The topic of this post might be considered just a bit of daydreaming, but it is something that is being talked about seriously in many different areas of the country. Hell, in the 1960's no one would have though about Indianapolis consolidating with Marion County, and probably would have thought it would not have worked. Well, here we are, it's 2009, and after 39 years of UniGov, I would have to say that on balance, things have worked out alright for the city. We are one of the few metros in the Midwest that have seen appreciable growth in this millennium, and we vastly outperform the rest of the state. The strength of Marion County has also drawn significant interest in the surrounding counties and increased the fortune of the whole metro area as a result.
One negative result of this is that the city's core is often said to have been sacrificed for the outlying regions. And on the surface this would seem to be true. But on the other hand, there surely were other things that brought about the down fall of the central city - namely the subsidized mobility provided by the IHS highways(I-70, I-65) that cut through the city and FHA/VA loan guarantees that heavily favored single-family detached homes. That's not to mention urban renewal projects that wrecked the urban landscape.
The most negative aspect, in reality, of the consolidation seems to be what should be obvious: The lack of ability for planners to create workable plans for a whole city and city government's inability to look for ways to lower costs and therefore revenue needed to operate. Consolidation provided a chance for the city to dramatically lower the costs of operation, but little incentive to do so. It created a city council that rarely if ever properly represented the will of the electorate, and seemed to have little to no transparency. Therefore, many of the supposed benefits of consolidation were left untouched for many years. Twenty-five years after the fact, people started finally wanting to realize those benefits, and few thought about what might have been. The dynamics and efficiency of local government might have been dramatically altered - and more than likely for the better. But now we are tearing down the legacy of over two decades of ignoring the benefits of consolidation, and therefore the costs are higher and benefits lower.
But today we have a chance to alter the city's path and forge a legacy for the future of Indianapolis. I would like to propose that we become the first city(to my knowledge) to go out and preemptively create the metro-region as a unified political unit. This would create a City of Indianapolis that has 1.7 Million residents and covers(some would say sprawls over) some 3139 Sq. Miles(That's 541/Sq. Mile). So what be different in this new 5th largest city in America? Quite a bit.
First of all, a single political structure would allow for there to be a single tax structure. This reduces the moving of people and corporations within the area for tax advantages. And also, the tax burden would be spread evenly amongst all residents in the economic area. But, surely, there are disadvantages to this. And we will discuss and remedy those below. The one thing that is truly exciting about this is that allows for a whole region to experiment with new methods of taxation which would not be possible if confined to a smaller geographical area, namely a retail sales tax displaces more traditional forms of municipal taxation. This is something that could allow the region to really explode, as corporations could relocate operations or build new facilities in Indianapolis and owe no property or income tax to the city or county, it could give them a competitive advantage over others in their industry. This would in turn bring many more jobs, and maybe better paying jobs to the region. This could allow for a region-wide boom in many key economic areas. Such a proposal could do more for creating a life sciences sector than subsidies. The state of Missouri is looking into enacting such a reform state-wide right now - we might have already lost the opportunity to gain first mover advantage.*
The other advantage is that infrastructure could be planned regionally, and the City at large would have an interest in putting its assets into improving the outlying areas. Speedway has really been selling themselves short by trying to rely on the assets on their own tax base to market what should be a premier location for motorsport and craft automotive manufacturing businesses. Also, all benefactors of regional infrastructure will be stakeholders as well, since they will pay the taxes that will finance them.
Of course, municipal services could be combined and streamlined, and duplicated posts could be eliminated. This would bring about many cost savings, and could help bring down the total tax burden on the populace. But from past experience, we have to be realistic about the gains that can be had here. We must focus the main selling points on regional unity and revenue stabilization. If the suburban communities and the central city refuse to cooperate with each other as separate entities, then maybe the best option for the electorate would be to merge them into one entity.
