University of Washington professor Theo Eicher did the research that verifies what many of us already knew. Seattle housing rules impose enormous costs.
An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.
Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.
"In a nationwide study, it can be shown that Seattle is one of the most regulated cities and a city whose housing prices are profoundly influenced by regulations," he says.
How bad is it in Seattle? Very bad.
Compared with 250 major U.S. cities, he [Eicher] says, Seattle:
- Is first in terms of the impact of state political involvement in land issues.
- Is in the top 3 percent for approval delays for new construction.
- Is in the top 10 percent in local political pressure influencing land use.
Almost every elected official in Seattle has, for years, been in favor of affordable housing. In principle. In practice they have been working, almost unanimously, to bring about unaffordable housing.
Any particular politicans we should blame? Let's start with one who has confessed
[Senator] Maria [Cantwell] rapidly established a reputation as someone who could bring people together and make things happen. She's remembered by many as a leading architect of the Washington's Growth Management Act, which she shepherded through a marathon 65-day session.
Which is important because, as the article says, "A key regulation is the state's Growth Management Act". If you know anyone who is having trouble buying a house in this area, tell them to send a letter of thanks to Senator Cantwell.
One last point, which for some reason did not occur to the reporter who wrote this article, Elizabeth Rhodes. Some of the elected officials who passed these regulations benefitted from them personally, even while poor and middle-class families were priced out of the housing market.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Yes, I know. Stefan just posted on this same article. But I didn't know that until I had finished my post, and put it up on my own site. And I decided there was enough new in my take to put it up, anyway. )
Posted by Jim Miller at February 14, 2008 09:46 AM | Email ThisDon't expect liberals to own up to the consequences of their actions. I don't suppose any of the young "struggling" folks they pretend to champion had to take out sub-prime loans in order to buy a home.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 10:34 AMFor entertainment, call up your local city building permit office and tell them you want to build. Ask them about wetlands permits. You'll find a whole gigantic bureaucracy that you never knew existed that is tasked with worrying about puddles on your property.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 14, 2008 10:37 AMThis is it, in a nutshell. People who have lived in Seattle proper for many years like these restrictions because they are already grandfathered, and it means the value of their existing home is increasing. What affordable housing problem? Lalalalalalalala.
That "accessory recreational structure" was a basketball hoop on the face of a garage.
Where?
That liberal bastion called Medina.
Conservatives and Liberals alike are responsible for these rules and their impact on housing costs (and the value they create by the way). To think otherwise just means you're ill-informed.
I'd like to read the study, if the cost of regulation is $200k per house, those $285-$350k houses listed in the paper must be mere shadows...
Posted by: BA on February 14, 2008 10:53 AM
A builder friend has told me that a recent home he built had $25000 in fees and taxes buy the time he'd finished it. In Washington, when you manufacture anything, that is, take disparate parts and make something completely new to sell to consumers, you do not pay tax on those materials you used to make the new thing. Except housing. The builder pays sales tax on every nail, two by four and carpet scrap. If the government really cared about "affordable housing" like they say the do, they would at least eliminate the sales tax on materials. How about DOT? On one of his two home projects (located on a dead end street), the King County DOT insisted they had to do a traffic study. Cost: Eight grand. The study was never done. He asked for the money back and was told that they really couldn't do that. These costs are simply passed on to the buyer.
What I'm trying to say here is this. When the invisible hand of the market is left to it's own devices, products like housing seek their own level and generally are very affordable. When greedy government steps in the middle, things get real expensive real fast. Health insurance here in Washington is another good example.
If government really cared about affordable housing the mountains of fees, taxes and insane laws (65/10 anybody?) would be adiosed immediately. But they don't care. Well, they do care but only about their survival, not yours. Unless of course you can't pay taxes, then they may worry a little but not to much as there is always another sucker ready to pull the lever for Democrats like Chrisy, Simms, Nickel Bag and their sycophants.
Can we have some sanity here, people?
Posted by: Michele on February 14, 2008 11:17 AMSjoblom says that makes sense: "People with higher incomes want the kind of amenities that regulation provides," he says.
What amenities?
Seattle is so parochial that every thing it does is looked at as extrodinary.
A new art museum? WOW! How many cities have one of those?
A working central library that doesn't have carpets that smell like urine? We built it in what? 2002? No, it's not like cities have had libraries for centuries.
It goes on and on! What special amenities does Seattle have? Please...can anyone tell me?
In practice, of course, once the forces are set in motion, they create their own political momentum until the entire situation melts down, like in Detroit or Connecticut these days, where you see entire empty blocks where there once were houses.
I suspect that Nevada and Idaho are next on the list.
Posted by: bfr on February 14, 2008 12:26 PMThe law of gravity;
The law of averages; and,
The law of unintended consequences.
The study is just proof.
Posted by: Deryl McCarty on February 14, 2008 12:31 PM"What special amenities does Seattle have?"
OK, I'll bite. Well for starters, they have a decaying viaduct, lots of homeless people sleeping in parks, 45% more dogs than children, a horribly mismanaged public school system, and a police force that is required to turn their heads to drug users. I hear their coffee is good though.
Posted by: Smoley on February 14, 2008 12:34 PMAre we all sure that the 67% of us that own our own homes find this information bad? (I agree it isn't so good for my kids...)
The study cited is available on line, only about 30 pages, anyone read it yet?
Posted by: BA on February 14, 2008 12:37 PMIn practice, of course, once the forces are set in motion, they create their own political momentum until the entire situation melts down, like in Detroit or Connecticut these days, where you see entire empty blocks where there once were houses.
