Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I heard somewhere that the US federal government punishes counties and cities which refuse to grow. It is said that they punish them by withholding federal funding for them unless they do what the federal government tells them. What the federal government wants is for cities and counties, all of them across the US, to plan for continuous population growth and build housing/offices/shopping in advance of it.
It doesn't matter whether the county/city grows through sprawl or through smart growth, but it seems like counties and cities aren't given the option to not grow at all. They aren't given the option to freeze development in their city, and it seems like they are almost in a sense coerced into growing because the federal government mandates them to do so.
I also heard the states do this too (perhaps because the feds tell them to do it, thus the state does it through the chain of command), and California did that to a small county by making them build more housing units despite the citizens of that county not wanting to build any more housing and keep their town small. Many suburban homeowners in that California county, and perhaps in many around the whole country would be up in arms if they are told there would be more growth in their county when they went to the suburbs to escape it all in the first place. So what is why they don't like development.
Despite this, I don't think housing prices and rental prices are simply a result of supply and demand. Building more housing doesn't necessarily lead to a lower cost for housing. For example, even if you did build a lot of units of rental housing or condos in NYC, it will not have an effect of reducing the cost of housing or if it does, the effect will be minimal and the middle class still couldn't live in downtown Manhattan or Brooklyn if they wanted to because it'd still be too expensive. Yet if NYC does cater to unlimited growth, it'd cause many problems including more traffic, more packed and lower quality schools, infrastructure strain and traffic, loss of historic neighborhoods and culture etc. The presence of tons of rich people in NYC would ensure Manhattan and nearby areas would always be expensive because landlords want to maximize profit value from the rich tenants.
What do you think about this? Do you think it is wrong for the federal government to tell counties and cities that they have to build more housing in advance even if the residents of said county/city do not want more growth to happen in their neighborhood?
Or do you think it is good that the federal government can mandate growth by withholding funds in order to ensure counties build housing so there will not be a shortage of housing?
Does the federal government really punish counties/cities by withholding funding if they do not grow at all, or is there no penalty for any county/city which chooses to not allow more growth in order to preserve their town?
Last edited by JKFire108; 03-13-2012 at 12:50 PM..
Never heard that they punish them for not growing. What they do do with some regularity is reward them for growing in the form of federal loans, partial federal funding, etc. Seattle's streetcar was partially federally funded. You could also call Natomas federally/state funded. Now that all those homes out there are already built, the developers aren't going to be looked at to pay for the necessary levees. No one said that's what occurred... but it's rather convenient.
As always, particulars go a lot farther than baseless generalizations. You say a California county was forced to build housing despite _a_ town not wanting to building housing. Unlikely, but it's possible that there was some pressure exerted that might be construed as "forcing." It's impossible to confirm or deny baseless generalizations, however. What county? What city? The federal government certainly does blackmail in some respects -- speed limits, blood alcohol levels, education, I'm just not aware that they do it in regards to growth. There I'm only aware of them using the carrot approach.
I also heard the states do this too (perhaps because the feds tell them to do it, thus the state does it through the chain of command), and California did that to a small county by making them build more housing units despite the citizens of that county not wanting to build any more housing and keep their town small. Many suburban homeowners in that California county, and perhaps in many around the whole country would be up in arms if they are told there would be more growth in their county when they went to the suburbs to escape it all in the first place. So what is why they don't like development.
This doesn't make much sense. There are plenty of places with slow or no growth, sometimes due to economic stagnation other times due to successful NIMBYism where they don't want more development, and I don't think the federal government had much influence, except if the county was restricting development in some racially discriminatory method.
Look at Nassau County, New York. Makes the list of 10 wealthiest counties in the nation, population has still not reached its 1970 population peak. There has been some slow growth, but a good deal of growth has been restricted because the suburban residents don't want more growth. I can't think of a way the feds have punished Nassau.