One neutral point, or a point that could be negative or positive or of no consequence depending on how you look at it, is that bringing the collar county communities into the fold would also bring about a greater balance of power between the two major parties throughout the region. Currently, the Democrats hold a large amount of power in the region due to their influence in the central city, but Republicans are still popular in the outlying regions(but they hold sway over a large quantity of smaller municipalities). This means that in total, there really is a balance in terms of political sentiment in the region, and it could be argued that this should be reflected in the governance of said region.
Now, let's take a look at some of the cons of this approach, and how they might be addressed.
The most commonly heard reproach to this idea is that it would dilute the representation of the residents of the collar county communities. Since they would only be voting for a fraction of a larger executive and a couple seats in the legislative branches, their vote would affect policy much less directly. Plus, now people from other communities would have a say in some fashion as to what policies are enacted in their local communities.
The way in which I would go about resolving this issue could make it into a possible positive. Going along with the "City of 100 Monument Circles" idea, zoning power, local street treatment, local parks management, and other small locally-oriented elements of municipal policy would be devolved to local, elected, but volunteer Neighborhood councils. These elected councils would then select a City-County Councilman to represent their Neighborhood interest. City-County Councilmen would receive a non-career level of compensation strictly for attendance. This ensures that they a) Are still engaged in their Community; b) Will represent their community's interest; and c) Will actually be present at Council meetings. This method is hashed out of methods used in the Constitution of the United States of America, and also the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire. I believe the latter will work because at 1.7 Million people, Indianapolis will be of a similar size population wise to New Hampshire.
The second critique of consolidation is that it will make way simply for outlying communities tax burdens to be raised to cover the debts of the central city. It is imaginable that the burden will be raised somewhat. But the greater question is this, what have those communities gotten for virtually free for so long? The City has invested millions and millions of dollars in infrastructure to allow for commuters to come into Indianapolis to make a living. But this almost never gets done until it has to because the funding devices in place do not capture the needed revenue from outside Marion County to fund these projects. The result of the procrastination? Higher cost infrastructure that usually comes at a lower quality. It is my hope that innovative funding mechanisms will be experimented with in a New Indianapolis, and these will incite a fevered boom for the City and put downward pressure on per capita taxation.
There is simply too many other facets of this to cover, and I will try to spend some time on small subsets of policy related to this topic in posts in the future, but this post has grown quite long. Join the discussion in the comments section below and let me know what you think of this idea and what might be the fallout if it were to seriously come to pass, as well as any other solutions you can create to apparent issues with consolidation.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
A proposal - You Supply the Means
At the turn of the century, Clarian Health Partners went about a very unique and ambitious undertaking - building the first privately-operated public rail system that runs over public right-of-way. Called the People Mover, it's outward purpose was to create a convenient means for doctors, patients, and visitors to move effortlessly from Methodist on 16th St. to the rest of Clarian/IU's campus near IUPUI. But they made a curious move, they allowed the general public to use the system, free of charge. They also asked for no public assistance in building this system. I believe this project was a watershed moment for our City for a few reasons:
This makes me wonder, could a larger system be built downtown from private funds and operated for a small fare and be as successful? Or even more? And the larger question, what form would this system take, for-profit or not?
Why would a not-for-profit system come about? The same reason the Clarian system was built, it directly served the needs of those footing the bill. The system that I propose is 10.5 Miles of new track, which I believe would cost $90 Million dollars. Debt service would be roughly $18 Million a year I believe, which is really untenable. But I believe there is a number of users in Downtown Indy that could raise the money to create the system and pay for it upfront. This would save an enormous amount of cash.
Of course, there could be a case made for a private system operating for profit, but I might have to be convinced of this working without having lines that service the areas outside of Center Township, which of course increases the cost tremendously. I would love to see this.
So, below I will give a tentative route structure for the system, and you tell me in the comments, how this could happen without ANY transfer of money from the City, State, or Federal Governments. Also, feel free to discuss if you believe this coming to fruition would even be a boon for Downtown at all, or to bash my route structure. As feedback starts rolling in, I'll present more complete thoughts on how the system would operate with incredibly low operating costs.