I suspect that Nevada and Idaho are next on the list.
Posted by: bfr on February 14, 2008 12:44 PMSan Francisco has it down to an art. They proclaim to be all progressive and concerned with the po' folk, but everything they do makes the city as unfriendly to those without a lot of money as they can. "Progressives" don't see people as individuals, they see The People as a means for securing their own comfort and financial well-being.
Posted by: Frank Black on February 14, 2008 12:47 PMSo, what's your methodology to reduce the cost of housing in that city? Real question.
Seattle is zoned about 80% single-family, what should Seattle do to reduce the cost of housing? Zone more neighborhoods multi-family?, impose price controls?, What?
That's a start. Increasing supply will usually bring prices down.
Allow more MIL buildings. Let more lots be subdivided. Allow more condo development.
Create tax incentives for apartment building construction. A healthy rental market as an alternative to an inflated housing market can help keep prices down (some people will choose to rent if housing prices are too high, but only if there is enough supply in the rental market to keep that as a cheaper alternative).
Posted by: Palouse on February 14, 2008 01:09 PMAnd the land is often worth just as much, or more, in the midwest. The alternative use of that land is rich farmland, which does bring back quite a bit of profit on its own. Yet they have less expensive homes given land that is worth just as much to begin with.
Posted by: Larry on February 14, 2008 01:30 PMThe problem in Seattle is there is no land left to build affordable. So, the supply and demand dynamics show a steep price.
Unless you want to do affordable condos, what is the incentive? It just doesn't pencil.
And zoning- well, zoning has been in and enforced several decades before GMA. Contrary to public opinion, it has been with us for a long time and didn't just start with GMA.
So, that leaves us with the real reason- NIMBY syndrome. Politicians/electeds just didn't want to take on this problem, so they have overregulated. There are bogus wetland rules, drainage rules and transportation rules. You have WISHA, OSHA and a host of other regulations.
Posted by: swatter on February 14, 2008 01:32 PMI live on Queen Anne hill, and 2 years ago the city sent my neighbors and me a letter proposing to establish a mandatory neighborhood review board for single family construction or remodels in our area. This would mean an unelected committee of some of your neighbors, plus some of the mayor's cronies, would have to approve any change to your house visible from the street. Yup, repainting a different color, putting in a new porch or windows, anything.
It took half a year of hard work by some of us, including multiple city council meetings, letters to the mayor, public meetings with city bureaucrats and "preservationists" to stop this scheme. The city didn't expect pushback on this, and decided to forget Queen Anne and try it in the future in some other Seattle neighborhoods, all in the name of growth management and preservation of the character of the city.
I told them if they were really interested in preservation, they could pay for my new roof when the time came, and if they wanted veto power over the design of my house they could pay my property taxes and mortgage. They failed to see the irony or humor in this. They are a dour, bitter, miserable bunch of socialists.
Beware - this plan, championed by the mayor, may pop up in your neighborhood in the future. It is nothing more than a shakedown by corrupt, power mad politicians and greedy do-gooder neighbors.
Posted by: Steve on February 14, 2008 02:12 PMYou have not experienced corruption, power mad, greedy do-gooder neighbors.
At least their is due process in Seattle.
Posted by: BA on February 14, 2008 02:47 PMThose nice rules keep your neighborhoods oh so white. I am sure you do appreciate the fact that you live in your own little version of apartheid. It keeps all those nasty "people of color" out, especially the people of the lack of a certain color-green as in the color of money. Those nice rules force out all but sanctimonious overpaid blowhards or "rage against my trust fund" neohippies just like you.
They also will contribute to a problem that San Francisco has that you will soon enjoy-the "alternative living" (i.e. homeless people) crapping on the doorstep of your nice house and pissing on the side of your Pious....errrr...Prius...in your nice neighborhood. I can't wait to read about the fun you will have with all the used needles laying about in your precious "green spaces". Especially when one of your neighbors childog gets one stuck in it's paw.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Ennis on February 14, 2008 02:51 PMI don't think anyone disagrees. When the liberals start telling you that you can't cut down an annoying tree, or have to get approval to paint your house as Steve notes I think you've gone from reasonable rules to meddling.
I think Steve also characterized Seattle liberals accurately, they are a bunch of dour, bitter, miserable socialists. Needless to say these anal people get their jollies making up rules for other people to follow. And then they have the gall to claim Republicans restrict their freedom. What a bunch of kooks.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 02:54 PM@28, When actions effect others, i.e. land use, then it is legitimate for government to create rules. If you don't like the rules created on is more then free to engage in the process to change them.
Posted by: Giffy on February 14, 2008 03:28 PMAs for all the other amenities, I'm with everyone else posting here. What has Seattle got that any other city of similar size doesn't have with a much smaller tax?
I know that Seattlites like to make fun of places like Renton, but when I got there I see waterparks, skateboard parks, nice waterfront playgrounds and picnic areas, etc. for families. When my family goes to them we feel a heck of a lot safer than we do in any park in downtown Seattle.
What's the use of all the green-space (of which I really don't believe there is that much) if you can't use the picnic tables because drugged out bums are sleeping on them and you can't step into the park mens room without tripping over a sex act or drug deal in progress?
Posted by: johnny on February 14, 2008 03:31 PMThose "burbs" you talk about with "design covenants" and "private design review" are places like Mill Creek, which was created as a "planned community". You can choose to live there and abide by their rules, or not. It's a bit different when liberals impose their social engineering and restrictive rules on an entire city, or an entire county, or an entire state.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 03:38 PMCity says there are no funds for replacing the playground. Neighbors get together, raise over $150,000, build new playground for the city. City still owns it. Guess what - as part of the deal for the city to allow us to use our own money to rebuild their public amenity, we the neighbors had to agree to maintain it for 2 years.
