3 ms·

Narrator: they can’t afford it. That’s the problem with low density housing. If all externalities were accounted for, nobody would want it. Oh and that includ

by Swizec 6y ago

Narrator: they can’t afford it. That’s the problem with low density housing. If all externalities were accounted for, nobody would want it. Oh and that includes paying taxes to the local city you’re commuting to for your job.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
Please prove it’s not affordable for such a bold statement. Most of Texas and Florida (the Sun Belt in general, where folks are moving to) are low density, Texas is the second most populated state, Florida third. If Americans will buy $60k pickup trucks and thousand dollar iPhones, I argue they’re willing to pay a few hundred dollars more per year to not live on top of each other in urban cores and enjoy their cul-de-sac (or other suburban neighborhood arrangement), just as they stretch their housing payment for good schools for their kids.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  The math is right there in the article, so please download the spreadsheet and poke holes into if it's broken. The thing with Texas is that it's growing fast, and cities get an initial windfall when brand new property is built out, which is why they want to see more of it. The Strong Towns hypothesis (which is pretty darn close to proven from what I can see) is that low-density sprawl is not sustainable, because it can't pay for its own maintenance. (And a lot of that sprawl is or will be inhabited by people who don't have $60k pickup trucks.)
  - SamBam 6y ago
    No, the question is whether or not people will agree to increasing their taxes for it.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Pretty simply, it’s broken as there is a simple solution to just slightly raise prices now or sightly more 20 years from now. It seems like a non-issue that isn’t particular to culs de sac but to any new community where they don’t charge enough in taxes to cover long term expenses. In my region culs de sac are more prevalent in affluent areas that wouldn’t mind slightly raised prices. And the assumption that property values will stagnate is pretty easy to disprove and just count on increased property taxes.
  - theamk 6y ago
    The math in article is correct when it says that those communities need to raise taxes by few hundred dollars per year. However, the article talks a lot about increased density, and even says outright: > Ultimately, though, I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution The author presents no no evidence of this fact. The only way this can be correct is if raising taxes by a few hundred dollars would make those houses so expensive, that people would move out and houses would stay empty. I doubt this is the case, and I see no data to support this for this in the article.
lostcolony 6y ago
Are you familiar with HOA fees? See, there are fully planned communities, where all the common areas ARE priced into HOA fees (they have to be; the HOA covers them, and the lenders DO evaluate the fees to make sure that they either are sufficient, or if they should increase to become so, the home owner will be able to afford them). And people still buy houses in communities with HOAs. That's not "all" externalities, but it already shows that people will happily pay for externalities they can understand. An extra $200 a month to the city? No thank you. A $200 a month HOA fee, that keeps up the common areas and features? There's still a line of people looking to buy the property.
theamk 6y ago
Maybe for some cities... but definitely not for the every case. There are are multiple small towns around me which are very suburban and have low density houses. They are independent, so they have their own budget -- and they to keep it pretty balanced, at least judging by their road condition. They get a tiny amount from federal/state level (less than 1% of their income). And you cannot say "it is all subsidized by high-density areas", because those towns do not have such areas. As far as "taxes to the local city" -- the city their residens are likely commuting to gets plenty of money from the all the commercial housing taxes (in 2020, it got 65% of the taxes from the commercial properties) Seems pretty sustainable to me. Yep, it is expensive and I (for example) cannot afford to live there, but they have no problems selling houses. And they have great parks, too, so I like that they are around.

by Swizec 6y ago

toomuchtodo 6y ago

Please prove it’s not affordable for such a bold statement. Most of Texas and Florida (the Sun Belt in general, where folks are moving to) are low density, Texas is the second most populated state, Florida third. If Americans will buy $60k pickup trucks and thousand dollar iPhones, I argue they’re willing to pay a few hundred dollars more per year to not live on top of each other in urban cores and enjoy their cul-de-sac (or other suburban neighborhood arrangement), just as they stretch their housing payment for good schools for their kids.

howlgarnish 6y ago
The math is right there in the article, so please download the spreadsheet and poke holes into if it's broken. The thing with Texas is that it's growing fast, and cities get an initial windfall when brand new property is built out, which is why they want to see more of it. The Strong Towns hypothesis (which is pretty darn close to proven from what I can see) is that low-density sprawl is not sustainable, because it can't pay for its own maintenance. (And a lot of that sprawl is or will be inhabited by people who don't have $60k pickup trucks.)
- SamBam 6y ago
  No, the question is whether or not people will agree to increasing their taxes for it.
- prepend 6y ago
  Pretty simply, it’s broken as there is a simple solution to just slightly raise prices now or sightly more 20 years from now. It seems like a non-issue that isn’t particular to culs de sac but to any new community where they don’t charge enough in taxes to cover long term expenses. In my region culs de sac are more prevalent in affluent areas that wouldn’t mind slightly raised prices. And the assumption that property values will stagnate is pretty easy to disprove and just count on increased property taxes.
- theamk 6y ago
  The math in article is correct when it says that those communities need to raise taxes by few hundred dollars per year. However, the article talks a lot about increased density, and even says outright: > Ultimately, though, I think no amount of bandaging with higher tax rates or user fees is going to be a long-term solution The author presents no no evidence of this fact. The only way this can be correct is if raising taxes by a few hundred dollars would make those houses so expensive, that people would move out and houses would stay empty. I doubt this is the case, and I see no data to support this for this in the article.

lostcolony 6y ago

Are you familiar with HOA fees? See, there are fully planned communities, where all the common areas ARE priced into HOA fees (they have to be; the HOA covers them, and the lenders DO evaluate the fees to make sure that they either are sufficient, or if they should increase to become so, the home owner will be able to afford them). And people still buy houses in communities with HOAs. That's not "all" externalities, but it already shows that people will happily pay for externalities they can understand. An extra $200 a month to the city? No thank you. A $200 a month HOA fee, that keeps up the common areas and features? There's still a line of people looking to buy the property.

theamk 6y ago

Maybe for some cities... but definitely not for the every case. There are are multiple small towns around me which are very suburban and have low density houses. They are independent, so they have their own budget -- and they to keep it pretty balanced, at least judging by their road condition. They get a tiny amount from federal/state level (less than 1% of their income). And you cannot say "it is all subsidized by high-density areas", because those towns do not have such areas. As far as "taxes to the local city" -- the city their residens are likely commuting to gets plenty of money from the all the commercial housing taxes (in 2020, it got 65% of the taxes from the commercial properties) Seems pretty sustainable to me. Yep, it is expensive and I (for example) cannot afford to live there, but they have no problems selling houses. And they have great parks, too, so I like that they are around.