Suburban Sprawl and the Decline of Social Capital

t r u t h o u t | Suburban Sprawl and the Decline of Social Capital.

This is an excellent article which I encourage you to read.  I want to share the response which a friend posted to a global listserv we're both on. 

Before I do that, though, I think it is worth considering that the much reported downturn in the market for new housing, as opposed to resale, might relate to a flight to quality.  New subdivisions are on the fringes.  Often they are beyond the fringe, surrounded by farmland -- sometimes described as checkerboard development.   (I've even seen townhouses surrounded by farmland!)

If you have a choice between a new home in a distant subdivision and a resale home in an established location, served by established transportation systems, schools, jobs, shopping, cultural amenities, etc., which will you choose?  Maybe the explanation of why new houses are not selling is that buyers now have a wider choice of homes they can afford, and are choosing the better locations over the newly constructed houses on or beyond the distant edge of the community.

If I'm correct, it bodes well for smaller builders who are doing infill and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods.  Wise policy can promote infill, while unwise policies lead to sprawl.  I suspect the sprawl-folks have a lot more lobbying money than the infill-oriented ones, so can only appeal to good sense.

Here's Ed's response to the sprawl article, which I found to be well reasoned and well stated:

"A colleague of mine forwarded the link of this article to me for comment, as my professional work in the United States has been in community revitalization and the development of quality affordable housing.

What I came to understand midway in my career was that land markets are made dysfunctional by law that favors the landed over those who develop and utilize locations. There are many issues causing sprawling development patterns, but one of the most consistent is the struggle to gain control over land that allows for profitable development. And, of course, developers are not concerned with the infrastructure costs of bringing roadways; water, sewer and other utilities, hospitals, libraries, schools, and other public goods and services to newly-created subdivisions. These costs are passed on to property owners, working people and businesses.

There is only one measure that will redirect development inward, leaving more distant land available for agriculture, recreation and habitat for other species. This is for government to fully collect the annual rental value of every location within its geographical boundaries, while exempting improvement made thereon from the tax/revenue base. What this change in policy will do is easy to see.

• First, profit from speculating in the hoarding of land will disappear. Thus, investors will acquire control over land only when profitable development is possible.

• Second, existing owners of land parcels will not be able to continue to ignore land they hold because the cost of doing so will (particularly if the and parcels are centrally-located) make this costly. They will either develop land based on highest, best use or sell the land to someone who will.

• Third, the cost of property assessment will fall dramatically once property improvements are removed from the tax base.

• Fourth, removing speculation and hoarding of land will bring down the price (but not the annual rental value) of land parcels. This will make it far less costly for public agencies to acquire land for needed public buildings and (if still required given household incomes) to construct decent, affordable housing units for the housing-deprived.

In summary, what will curtail sprawl is public policy that encourages the renovation of existing structures and in-fill construction of new buildings where infrastructure already exists, while at the same time requiring land owners to compensate the community for the value that comes to locations because of public goods and services."