Article: "Stop all spending on roads and divert all funds to rail." Your thoughts? (Atlanta: real estate, student loans)

[johnnyauburn]

Just saw this, its like he's talking about Atlanta specifically...

The World Has Little Use For A Suburban American Single Family Home Priced Over $250K
Gregor MacDonald, Gregor.us | Apr. 26, 2012, 7:59 AM | 3,953 | 29


Text removed. This text is copyrighted by the author. You have not provided a link to the source and may not copy or repost this article w/o the permission of the author. Please provide a link only, to any articles you wish for others to see. The title remains for folks to try to Google it if they have interest. - Moderator

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

If there’s one asset the world has little use for, it’s an American single family home priced above 250K, reachable only by car.

One man's opinion. There are still plenty of them being bought, sold and built up by me, so apparently the whole world doesn't share his opinion.

[johnnyauburn]

The fact that people buy them does not indicate that they are more useful than other alternatives.

The truth is that people buy $250k+ homes in the suburbs for only a few reasons: safety, schools and cost of living. But, and excuse me if I'm missing something here as I've never been a homeowner, the schools seem to be a function of the people that live in their district, not the other way around.

And it seems logical to assume that if people moved back towards the city to "unsafe" areas, that those areas would receive more attention, potentially making them safer.

As for the cost of living, could the potential increase in cost due to taxes not be offset by the savings in gas, vehicle wear and tear, etc...?

Maybe its because I'm young and I don't want to believe that I'm doomed to live in the 'burbs if I want to send my children to a good public school and have a yard without offering my firstborn as a sacrifice but isn't all this just a little bit unreasonable and a lot unsustainable?

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

Removed - see note in OP

One problem he fails to mention is building denser around these rail or bus lines has to coincide with this change he is proposing. If people fight against building denser housing in these suburbs he thinks should build only rail and BRT, it's not going to work. This notion he is proclaiming will not work in every part of the country. It's a cultural preference that has to be present in a region to work. If people in a region don't embrace rapid transit already in the form of subways, commuter rail, lightrail/streetcars, and bus rapid transit for their community as an option other than automobile usage, his opinion falls on deaf ears. He has lived in cities that already embrace transit. Until he moves to a city that is against rapid transit and see's it as a means for poor people to get around, he won't truly understand the difficulty in what he is proposing. Regions that embrace transit are dense and provide an environment that compliments the use of transit. Sprawled cities will never be able to embrace transit until they reach high densities.

[neil0311]

If they did that, the TSPLOST and any future versions of the same would go down to blazing defeat with a vote of about 70% against.

[Onthemove2014]

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

The fact that people buy them does not indicate that they are more useful than other alternatives.

The truth is that people buy $250k+ homes in the suburbs for only a few reasons: safety, schools and cost of living. But, and excuse me if I'm missing something here as I've never been a homeowner, the schools seem to be a function of the people that live in their district, not the other way around.

And it seems logical to assume that if people moved back towards the city to "unsafe" areas, that those areas would receive more attention, potentially making them safer.

As for the cost of living, could the potential increase in cost due to taxes not be offset by the savings in gas, vehicle wear and tear, etc...?

Maybe its because I'm young and I don't want to believe that I'm doomed to live in the 'burbs if I want to send my children to a good public school and have a yard without offering my firstborn as a sacrifice but isn't all this just a little bit unreasonable and a lot unsustainable?

1. You are totally right about the schools and neighborhoods issues.

2. As far as not owning a car offsetting the high rents in safe urban areas, that really depends on a few things.

a. Is the city urban enough to not ever need a car?
b. most safe urban purchases are nearly double the cost of something simmilar in the burbs. Do you need the space or are you willing to live in unsafe bad school urban area?
c. Wont the cost of urban living go up as it get more desirable and land gets scarce? Is gas and car payment really enough to offset pay nearly double for what you had in the burbs?

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by Gregor MacDonald

Advantages will accrue, therefore, to US residential real estate near rail lines. Cities that wish to thrive will need to face up to these realities soon by halting all investment in roads and highways, diverting transport funding to rail and BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), and by extending these transport networks further into residential communities through walking and bike paths.

Well...I've heard a lot of doom and gloom-sters over the years. As president, Jimmy Carter was wearing sweaters and basically telling America that it was time for our country to downsize and lower our expectations by doing with less. And there even was a prediction in the 1970s that by the year 2000, the world would be out of oil.