So, where are the taxes going? Roads? Certainly not, those are for selfish ecocriminals. More police? No, they will just brutalize the poor and mentally ill. Education? Hmm, teaching English to poor immigrant public school students is so colonial eurocentric.
But the amenities around here are great!
Posted by: Steve on February 14, 2008 03:45 PMWhile you are waving your magic wand Giffy how about giving "minority" children something that years of "progessive" social policy has deprived them of. A two parent family.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 03:50 PMAnd did you read the whiney letter to the editor in this morning's P-I from a Seattle school teacher who demands that class size be reduced from 30 kids to 15 so it would be easier to grade essays about "The Causes of Global Warming"?
I'm not making this up.
If your neighbors are the people you've described - then you definitely DON'T live on Queen Anne - which is the situation that Steve was describing in the first place.
So either you can't afford to be one of those people who lives in 'nice places', or those 'nice places' have kept out you and your neighbors.
Do you unwittingly prove other people's points so often?????
Posted by: Larry on February 14, 2008 04:10 PMThe irony of the environmentalist movement is that these new houses are so big, and the lots so small that space to grows trees of any size is extremely limited, mostly to Japanese maples or whatever those trees are that they line the narrow streets with.
The shade, CO2 scrubbing, oxygen producing, wind break, little critter haven woods are gone and to replace them are fancy birdhouses, and birdfeeders.
My land value (and taxes) keep going up because my lot is about twice as big as the new lots being produced around here.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 14, 2008 04:33 PMOK. But there are some spheres of life where it is illegitimate for the government to make rules, despite my actions affecting others. For instance, if my hypothetical pagan congregation sacrifices a goat on the lawn of our church, and PETA complains, it is not legitimate for the government to make a rule against goat slaughter (check the bill of rights.)
Now, if I paint my house purple, that certainly affects my neighbors. Some may even become nauseated. Is it OK for the city to make a no-purple house rule? I don't think the constitution covers that, but in my mind, they have no business telling me what color to paint. If they want to offer me a tax discount if I voluntarily choose from among their list of approved colors, fine, I might do so.
Believe me, these problems will only become worse as we are forced into closer and closer proximity in the new, dense Seattle.
Remember, every government rule is ultimately enforced at gunpoint. It's called the grandmother question. If grandma paints her house purple, and there is a rule against it, the city will send her a letter. If she ignores it, a sheriff's deputy may knock on her door to serve her a summons to court. If she ignores the summons, more police will arrive to arrest her. If she refuses to open her purple door, they will knock it down, and with guns drawn, physically force her to comply. If she resists, they will shoot her dead.
Are you really willing to have grandma shot dead because her house is the wrong color?
George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
If that's OK with someone, great. Interesting that those rules are often much more restrictive than any imposed by government.
I do presume though, that since you believe these egregious land use rules and restrictions are all liberal constructs, that you have no experience in this field.
I guess that is the basic difference between you and me. I believe in the good of the individual to do good and you believe government needs to impose their will on the individual in order to do good.
Posted by: swatter on February 14, 2008 04:43 PMFair enough, BA. Name egregious land use rules and restrictions that have been made by conservatives. You are obviously an expert in the field so you certainly should be able to come up with plenty of them.
How about rules that don't allow RV's parked in your front yard - think that's a liberal big government rule?
How about instead why in states like Idaho or Montana, or Utah, there are more restrictive rules in resort towns and often minimal rules in less affluent communities. Just wealthy liberals seeking to impose their will on the masses?
Hmm, the deed restrictions that still appear excluding those of "color" - where those liberal rules, or conservatives?
Why are the regulations just as tight in conservative communities as in liberal ones? If you think they're not, again I'll repeat myself and say you don't know what you're talking about.
Took me over a year to get permission to repair an existing cabin in an Eastern Washington county - that probably hasn't ever elected a Democrat to their County Council.
Everyone wants to regulate their neighbors, and not themselves.
It's human nature.
Posted by: BA on February 14, 2008 05:21 PMWhere, BA? Cite an example
It took you a year to get permission to "repair" an existing cabin? I'm sorry but I don't exactly buy your story. I think you might have left out some details.
Yup, "resort towns" often do have restrictions. Isn't that their right? If liberals want to create all kinds of rules in some little town I could care less. It's when they do it city-wide, county-wide, and state-wide that I get concerned.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 05:41 PMNot to pile on here, BA, but cite examples of those kinds of restrictions. I think, again, you are referring to small communities that have every right to impose those restrictions if they want. Find me a large city, state, or county where conservatives have imposed such restrictions.
"I knew there would be liberal spin somewhere in the article. Sure enough, the good professer seemed to imply that had liberals not imposed regulations we would have no parks, and would have high-rise condo's smack in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Yeah, right.
Don't expect liberals to own up to the consequences of their actions. I don't suppose any of the young "struggling" folks they pretend to champion had to take out sub-prime loans in order to buy a home."
Question, Bill. Have you ever met professor Eicher? Have you ever talked with him? Have you ever sat in his class? Did you read the statement preceding the "liberal spin" as you call it? You know, the one that says:
"He received no outside funding for the project and stresses he makes no value judgments about whether regulation is good, bad or needs to change.
Rather, Eicher wants the public to "understand the impact of their choices. There's always a cost associated with the cityscape."
Furthermore, did you read the last paragraph in the article? You know, this one.