Quote:
Despite this, I don't think housing prices and rental prices are simply a result of supply and demand. Building more housing doesn't necessarily lead to a lower cost for housing. For example, even if you did build a lot of units of rental housing or condos in NYC, it will not have an effect of reducing the cost of housing or if it does, the effect will be minimal and the middle class still couldn't live in downtown Manhattan or Brooklyn if they wanted to because it'd still be too expensive. Yet if NYC does cater to unlimited growth, it'd cause many problems including more traffic, more packed and lower quality schools, infrastructure strain and traffic, loss of historic neighborhoods and culture etc. The presence of tons of rich people in NYC would ensure Manhattan and nearby areas would always be expensive because landlords want to maximize profit value from the rich tenants.
You're confused on how supply and demand works. Landlords want to get the highest rent people are willing to pay, high as they can, but not too high that someone would be unwilling to pay it. Currently, NYC (and to a lesser extent its suburbs) has a housing shortage; vacancy rates are very low, and people have bid up the price of scarce housing, so people who want to stay either pay lots of money or live in overcrowded conditions. If one were to magically plop housing for a million more people in New York City, the going rent would drop in both city and suburb. The landlords would be desperate for tenants and someone uninterested in paying high rent could go to a new apartment that lowered its rent in search of tenants. The high income inequality and the presence of lots of rich people makes prices higher, because rich people can pay higher prices than most, but enough housing were built, eventually fewer would be willing to pay high prices for normal sized apartments.
Traffic won't be much of an issue if the housing is placed in the denser half of the city; people don't drive frequently, and most Manhattan traffic isn't from locals anyway. If more residents who use public schools move in, the public schools are likely to get better. In many city neighborhoods that have experienced gentrification, the public schools have improved. And not all the city, or any city, is historic, careful placement could minimized most (but not all) of the damage.
Quote:
What do you think about this? Do you think it is wrong for the federal government to tell counties and cities that they have to build more housing in advance even if the residents of said county/city do not want more growth to happen in their neighborhood? Or do you think it is good that the federal government can mandate growth by withholding funds in order to ensure counties build housing so there will not be a shortage of housing? Does the federal government really punish counties/cities by withholding funding if they do not grow at all?
I'm not sure if this really exists; I'd need to see specific examples to judge. If a particular city/county chooses to have no growth, people will move elsewhere. Some place has to grow as long as there is population growth. But if it's the federal government's money, it's their choice how to spend it; local cities and counties don't have a right to federal funds.
Apparently Westchester County in New York was told by HUD that they have to build affordable housing or else they would be withheld funds by the federal government. HUD said in the letter to them that they didn't meet affordable housing targets, and by not building affordable housing they were ending up practicing a form of indirect housing discrimination against ethnic minorities. I think there should be affordable housing to ethnic minorities, but I think mandates for housing growth targets by HUD seems also can seen as too intrusive. This is what makes urban planning like this difficult. Everyone especially lower-income minorities need housing, that should always available to every family but yet a county though wants to keep their town the way it is for their charm or something they should have the right to do that. It is unfortunate these two good-intentioned goals have to conflict and it turns into this.
That sounds like a case of with holding the carrot. There was apparently an agreement to provide $63 million with the terms that the county build 750 units of low-income housing, which apparently isn't being done. It's kind of a fine line and that article is brief and doesn't do a great job of spelling it out. If it's a case where the $63 million is a regular activity where the status quo is federal government kicks back money to the state, then I'd agree it's more the stick approach. If this was a one-time deal for $63 that included building the 750 units of low-income housing, then it's more of a taking the carrot away.
So....the feds offer money to city governments to do things that further federal objectives, and if those cities don't do those things, the government shouldn't get upset about it?
Let's suppose I own a restaurant and you come in and order a cheeseburger and fries, and pay for them. But I don't want to make you a cheeseburger and fries, so I bring you a hot dog and macaroni salad instead. When you complain, I get upset that you're trying to interfere in my business. If you demand your money back and stop coming to my restaurant, maybe you're punishing me--but perhaps I did something to you that deserved punishment?
