fix Cleveland City schools, big time.

 

I completely agree the schools are a problem (big problem)...however I don't think that changes my statement. 

 

Housing is still the cheapest with the most tax benefits in Cleveland.

 

If you're sending your kids to private school, their tuition is tax deductible as well.  Not to mention, what is the cost difference between the $100,000 house with low property taxes + private school tutition compared to the $200,000 house with high property taxes in a nice public school district?

 

So if you're a first time homeowner looking for the most affordable and tax advantageous home to buy, that would be in Cleveland proper.

 

In order for that statement to be true, IN MY OPINION, as well as that of many others, we would need to fix Cleveland City schools, big time.

 

I completely agree the schools are a problem (big problem)...however I don't think that changes my statement.

 

Housing is still the cheapest with the most tax benefits in Cleveland.

 

If you're sending your kids to private school, their tuition is tax deductible as well. Not to mention, what is the cost difference between the $100,000 house with low property taxes + private school tutition compared to the $200,000 house with high property taxes in a nice public school district?

 

 

I suppose technically your statement is true, but if there are quantifying statements that make it undesirable for many families that have children, how "true" is it?  I mean, it's true that I could probably get a REALLY cheap house in the Compton neighborhood in Los Angeles, but does that mean it's really a "bargain?"

 

I think "cost" doesn't just have to do with private school tuition in a perhaps less desirable neighborhood vs. a more expensive house in a neighborhood with better public schools.  "Cost" is measured by many factors.  Crime, amenities in the house, age of the house necessitating more repair, etc.

If you're sending your kids to private school, their tuition is tax deductible as well.  Not to mention, what is the cost difference between the $100,000 house with low property taxes + private school tutition compared to the $200,000 house with high property taxes in a nice public school district?

Unfortunately that's not a fair comparison. A couple years ago when the wife and I were looking for a house, we were seeing what we wanted for 130k in the suburbs and essentially the same house for 100k in Cleveland (Same # of rooms, Similar sq footage, similar lot size). While 30k is a lot of money, it's not enough to cover tuition for 2 kids at a private school. When we figured out the property tax rates, the difference was fairly insignificant. Besides that if you figure in the crime rate, you'd have to have more than a 30% markup in price for suburban houses to convince people it's better for them to live in the city. Another factor would be that a newer house in the suburbs would be built with more insulation than the average house in the city, thus making it more energy efficient, and in many poeple's minds making the suburbs seem more efficient.

I don't really disagree with any of your points...I suppose my larger point is...I didn't like the article stating "the housing tax credit is causing people to continue to suburbanize". 

 

Clearly, there is much more to it than that. 

To me, the biggest issue is that people who live in the suburbs do so because they really like it there.  More efficient means of transportation and more efficient energy sources would be a much better solution that telling people they have to live in denser, urban areas, whether they like it or not.  In my opinion, we need to do this not because of environmental aspects, or the minuscule effect it will have on global CO2 emissions that will arguably have any effect on global temperature changes, but because it will become impossible to keep it up as our energy supply diminishes over the next few decades. 

 

I plan to live in an urban area after college, at least until/if I have kids some day.  That concept opens up a whole other can of worms, though: people with kids prefer the suburbs by a massive margin.

I don't really disagree with any of your points...I suppose my larger point is...I didn't like the article stating "the housing tax credit is causing people to continue to suburbanize".

 

Clearly, there is much more to it than that.

 

Obviously.  People have been suburbanizing for years.  Also, it is not the fault of the people who have suburbanized as they have every free right to live where ever they want to, it is the fault of the inner city politics. 

To me, the biggest issue is that people who live in the suburbs do so because they really like it there.  More efficient means of transportation and more efficient energy sources would be a much better solution that telling people they have to live in denser, urban areas, whether they like it or not.  In my opinion, we need to do this not because of environmental aspects, or the minuscule effect it will have on global CO2 emissions that will arguably have any effect on global temperature changes, but because it will become impossible to keep it up as our energy supply diminishes over the next few decades. 

 

I plan to live in an urban area after college, at least until/if I have kids some day.  That concept opens up a whole other can of worms, though: people with kids prefer the suburbs by a massive margin.

 

Depends on where you are in the country.

To me, the biggest issue is that people who live in the suburbs do so because they really like it there. More efficient means of transportation and more efficient energy sources would be a much better solution that telling people they have to live in denser, urban areas, whether they like it or not. In my opinion, we need to do this not because of environmental aspects, or the minuscule effect it will have on global CO2 emissions that will arguably have any effect on global temperature changes, but because it will become impossible to keep it up as our energy supply diminishes over the next few decades.

 

I plan to live in an urban area after college, at least until/if I have kids some day. That concept opens up a whole other can of worms, though: people with kids prefer the suburbs by a massive margin.

 

Depends on where you are in the country.

 

And that is very true.  It is all very simple.  If a certain town offers many new job openings ovre the course of several years, then inner cities can be rebuilt with a new crop of people that don't have issues with certain neighborhoods.  You can not expect the stagnant job growth in Cleveland to contribute to massive neighborhood over hauls.  In addition, it is very difficult to get someone who moved out of the city 15 years ago to move back in.  Very simple, attract new jobs, attract new people.  That's all.