"In the final analysis, Eicher believes Seattle's regulatory climate exists because its residents want it. "My sense is land-use restrictions are imposed to generate socially desirable outcomes," he says. "We all love parks and green spaces. But we must also be informed about the costs. It's very easy to vote for a park if you think the cost is free."
Yep, you nailed it Bill. That's definitely some first class "liberal spin" there. Those damn liberals are all about personal accountability for their actions. How dare Professor Eicher talk about people needing to understand the impact of their choices. How dare he talk about personal accountability?
FYI, I have met the man, I have talked with him, I sat in his class for a complete quarter. The man is brilliant. He also requires personal accountability from all his students. If you don't do the work you are supposed to do in his class, you don't get a pass.
Perhaps you should consider actually meeting the man before you use your mile-wide paintbrush.
BTW, bill. He didn't "seem to imply that had liberals not imposed regulations we would have no parks, and would have high-rise condo's smack in the middle of residential neighborhoods." However, he clearly stated that there are costs to our actions. Perhaps some reading comprehension classes are in order for you?
Of course I haven't. Does that disqualify me from expressing my opinion?
I don't disagree with professor Eicher entirely. I think his argument that regulations have accounted for the high cost of housing has some value but other factors such as the free market are just as important. I think his implication that regulation is a price we pay for not having our parks divided into subdivisions goes a bit beyond the pale. Maybe you can cite some instances when evil right wing developers advocated bulldozing over our parks so they could build tract housing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 07:00 PMI don't have a clue who "Former Eicher Student" is but I can well imagine that he has an opinion about President Bush. Has he ever met him?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 07:17 PMI've had clients in the north end of Seattle where their deeds have the historical language restricting ownership or occupancy of their land to whites. What do you want as proof - a deed?
Repair an existing cabin - no relevant details are missing.
RV parking - Bellevue.
"Small Communities" have rights to impose restrictions that larger communities don't? What the hell is that? Why does size matter when we're talking about regulations that are imposed on private property.
What party is the most racist historically? I'd be changing the subject too if I was as clueless as you.
Posted by: BA on February 14, 2008 07:26 PMI don't disagree with professor Eicher entirely. I think his argument that regulations have accounted for the high cost of housing has some value but other factors such as the free market are just as important. I think his implication that regulation is a price we pay for not having our parks divided into subdivisions goes a bit beyond the pale. Maybe you can cite some instances when evil right wing developers advocated bulldozing over our parks so they could build tract housing."
So you base your opinion on his political preference based on the fact that he points out that decisions made have costs that everyone should be aware of? Wow. Do you get any exercise other than from jumping to conclusions?
Can you cite the portion of the article where any inference at all was made by Professor Eicher that "evil right wing developers want to bulldoze over parks" Talk about a mega strawman.
Can you cite anywhere in the article where he states that "regulation is a price we pay for not having our parks divided into subdivisions " Can you cite anything in the article that supports your claim that he ever even implied that "had liberals not imposed regulations we would have no parks, and would have high-rise condo's smack in the middle of residential neighborhoods"? In fact, he doesn't imply anything. He clearly states that there are costs to parks and highrises. How does that qualify for "liberal spin".
Personally, I don't know whether he is a liberal or a conservative. Perhaps that is because during the 11 weeks I sat in his class, he actually taught the class and did not allow his politics to enter into the class time. Imagine that. A UW professor who actually teaches instead of politicizing his class time. They actually do exist. Point is, I don't know his political leanings, and obviously, neither do you. Yet you are only too happy to classify him as a liberal. It must suck to live in such a narrow timewarp.
Posted by: Former Eicher Student on February 14, 2008 07:26 PMI don't have a clue who "Former Eicher Student" is but I can well imagine that he has an opinion about President Bush. Has he ever met him?
Posted by Bill Cruchon at February 14, 2008 07:17 PM
At least you admit you haven't a clue. That is the first step to recovery.
Hmmm, just what was he implying?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 07:33 PMHmmm, just what was he implying?
Posted by Bill Cruchon at February 14, 2008 07:33 PM
He wasn't "implying" anything. He was clearly stating that choices have costs associated with them. Do you not understand written English?
I will challenge you however to come up with historic facts which prove that the Republican Party has been a racist party. Name a single piece of legislation to support your claim. Or anything else. You might be able to dredge up something. It won't be easy.
No. Perhaps you can translate.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 14, 2008 07:48 PMI'll ignore the ad hominem attack. Kind of goes with the territory when you attempt to have political discussion with liberals.
However, I do challenge BA, and any other leftists who read this blog to present any, and I mean any, evidence that Republicans have been the party of racism. Can you find any Republican sponsored racist legislation? Can you name the President that began breaking down segregation?
Gosh, given all the questions that Stefan has tried to raise on this site on this very subject, isn't this a great thing to have students thinking about?
Swatter @38 writes, I've found over the year in a large city (bigger than Moses Lake) that when people remodel or improve their house, they usually do it in an aesthetic manner without the interference of government.
Of course. Therefore Seattle (like most cities) has virtually no regulations on residential aesthetics. So what's your point, if any?
Posted by: Bruce on February 14, 2008 09:24 PMNo. Perhaps you can translate.
Posted by Bill Cruchon at February 14, 2008 07:48 PM
OK. But First you will have to provide me with a valid Platinum VISA card number, complete with expiration date, security code from the back, and name as it appears on the card. This is gonna be 'spensive. LOL
Posted by: Former Eicher Student on February 14, 2008 09:51 PMNo and no. Let's do some basic economics:
If your land value is going up, it's because people want it more than before. That's supply and demand, Econ 101.
