Economics of Land Use in Dallas County (Irving, Center: apartments, for rent)

[Dallaz]

I’ve seen this on Reddit and thought I should share.

The take away is that single family neighborhoods don’t bring in the tax revenue to sustain a city like people think. It’s the higher density or urban/mixed use neighborhoods that generates a lot of tax revenue. Suburban Dallas Co cities, contrary to what people believe, don’t generate more tax revenue than places like Bishop Arts District/Jefferson Blvd in Oak Cliff. In other words, single family neighborhoods are being subsidized. Suburbs like Irving is better off because of the Las Colinas Urban Center. Most suburban Dallas Co cities don’t have a robust downtown area like that. That’s why there’s a need for more urban development within the County. Dallas proper it taking on most of the tax burden, but NIMBYism is what kills a lot of urbanization.

Here’s the link the to the presentation from the City of Dallas

https://dallastx.new.swagit.com/videos/295377

2D Map of Dallas County



3D Map of Dallas County





3D map of Dallas County without Dallas proper



3D map of the City of Dallas

[rabbit33]

Well, it's hardly earth-shaking information to state that central city areas have a higher per-acre assessed value.

Less dense areas are only being ”subsidized” if you can demonstrate that they are consuming a larger fraction of city services PER TAX DOLLAR PAID than central city dense areas.

So, rather than misusing the bleeding obvious information to support your particular political position, how about presenting THOSE data? I suspect that actual data would show that on a PER TAX DOLLAR PAID basis, central city areas with high density consume a similar amount of city services as less dense areas.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by rabbit33

Well, it's hardly earth-shaking information to state that central city areas have a higher per-acre assessed value.

Less dense areas are only being ”subsidized” if you can demonstrate that they are consuming a larger fraction of city services PER TAX DOLLAR PAID than central city dense areas.

So, rather than misusing the bleeding obvious information to support your particular political position, how about presenting THOSE data? I suspect that actual data would show that on a PER TAX DOLLAR PAID basis, central city areas with high density consume a similar amount of city services as less dense areas.

Well, did you watch the presentation? I wish I could see the full report but it’s difficult to find. Suburban areas are consuming more services, that includes parts of Dallas proper. I thought it’s universally known that lower density areas are more difficult to service because they’re spread out. The amount of infrastructure that it requires can never be covered or paid by the taxpayer, when it’s time for replacement. They’ve been saying that since the 1950s, believe it or not. Even though it’s expensive as hell to maintain, some people like it. But at the same time, we have to be honest with ourselves about the cost of maintaining it.

[Sunbather]

I can't speak to 'subsidizing' - but it's a well documented fact that, on average, suburban developments are more energy intensive than urban developments. Typical energy consumption per person in suburban developments is about 25% more than urban developments across the US.

The cost to get the infrastructure up and running is more expensive and the service size needed is larger per person (also marginally more expensive).

That's just raw energy usage and infrastructure cost per person. If you want to add "per tax dollar paid", that's an extra variable I don't have on hand to compare in a meaningful way.

[EDS_]

There is huge distinction between generating less tax money per surface acre and those areas being subsidized.


Further, the analysis is wantonly incomplete. The areas that generate the most DTD, BA, Uptown etc. do so per business activity by large factors over housing.


The people who work in DTD, BA, Upton etc. often live in SFHs........in other words SFHs support business activity.


_______



The densification fetishists should be figuring out ways to generate some tax money from the vast areas in Dallas south of I-30 that are in fact subsidized now as so much land there generates between very little in taxes.

Grease the skids for builders to erect all the apartments, coops, and multiplexes supportable.


The day someone builds a duplex in my neighborhood - I'm out.


Speaking of that if older areas see increases in population per area how will our already stressed fresh water, storm sewer and especially sanitary sewer systems tolerate that?

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by EDS_

...
Speaking of that if older areas see increases in population per area how will our already stressed fresh water, storm sewer and especially sanitary sewer systems tolerate that?

You're not supposed to ask those questions. HAMSTER LIVING GOOD!!! PRIVACY, REDUCED NOISE, OWNING YOUR OWN PROPERTY BAD!!! All those practical questions just prove you're an evil Boomer who continues to resist the lifestyle your betters have designed for you.

Glad I could clear all that up for you.

[Dallaz]

My lord people are jumping to conclusions. The whole idea is to create more housing options, not get rid of single family homes. Hell, I live in a SFH! Why can’t a developer turn an underutilized shopping center into a mixed use development? It’s because of NIMBYism. People want no change and feel like they get to decide what a person can do with land that’s NOT zoned single family. I’ve said this many times, commercial corridors/districts and around DART stations at the very least should see density. It’s true, the boomers are what controls Dallas, since they’re the vast majority of who’s voting in city elections. They’re still trying to shape the future of this city, that many will never live to see.

Yes, Southern Dallas should see growth. There’s a long history of the City of Dallas not funding the proper infrastructure to support growth. That’s intentional and has never been resolved. The city doesn’t have the money to replace the rapidly failing infrastructure all over the city. If you live in Dallas, we all see it. Council member Omar Narvaez said it’s all hitting them at once. That’s why the city wants voters to vote in favor of another bond package ($1.2 Billion) and the 2017 bond isn’t even complete yet.