Running Out of Oil - The Naked Scientists April 2008

The latest is people preaching that we need to acquire gold and silver as a hedge against the coming collapse. Maybe they're right but it does seem funny to me that they are willing to part with their gold and silver and sell it to us in exchange for cash.

But to HALT investment in roads and highways in favor or rail and BRT? That strikes me as a "Chicken Little" approach. I don't think things are so dire that we should halt road construction and focus on building out rail lines and bicycle paths. The market will sort things out when needed. Really, we have a rich history of really bad pundits and prognosticators.

[cittic10]

I wouldn't say "ALL funds" .

There's no reason we can't have both a road network and a rail system.
I don't think we should go adding lanes, letting people drive on the friggin shoulder, etc until some rail is in place.

It takes an investment to set these things up and time for people to warm up to them.

[nrgpill]

An urban booster from Portland? color me surprised.... At least NYC has a clear cut geographical border, in which you can develop and redevelop vertically. But Portland has been forged w/ an artificial border, yet the liberals out there are quite adamant about keeping everything within the city limits. Where are the jobs in Portland? What industry thrives up there? Does it not seem like a bigger Asheville (good place to live, but not a good place for employment)?

I do agree somewhat on the housing trend but i don't subscribe to pile-ons by the media just because it's a fad today. IMO the truth is somewhere inbetween.

[BobKovacs]

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

The fact that people buy them does not indicate that they are more useful than other alternatives.

Actually, it kinda does. People tend to buy things that they find useful- things that don't serve a purpose (as the author proposes) don't tend to last very long in the free market.

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

The truth is that people buy $250k+ homes in the suburbs for only a few reasons: safety, schools and cost of living.

Yeah, I'd say those are among the chief reasons- and I'd say they're fairly important to most people. Others might include not wanting to live on the other side of a wall from your neighbor in a highrise, wanting to have a new home that doesn't require constant repairs/maintenance, wanting to be an area with new roads, sidewalks and utilities, and wanting the amenities that many suburban neighborhoods offer like pools, clubhouses, etc.

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

But, and excuse me if I'm missing something here as I've never been a homeowner, the schools seem to be a function of the people that live in their district, not the other way around.

You're presuming that the area is homogeneous enough that you've got a good portion of "the people who live there" actively particpating in the school. That tends to be the case on many of the burbs, especially when there are plenty of mom's who can afford to stay home and participate. In many inner-city areas, you've got both a mix of socioeconomic classes in a school, and plenty of two-income families, which can limit participation. There are some areas that have gentrified enough that the schools have improved, but if you plan on doing some "urban pioneering", you'll likely be getting in too early.

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

And it seems logical to assume that if people moved back towards the city to "unsafe" areas, that those areas would receive more attention, potentially making them safer.

Sure- assuming you can survive long enough to make it until the area has "received enough attention" to become safer. It also depends on how willing you are to deal with petty crime, etc. I've got a guy in my office who lives in Grant Park, and he's had his house broken into three times. Two of those times were within a week of one another- they stole his TV, and came back a week later and stole the TV he bought to replace the first one. That's not a condition that everyone is willing to deal with, but he doesn't seem to mind too much.

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

As for the cost of living, could the potential increase in cost due to taxes not be offset by the savings in gas, vehicle wear and tear, etc...?

It's not just the taxes that you need to overcome- it's the higher cost of housing and some other items as well. Gas tends to be more expensive intown than in the burbs, as do groceries- higher rents yield higher prices. If I was to buy a home even remotely close what I have now in a good, safe intown neighborhood, I'd easily add $300k to my mortgage, which would add another probably $1,500/month to my monthly payment with taxes. That would pay for my car payment, gas, maintenance, etc., twice over- so it's not as simple as you want to make it sound.

Originally Posted by johnnyauburn

Maybe its because I'm young and I don't want to believe that I'm doomed to live in the 'burbs if I want to send my children to a good public school and have a yard without offering my firstborn as a sacrifice but isn't all this just a little bit unreasonable and a lot unsustainable?

Yeah, maybe it's because you're young- priorities change with time in many cases. And you don't have to offer your firstborn in sacrifice to live intown and have great schools and a yard- just make sure you don't spend $80k in student loans getting a degree in French literature- you'll need to make some decent cash to fulfill your dream, which will require a job that pays well.