If your taxes are going up, it's because your local governments (those funded by property tax) are spending more. Rising property values don't affect most property taxes, as long as everyone's property values rise at the same rate.
Posted by: Bruce on February 14, 2008 10:19 PMSome of these new regulations were discussed in the thread- including tree cutting, architectural/neighborhood design boards within Seattle (potentially) that would dictate doors, siding, roof and color of the house remodel. There is the difficulty in obtaining building permits, there are SEPA determinations for the most minor of projects, etc. etc. Need I go on?
Why is there such a need for all these regulations? That was my point and I don't know if I've explained any better.
Posted by: swatter on February 15, 2008 06:31 AMIt's an open challenge, leftists. What do you do, teach your kids that Lincoln was a Democrat?
Second, show me where I charged ANY political party with a history of racism.
Take your time...
Posted by: BA on February 15, 2008 07:30 AM
One general point: If you look at the post carefully, you will see that I did not mention either party. That was intentional. Though I am pretty sure that elected Democrats are more responsible for these expensive rules than elected Republicans, I was not here when most of them were enacted, and so don't know for sure what the balance of the blame should be.
Nor is it always easy to know which regulations are the most destructive. That's why, in the past, I have said that I suspected that the Growth Management Act was the main culprit, not that I knew it was.
(Of course in Seattle itself, almost all the blame can be put on Democrats, because there haven't been any elected Republicans in the city for some time.)
But it also should be said that other economists, Edward Glaeser, for instance, have found this pattern nationally: Wherever wealthy leftists run the politics of a city, housing costs soar. At this point, the evidence that leftists cause higher housing prices -- while officially decrying them -- is so strong that only the most blinded can ignore it
Posted by: Jim MIller on February 15, 2008 08:19 AMIf you were to ask people if parks and other amenities were worth over $3300 a year, not counting the additional interest and in addition to property and other taxes, they might have a different attitude.
When taxes and fees are "hidden", people typically go along. When they are itemized and broken out, people tend to have a different attitude to the charges.
True, in the end, they may agree with the extra charges, but they will normally be less content about them.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 15, 2008 08:34 AMI agree, with reservations. I do not agree that leftist policies have inflated housing as much as Eicher implies. The old lessons of supply and demand are much more responsible. Seattle and surrounding areas have had a massive influx of people in the past 30 years. The supply of housing has not been able to keep up with demand. Part of that shortage might be tied to land use regulations but we've always had zoning restrictions. They didn't just appear when liberals took over the city.
Housing prices always rise in an area with a booming economy.
You could buy a house for next to nothing back in the 1970's during the Boeing bust and the Carter presidency. It was darned hard to find a job in those days and people couldn't wait to get out of Seattle. There was a famous highway sign Jim, "will the last person leaving Seattle Turn out the Lights?"
Well, (potentially) Martians could come paint my house purple tonight. But I haven't heard any serious discussion of such design boards, and I'll happily join you in opposing any such proposal. In the meantime, don't attack unrealistic strawmen.
Posted by: Bruce on February 15, 2008 10:02 AMAll land use regulations.
Then, there would be a "control" where transportation, environmental quality, housing prices, economic strength or weaknesses, etc. could be measured and judged.
If this location proved overall that the regulations provide limited, or no benefit, or that what they were trying to achieve could be accomplished in another fashion, then what a great way to show what many of us suspect to be true.
Finding willing people to accept the potential that they might see a car repair shop on one side of their house and an apartment on the other, might be tough - but then that also means you can open your own shop or redevelop your house into apartments too. Freedom.
It would be important to reach into the building codes and eliminate "zoning" rules that are imbedded there as well.
Costly road standards, imposed by government, could be relaxed by removing any requirement that new streets be dedicated to the public - keep them in private ownership and maintained privately too. A huge cost to taxpayers is eliminated.
I once, while serving as a planning commissioner, responding to the issue of runoff into a stream from a new development and being asked to impose onerous and hard to enforce regulations suggested instead that we simply require each home owner drink a quart of runoff water a year. Figured that one way or another high water quality was guaranteed.
Lost that vote.
I'm thinking Snohomish County might be a reasonable size area to try this. I keep reading about fights over where to place a Walmart, issues of "skinny houses", transportation woes brought on by development.
All of those fights go away, because the venue for fighting (public hearings, permits, SEPA challenges, etc.) is also eliminated when there are no regulations to enforce.
Why not try this?
Or, is there anywhere in our country with comparable levels of development where this is the case?
It was doing just fine at keeping up with demand until the goodthinkers began doing their best to legislate ways to prevent the supply from doing so.
In the late '70s we began to see legal bombs aimed against the construction of utilities such as water and sewer beyond areas where the goodthinkers thought they should go. Through the '80s the bombing escalated, culminating in passage of GMA after much maneuvering in its favor by urban colonists seeking to impose, on rural property owners, drastic limitations on the free trade in private property.
Lest it be thought to be a democratically adopted 'will of the people', think again. Oh yes, the political culture in Olympia (Maria Cantwell led the charge) thought it a good thing and rammed it through. Voters had other notions altogether - they defeated a precursor of GMA by a 3 to 1 margin, accurately concerned at its devastation of their property rights.
Not content with this imposition of top-down autocracy, the goodthinkers socially engineered a pioneering new triumph in antidemocracy: the Growth Management Hearings Boards. The concept of zoning used to be somewhat democratic: it was the locally elected city or county representatives who imposed it on their close neighbors. But now, the Hearings Boards were to be politically appointed at State level, and your locally elected representatives were now trumped by these urban colonists, who could veto your whole County's will at their antidemocratic pleasure. Thus was State control of land use (a feature of fascism, by the way) achieved in Washington.