Part of the problem at least in Cincinnati seems to be that the city has  Blight=Bulldozer mentality, much like Detroit. They are planing to allocate over1 million dollars in CDBG fund for demolition. This depletes the county tax base. For example the assessed value of the 21 properties at the Ocober nuisance Hearing was 1.2 million if those properties are vacant lots they pay about 50 a year each in taxes. The reason we see so many levy requests is the shrinking tax base and that affects everyone.

Environmental consciousness is absolutely the last reason suburban Americans would move into denser areas. I am a pessimist but I tend to believe that humans are psychologically incapable of reigning in our own activity. We grow. We replicate. We find new ways of increasing our convenience and decreasing our own energy expenditure. It's just in our blueprint. We will burn oil until we can burn hydrogen just as easily.

 

Good news: There are a hundred other reasons why people move into denser communities, some of them compatible with saving the environment, some of them totally unrelated:

 

Cultural vibrancy, shorter commute, to be part of a particular community, aging, etc...

Part of the problem at least in Cincinnati seems to be that the city has Blight=Bulldozer mentality, much like Detroit. They are planing to allocate over1 million dollars in CDBG fund for demolition. This depletes the county tax base. For example the assessed value of the 21 properties at the Ocober nuisance Hearing was 1.2 million if those properties are vacant lots they pay about 50 a year each in taxes. The reason we see so many levy requests is the shrinking tax base and that affects everyone.

 

There is an interesting argument in urban planning these days that says local tax policy could discourage sprawl by taxing land and not improvements, which is the reverse of what we do today. So under that scenario, the nuisance property owners would be very much compelled by the tax structure to have something profitable on their property, rather than let it sit vacant or blighted. This kind of tax policy might have the added effect of discouraging far-flung suburban locales from chasing development for income. It is being proven that this kind of habit just propels a wavefront of new development out of town.

Environmental consciousness is absolutely the last reason suburban Americans would move into denser areas. I am a pessimist but I tend to believe that humans are psychologically incapable of reigning in our own activity. We grow. We replicate. We find new ways of increasing our convenience and decreasing our own energy expenditure. It's just in our blueprint. We will burn oil until we can burn hydrogen just as easily.

 

Good news: There are a hundred other reasons why people move into denser communities, some of them compatible with saving the environment, some of them totally unrelated:

 

Cultural vibrancy, shorter commute, to be part of a particular community, aging, etc...

 

I don't understand the article as saying environmental reasons would push people back to urban areas.  Although I agree with you about perhaps it playing a role for some individuals.  I took the article as being more about tax policy and incentives.  Incentives matter, and there are a lot of examples, the article demonstrates just one, which show that incentives in the US currently lean towards sprawl.

 

Sure better schools and improved infrastructure would go much further in discouraging sprawl, but these issues tend to have expensive fixes.  However, Glaeser's argument seems to be that tax breaks encourage sprawl.  Eliminating tax breaks would seem to be an easier fix, and unlike better schools and infrastructure would be immediately revenue generating.

Good article on the future of Cul-de-Sacs:

 

Death to Dead Ends: Will the New Suburbia Omit Cul-de-Sacs?

BY Michael CannellTue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM

 

What could be more American than the suburban cul-de-sac, that leafy and lonely fixture of post-war development? For better or worse, the quiet, meandering dead-end arteries are America's post-war contribution to landscaping history. Now, as planners try to adapt the American dream to the new realities of sustainability, cul-de sacs are under attack.

 

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/michael-cannell/cannell/death-dead-ends-will-new-suburbia-omit-cul-de-sacs

I thought this was interesting. Given that there is an urban growth boundary, pressures from limiting outward development will raise land values and increase property costs across the board, which has its pros and cons. Either development leapfrogs into another county that has more lax zoning, or you deal with high rises and other increases in densities. For this, the idea of adding "backyard cottages" is pretty appealing -- increasing density while saving the city from being targeted with high-rise mania.

 

Seattle's backyard cottages make a dent in housing need

By Judy Keen, USA TODAY, May 25, 2010

 

SEATTLE — John Stoeck is building a one-bedroom, 437-square-foot cottage on the spot where his garage stood before a tree fell on it. Construction costs: about $50,000. When the cottage is finished this summer, he plans to rent it for at least $900 a month, which will make a nice dent in his mortgage payments.

 

His is just one of about 50 tiny cottages sprouting in backyards across the city as it tries to expand affordable housing options in established neighborhoods without resorting to high rises and apartment complexes. The city changed zoning rules to allow cottages in single-family neighborhoods citywide, rejected a proposed cap of 50 cottages a year and helped organize a design competition to spur creation of reasonably priced plans. The point is not just to allow the cottages, but to encourage them.

 

"I want to preserve rural areas around Seattle, and I don't want the suburbs continuing to march on without any limits. One way to do that is to add more density to these inner-city neighborhoods," says Stoeck, 47, an architect.