If the future look like more of the same, no slight adjustment to fit with today’s generation, then the future looks bleak as hell.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

My lord people are jumping to conclusions. The whole idea is to create more housing options, not get rid of single family homes. Hell, I live in a SFH! Why can’t a developer turn an underutilized shopping center into a mixed use development? It’s because of NIMBYism. People want no change and feel like they get to decide what a person can do with land that’s NOT zoned single family. I’ve said this many times, commercial corridors/districts and around DART stations at the very least should see density. It’s true, the boomers are what controls Dallas, since they’re the vast majority of who’s voting in city elections. They’re still trying to shape the future of this city, that many will never live to see.

Yes, Southern Dallas should see growth. There’s a long history of the City of Dallas not funding the proper infrastructure to support growth. That’s intentional and has never been resolved. The city doesn’t have the money to replace the rapidly failing infrastructure all over the city. If you live in Dallas, we all see it. Council member Omar Narvaez said it’s all hitting them at once. That’s why the city wants voters to vote in favor of another bond package ($1.2 Billion) and the 2017 bond isn’t even complete yet.

If the future look like more of the same, no slight adjustment to fit with today’s generation, then the future looks bleak as hell.

Please do not hurt yourself!
People want a house! They want a garage! The American Dream is well and alive no matter what. A handful wants to live in silos.
Booing boomers does not change the fact that they earned and hold a lot of purse strings in the US. Quite a few have 20+ years left:>)

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by Threestep2

Please do not hurt yourself!
People want a house! They want a garage! The American Dream is well and alive no matter what. A handful wants to live in silos.
Booing boomers does not change the fact that they earned and hold a lot of purse strings in the US. Quite a few have 20+ years left:>)

So, people can’t own a condo or townhome (with a garage)?!

Why do people think everyone wants to live the exact same way? Bishop Arts and Uptown aren’t cheap for a reason. There’s a demand to live in those areas and it’s limited within the city. The idea is housing options. SFH, condos, townhomes, duplexes, apartments, etc are all needed in a city the size of Dallas. Dallas isn’t a suburb, we live in the city. That is what will make it more affordable for younger generations who want a home. Some Boomers have a nonchalant attitude because they already have their home. If this city never embraced change in its history, it wouldn’t have grown into the city that it is today.

People feel like they’re entitled to control land use that’s not zoned single family. Single family areas makes more sense to maintain as is, if the neighborhood want to, but the idea of controlling what’s not even your land needs to end. Stifling a city’s growth doesn’t help with home prices.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

My lord people are jumping to conclusions. The whole idea is to create more housing options, not get rid of single family homes. Hell, I live in a SFH! Why can’t a developer turn an underutilized shopping center into a mixed use development? It’s because of NIMBYism. People want no change and feel like they get to decide what a person can do with land that’s NOT zoned single family. I’ve said this many times, commercial corridors/districts and around DART stations at the very least should see density. It’s true, the boomers are what controls Dallas, since they’re the vast majority of who’s voting in city elections. They’re still trying to shape the future of this city, that many will never live to see.

Yes, Southern Dallas should see growth. There’s a long history of the City of Dallas not funding the proper infrastructure to support growth. That’s intentional and has never been resolved. The city doesn’t have the money to replace the rapidly failing infrastructure all over the city. If you live in Dallas, we all see it. Council member Omar Narvaez said it’s all hitting them at once. That’s why the city wants voters to vote in favor of another bond package ($1.2 Billion) and the 2017 bond isn’t even complete yet.

If the future look like more of the same, no slight adjustment to fit with today’s generation, then the future looks bleak as hell.

I'm not jumping to conclusions I've read and heard others but especially this Patrick Kennedy guy go off on various topics over the years. He wants to change virtually everything about how people in Dallas live and make business.....tree mandates, un-zone nearly all new build off street parking, tear down vital freeways and let nature take its course afterwards, greatly minimize required green space around new builds, virtually eliminate footage minimums and on and on. And yes he flat out wants zoning changes that would allow investors to tear-down SFHs and build duplexes and triplexes and in some cases apartments (if he's recently softened his tone about this I'm willing to listen).

Anyone who thinks corporate owned residential RE is problem now just wait until BlackRock or some REIT/PE fund buys out multiple adjoining homes and installs flatpack tiny homes or short box container homes leaving virtually no yard space and then plants, "For Rent" signs out front. That'll be beautiful.

I'm a boomer and I plan to be here a long time. However, the more I hear and read about planner types and their desire to morph Dallas into a new version of old, cramped, tight, anti-car cities the more worried I get. If I preferred Baltimore or Philadelphia I'd move.

I'd tend to support zoning changes that would shake things up in lightly populated areas and your point about zones around industry and other spots like ex-shopping malls etc. makes sense to me. But don't risk wrecking old like neighborhoods in the process.



This was dense.
https://www.hongkongev.com/news/kowloon-walled-city