So by means of GMA autocracy, which places land use control in the hands of the greedy few, we see Seattle blossoming into a seething concentration of 'little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky' - and the idea of a house with a yard for the kids to run around in or a couple of fruit trees in the back yard has been abolished to the best of the abilities of those urban colonists.
(The writer wishes to thank Jim Miller for that valuable phrase, which after last year's theft by King County of control over 60% of rural private properties (Ron Sims, please take a bow) has proved all too prescient.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 15, 2008 10:55 AMHe talks about land use in the context of urban and rural circumstances and the relationship between the two - recognizing the needs and desires of each are different.
There are a few lessons in the book that our politicians should perhaps try and learn.
Zoning is, here I think we can agree, more politics than "planning".
I don't know that it should be otherwise, because these are restrictions we impose on ourselves enforced by police powers.
We'd probably agree too that as the regulations that are imposed become more remote to use, they're less likely to be responsive, and responsible.
A 24-unit apartment next to your house or mine increases the supply and dampens price pressure. I don't want one either.
So, what's the answer?
I think it is more citizen involvement to broaden the range of experience and opinion (but then I had to attend the meetings...), together with a strong discipline to seek to reduce, eliminate and focus on what is trying to be addressed by a regulation - rather than simply put a new rule in place because other's have that rule.
If downtown Seattle fills up with condo and apartment towers, they will represent maybe 1% of our housing stock in Puget Sound? Fine, still leaves 80% of Seattle single family with a yard and a tree.
It does also mean though that maybe 50,000 people are not on the freeway each morning.
This is the whole answer either by a long shot I know.
Posted by: BA on February 15, 2008 11:31 AMHowever, I'd still like to see a study done, because I have a feeling that 'colonists' is accurate in some circumstances. The feeling is based on the urban planner's love of the welcoming green enviroment, to be enjoyed as a view unspoiled (as Daniel Boone liked to say) by even a sign of smoke from the nearest neighbor's chimney. Where might these wide leafy havens be found? Ah - just outside the Urban Growth Areas. What's not to like about GMA, from a planner's viewpoint? By imposing that UGA, the value of the larger lots outside it has been frozen at a low value. What a splendid opportunity for the concerned planner to buy up one of these larger lots as a rural estate - just like the colonists of Africa and India used to do - to enjoy his/her enlightened perspective well out of sight of those proletarian boxes made of ticky-tacky.
So the study would simply list the addresses of the top 10,000 influential planners and 'friends' of socialist land use planning, and plot them on maps to count the number snugly settled into those made-for-colonial-occupation bands encircling the various Urban Growth Areas.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 15, 2008 11:32 AMMaybe. Liberals like Mayor Nickels think so apparently. The envision a condo and apartment filled urban core made up of people that don't own a vehicle and apparently work either downtown or someplace served by public transit.
Working for the same company I moved from an office in Seattle within bicycling distance, to an office in Redmond, and later to an office in Everett, and then back to Redmond. Getting to either the Redmond, or the Everett location without using a car would have been a time consuming exercise in misery
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 12:17 PMThe joke when I was a kid was that Boeing assigned you to the furthest factory from your home.
I have worked in the same location for 25 years, 10 minutes by car, 25 minutes by bike (hills). No one answer works for everyone for sure.
Bruce
However, I do not agree with Professor Eicher's contention that liberal land use restrictions have added as much as $200,000 to the price of a home. I just think he's off base here. It would be nice to be able to blame liberals from a political standpoint, but I just don't think his argument holds water.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 01:40 PMIt is nice to blame liberals from a political standpoint, but in this case it's even nicer to blame them from a documented study of the results of their policies. Please enlighten us: have you published your own study and its, you know, supporting documentation and stuff that refutes the good Professor? Or is this disagreement simply reactionary?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 15, 2008 02:09 PMSo you fully admit to being part of the problem. On one hand your a NIMBY who wants strong regulations to keep out neighborhood density. On the other your a strong conservative advocate who believes the Govt. should not be interfering with what you choose to do with your property.
In one sentence you basically proved that it's not the liberals who are responsible, it's the NIMBY's like yourself.
Bill and I seem to be at odds much of the time, and he can certainly defend himself.
But, I'll return to one of my original points that the source of land use regulation, and over-regulation, are shared by folks from all points of the political spectrum and from my own experience, with equal culpability at both ends of the spectrum.
Cato at #80, You are confusing conservatism, with anarchism.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 02:31 PMI completely agree, I know a city planer who works in a small suburban city near Seattle he has a whole host of city regulations that must be enforced in addition to to the state and Govt. ones.
He also spent a year and a half working with the city planning commission while they argued month after month about adding density to the city. They finally hammered out a proposal only to have it tabled by the NIBY's who occupy the city council. They were afraid that the new density would encourage rentals and drive down property values in this rather quiet low-key suburb.
I am sure that regulations cost money, I'm sure they affect the market, I'm less sure that a $200k number is "real" as an added cost to each and every housing unit in the Seattle area.
I also wonder if the costs are spread very unevenly to the benefit of some geographically, or financially, and to the detriment of others geographically or financially.
The basic point that regulations represent $200k in cost per dwelling today, begs the questions as to what was that number a couple of years ago before the last run up in housing values, and what was the number pre-GMA?
Plus, we are dealing with statistics here...