Everyone especially lower-income minorities need housing, that should always available to every family but yet a county though wants to keep their town the way it is for their charm or something they should have the right to do that. It is unfortunate these two good-intentioned goals have to conflict and it turns into this.
Good intentioned? The county wants to keep poor people out! Or maybe anyone not upper middle class.
If there's a reason a good reason to go to a place, people will want to go there. Freezing development doesn't eliminate the demand, it just reduces the supply, making everyone's real estate go through the roof (as well as their property taxes). People byt houses their income can afford, so this generally isn't a good idea for people trying to live long term in a community, especially if they want their children to be able to afford to live there to. If it's some resort town, that's another story. I don't think the federal government shapes that town's must grow, your picture of what towns might do, like ban all development, doesn't happen outside the US, even in countries with not dissimilar urban development patterns like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Good intentioned? The county wants to keep poor people out! Or maybe anyone not upper middle class.
I do not think that racism or keeping poor people out of the community is a good intention. What I meant by my former comment was keeping their community small and the way it was. It is more in terms of lets say keeping development small or non-existant so it wouldn't do something like demolish a historical downtown main street to add apartments, or pave over forests/farms/wilderness for suburban housing. Preservation of historical downtowns or nearby open space/wilderness/farmland would be good intentions don't you think? Sometimes the needs of affordable housing for poor minorities can conflict with those goals of preserving historic places and/or wilderness and farmland. I don't know this specific instance of Westchester county of where the affordable housing would be built and what it would demolish to make way for them (I assume greenfield because it seems like suburban housing) but I'm just thinking in general it would be a good intention to save historic downtowns and wilderness/farms.
In suburban areas, adding more housing can lead to increased traffic too and people like the nature which goes away as more people come in. I would never support any community that intentionally tries to keep African Americans or Hispanics who are lower income out of their community through zoning. I didn't even know that it was an issue at first with keeping poor ethnic minorities out, but rather it was simply an issue regarding things like preserving asthetics and the peaceful nature space of a suburb, as well as things like noise or traffic.
I would think that rich people in a community that is sparsely populated and semi-rural would want to keep it that way, and would still take issue if HUD wanted to increase the number of units of housing whether they be market rate housing for upper middle class or affordable housing for lower income minorities. A mansion owner in the wilderness would not like it if a developer built a suburban subdivision where there was once forest nearby their house where they and their kids played and hunted, even if the subdivision is an exclusive rich community. Many times they do however take more issue with lower income minorities moving in unfortunately.
Last edited by JKFire108; 03-14-2012 at 10:10 AM..
I do not think that racism or keeping poor people out of the community is a good intention. What I meant by my former comment was keeping their community small and the way it was. It is more in terms of lets say keeping development small or non-existant so it wouldn't do something like demolish a historical downtown main street to add apartments, or pave over forests/farms/wilderness for suburban housing. Preservation of historical downtowns or nearby open space/wilderness/farmland would be good intentions don't you think? Sometimes the needs of affordable housing for poor minorities can conflict with those goals of preserving historic places and/or wilderness and farmland. In suburban areas, adding more housing can lead to increased traffic too and people like the nature which goes away as more people come in. I would never support any community that intentionally tries to keep African Americans or Hispanics who are lower income out of their community through zoning. I didn't even know that it was an issue at first with keeping poor ethnic minorities out, but rather it was simply an issue regarding things like preserving asthetics and the peaceful nature space of a suburb, as well as things like noise or traffic.
I would think that rich people in a community that is sparsely populated and semi-rural would want to keep it that way, and would still take issue if HUD wanted to increase the number of units of housing whether they be market rate housing for upper middle class or affordable housing for lower income minorities. A mansion owner in the wilderness would not like it if a developer built a suburban subdivision where there was once forest nearby their house where they and their kids played and hunted, even if the subdivision is an exclusive rich community. Many times they do however take more issue with lower income minorities moving in unfortunately.
Well, which do you think should take priority?
"Preservig asthetics" is often a code phrase for NIMBY!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