Posted by: BA on February 15, 2008 02:48 PMNot to mention, Cato that "new density" also brings with it the noise and crime of the big city to a "low-key suburb".
It's easy to accuse people of being NIMBY's but you might find yourself one too if you worked hard to live in a quiet neighborhood and politicians decided to plunk down multi-family housing in your midst.
I'd like to hear your take BA after you've read the study. I'll take a look at it this weekend as well. I may have jumped to conclusions but that $200,000 figure just seems wrong to me.
I strongly suspect that the run-up in housing prices is closely related to the Microsoft high-tech, internet boom of the '90's rather than an increase in land use regulations.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 03:16 PMPreviously, many jurisdictions (mostly cities) prohibited mobile homes outright.
(As an aside I believe the authority for cities to zone in Washington State comes from the State, for counties that might not be true...)
I wonder if that state imposed law will show up in the Professor's study as increasing, or decreasing, the cost of housing...
Posted by: BA on February 15, 2008 03:18 PMOf course we used to call them "trailers". Back when I worked in the cable TV business one of my fellow employees did an installation at a woman's "mobile home".
"That's a pretty nice trailer you've got, lady," he said.
The woman retorted, "It's NOT a trailer it's a "mobile home".
Not missing a beat, the old cable guy responded, "you drug it in here, didn't you?"
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 03:30 PMSeattle is patterned after Manhattan (my hometown) without the cultural benefits. There is no Broadway, no real museums that would hold interest longer than a couple of hours, restaurants with few exceptions are mediocre, and the night life ends at 12 PM. Seattle is after all a little town. When I first moved here in 1966 there were few native companies on the big board. There were many city blocks lacking sidewalks and no restaurants providing a proper place to hang or check a coat. Very little has changed, except there are many more potholes in the streets and a lot of bums and gang members to deal with. Corruption has become more obvious and seems to fill ever nook and cranny making up the infrastructures holding society together. Special interest groups demand more and give more to the dirty politicians of their choice. Unions, attorneys and environmentalists represent a coalition of supporters for the Democrats. Business turns to the Republicans for support or do they? Often the political cesspools are more murkier then what appears on the surface. Taxpayers, home owners, business owners get whipped around by the results. Many succesful companies just move out of this state.
The Growth Management Act has an enormous influence on property, housing and business. It was intended to do so. No surprise. The surprise is how easily society has accepted this bureaucratic monster which will have a bigger brother very shorty born of Global Warming. Good Luck to all the folks that will be asked to feed that monster over the ensuing years. It will have an enormous appetite as it grows up.
Voters seems to be ignorant of the results dolled out from the people they consistently re-elect. Its time for a change in Olympia.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 15, 2008 03:31 PMI for one welcome the density, because it means people will stop pissing on my neighbors house (which I'm sure will be torn down for townhouses), drug dealers will have no place to hide, and will increase the recreational activities in the neighborhood.
My belief is that a big part of the run up in values can be claimed by the financial industry.
If buyers still had to put down 20%, or even 10%, and mortgages were not loose, I think we would not have seen such a bidding up of prices.
Of course now we're seeing the result of that behavior nationally.
Posted by: BA on February 15, 2008 03:41 PMAnother piece of liberal paradise, eh Cato? How much more evidence do you need that your "War on Poverty", was a failure, no matter how much money was thrown at it. Liberals' anti-family and "anything goes" secular progressive 1960's philosophy is nothing but a crock.
$200,000 inflated housing prices I don't blame on liberalism. What you experience in your neighborhood Cato, I do blame on liberals.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 03:53 PMI'm not sure what you mean by mortgages being "loose".
I do believe that there has been political pressure put on lenders to not discriminate. That caused lenders to offer the now dreaded "sub-prime" loans which featured adjustable rates and/or balloon payments.
Did the practice of sub-prime lending inflate housing prices to a degree. I think probably so.
Many other companies are moving here because of it's highly educated population base. Blue Collar work seems to be slipping to the suburbs while White Collar jobs seem to be growing.
Posted by: Cato on February 15, 2008 04:33 PMI think it's more a testament to how poorly the War on Drugs is going. The poverty is more from people living on fixed incomes, I don't know what that has to do with the "War on Poverty".
The drugs dealers are successful entrepreneurs cashing in on a market base that exists in the neighborhood. They're pretty determined to keep their repeat customers and stamp out competition. Their central locale got shut down by the city which left them no choice but to expand their distribution radius into the neighborhoods.
If the drug war was a success there would be no product to distribute and these entrepreneurs would have to get legitimate jobs that feed the tax base. $6.50/hr at McD's or $3k a day on the street.
I think I'm watching someone go down with one of these mortgages. No fun to watch the desperation, the physical toll, or the angst.
But then to change the subject a bit, I might get a few dollars in the upcoming tax rebate loan program from the fed's - I think if I'm being mortgaged without my consent with this distribution of borrowed money, I can at least purchase savings bonds and own the loan...
I believe the correct response is: "I admit that leftist policies fail every time they are tried".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 15, 2008 05:21 PM"Their central locale got shut down by the city which left them no choice but to expand their distribution radius into the neighborhoods."
What "central locale" are you referring to? Please tell me you don't believe that there ought to be a "central locale" where drugs can be dealt with impunity.
I don't think that is what you meant.
A local dance club in the area seemed to serve double duty as the spot where deals were made. City pulled the clubs liquor license which pretty much put it out of business.
When these entrepreneurs saw that their clients were moving a few blocks south they followed. With that came the violence, which seems to have peaked recently. Due to the increased attention to the main boulevards the clients moved into the neighborhoods and so did the entrepreneurs. Police presence seems up, I've called them once or twice, but the crackheads remain.
At least before they had a central place to do business that wasn't in plain view of the people who live here. Cops knew where it was and settled things up like they should, but the problem still remains. Poverty or not, the product is still on the street. It's no where close to whats portrayed on The Wire but it's still a definite problem in my neighborhood.
BTW, we found out what happens to people who call the cops, they get shot in the head. The flowers, candles, and notes in front of the now locked doors look pretty stark in front of the yellow police line tape.
If the professor is correct in his analysis, then housing prices in Seattle will continue to sky-rocket, right? At what point does Santa Barbara become a cheaper place to live than Seattle?
I don't thing GMA has such a big affect as he does, but I think the reality train will hit seattle sometime soon. It's a nice town - it's not San Francisco, and you can't tax Seattle like it is...
Yes, by criminals liberals let out of prison so they can prey on innocent people.
Terribly off topic I know. But I can't let this kind of stuff just pass by.
Like I was saying, liberalism is a miserable failure. In the past few months we've seen plenty of examples. Every time I think of that poor young couple in Carnation that were murdered by a guy who stabbed his mother to death it makes me sick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 16, 2008 09:30 AMWhat the hell are you talking about?
Every time I think of that poor young couple in Carnation that were murdered by a guy who stabbed his mother to death it makes me sick.
And this has to do with home values how?
At least I my rant about the idiots who roam my neighborhood was rleated to home values (I'm assume they push them down, since no one has demolished my neighbors house yet for townhouses). I personally welcome the density because there are a few underdeveloped spaces that could really use some more desnity. If the poulation increased I'd imagine we'd have more retailers setting up in this neighborhood and that would likely clean up the area.
Cato, I admitted that it didn't. I further admitted that my response was off topic.
I was responding to your comment:
"BTW, we found out what happens to people who call the cops, they get shot in the head."
Don't play dumb and say "what are you talking about?" You aren't stupid, and I presume you read and watch the news.
:)
Both tragic, one at least preventable with longer prison sentences - the other?
Back to reading the paper on land use...
Posted by: BA on February 16, 2008 11:07 AMApologies again for going off-topic.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 16, 2008 11:28 AMI'm a bit skeptical about the inputs though, reading through the list of Wharton variables, where a number of the variables seem to have ratings that are at least potentially subjective (ranging from "not at all" - objective, to "very" - subjective?).
I'm not versed in statistics, so I can't comment on the modeling the author offers.
Reading a few of the papers cited, I note that some of the "restrictions" that are mentioned as adding cost include those zoning rules such as required setbacks to property lines, height limits, and other rules that might be seen as fairly "typical" but arguably true that any restriction adds cost.
I'm trying to decide what I think of the author's San Francisco example. He says that the price of housing increased $327k from 1989 to 2006 in constant dollars (2006), and then goes on to say "In total, all land use regulations taken together contributed just about $400,000 to the increase in housing prices in San Francisco." Do we conclude that absent land use regulations housing prices would have dropped?
My conclusions are:
1. The numbers have a level of specificity that I think exceeds the degree of accuracy they represent.
2. The numbers might be meaningful as comparisons between jurisdictions. (Here is where I think the information might have value...)
3. The benefits of the regulations seem to be absent from the Study. Some of the citations get into this in more detail and identify where land use regulations that depressed housing costs imposed external costs on both individuals and societies that exceeded the savings in housing costs.
4. The actual numbers have no actionable value.
I think as a field of study, the potential exists here for valuable contributions to determining the cost and benefit of imposing regulations. I wish I could have listened to the author on the radio yesterday to know how he characterizes the ability to use this information.
Feels a bit like a research paper on global warming, or the benefits of a glass of red wine every day. Gives everyone something to quote - but without enough understanding to be able to test the thesis to see if it is "real" or not.
Then again, perhaps everyone else that read the paper sees it differently?
Posted by: BA on February 17, 2008 12:43 PMIf you want more of something, tax and regulate it less. If you want less of something tax and regulate it more.
You want fewer homes for people, tax and regulate the supply chain.
You want fewer cars tax and regulate it more.
You want fewer businesses tax and regulate it more.
You want fewer people tax and regulate them more.
The plan works. Enjoy the results.
You probably have more dogs then children in Seattle. Let's watch the schools close.
Fewer businesses result in fewer people. What is left are people that are not producers, relying on government jobs (believe the state is the single largest employer in Washington) and companies or people relying on income/sales from outside the state. Count the manufacturing companies that have left WA state. Count the manufacturing companies that have closed their doors. Count the families that have left Seattle. The families are the backbone of a city as the children represent the future of the city. The cities outside of Seattle have a brighter future. The cities outside of Washington have a brighter future. Seattle is sliding onto the ash heap of history. Corruption just speeds it along.
There will be a time when the stadiums will be empty and the pro teams are a distant memory. The Sonics are checking out. How long before the Mariners follow? And what about the Seahawks? Will they be missed?
The ruling politicians much like any ruling class are controlling the destiny of the town and state. There is not much one can do about it, except vote with your feet. Tolls on bridges already paid for once by tolls is nothing more then to extract taxes for the general fund. A CO2 tax on cars using "Global Warming" as a reason is nothing more then a scam used to restore losses suffered in Olympia from the $30 tabs.
It is impossible for Olympia to reduce spending. They contolled Olmpia long enough to be dictators. Their positions are not threatened. Their power is secured. And like all dictators they are addicted to power and greed. And why not its your money, not theirs. They just want more. Give me more.