- It showed that leaders in the City were capable of innovation
- It showed that the public does not NEED government intervention to provide alternative transportation services
- It showed that we can move quickly to embrace the option that best suits the needs of downtown transit users.
This makes me wonder, could a larger system be built downtown from private funds and operated for a small fare and be as successful? Or even more? And the larger question, what form would this system take, for-profit or not?
Why would a not-for-profit system come about? The same reason the Clarian system was built, it directly served the needs of those footing the bill. The system that I propose is 10.5 Miles of new track, which I believe would cost $90 Million dollars. Debt service would be roughly $18 Million a year I believe, which is really untenable. But I believe there is a number of users in Downtown Indy that could raise the money to create the system and pay for it upfront. This would save an enormous amount of cash.
Of course, there could be a case made for a private system operating for profit, but I might have to be convinced of this working without having lines that service the areas outside of Center Township, which of course increases the cost tremendously. I would love to see this.
So, below I will give a tentative route structure for the system, and you tell me in the comments, how this could happen without ANY transfer of money from the City, State, or Federal Governments. Also, feel free to discuss if you believe this coming to fruition would even be a boon for Downtown at all, or to bash my route structure. As feedback starts rolling in, I'll present more complete thoughts on how the system would operate with incredibly low operating costs.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Hey everyone, this is just a test of mobile blogging. I think this feature may allow me to publish a lot more content on this blog. Look forward to more!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Upcoming projects
While I have a few moments to spare, I wanted to detail to anyone who still bothers to check this site out the projects that I hope to coordinate and host through The INDYpendent. I have realized that I have not the time or resources to complete many of my ambitious projects by myself. I hope to use collaborative technologies such as Facebook, YouTube, Google Docs, Google Earth, SketchUp, and others to allow the development community as a whole to lay the framework to guide private advocacy groups in accomplishing many objectives that I believe are very much worth the effort.
Senate Street Revamp Proposal
This first project is something that I myself have been trying to work on for the better part of a year now. No excuses, but I have not made nearly as much progress as I had hoped. I am looking for individuals who are interested in spending a small amount of time out of their week acquiring a little info. I'll beak down this important stretch of Senate - from Michgan to 11th St - into blocks and ask each person to provide the following for the lots on their respective block:
-Lot Size(Sq. ft. and frontage if available)
-Lot owner
-Current use/zone
-History of lot use(if available) and age of current structure
-Pictures
-Description of urban profile
-Description of architecture
This information will be compiled and presented as a post on The INDYpendent day by day. As this information is published, I will take feedback from the comments and the contributors and develop an "Opportunity Plan" for the local community association and other private development advocacy groups that operate in the area. I will also try my best to contact Realtors in the area and get their opinion on the potential for the area as a whole, as well as select parcels. I will maintain relevant documents for public contribution on Google Docs, and will post picture submissions to my personal Flickr account. As a last step, I may work with interested individuals to produce a PDF and video presentation for distribution, and in the case of the latter, sharing with the general public.
The format above is very similar to the format that I hope to use for all later projects. Public contributors will collaborate through online tools and help with valuable research and "leg work", while I will assemble, edit, and publish the body of work. All contributors will have their work credited in detail.
City-Owned Center Township Parcel Liquidation Advocacy Project
This project will echo that of the above in form, but will serve a much different purpose. Actually, the purpose is three fold: To inform taxpayers about the sheer amount of land that the City and State own in the heart of the City Center; To inform policy makers to the possible financial return on liquidating these real assets; And to advocate for said liquidation of all appropriate parcels within the City Center.
Contributors will be responsible for tackling a quadrant of the city and identifying the properties that are State and City owned but not currently developed, or well underdeveloped with an older, poorly performing asset. They will provide largely the same information as in the Senate project, if applicable. True urban parks, not green fields, will not be included unless they are obviously of a transient mature.
After the presentation of this data, which will happen one quadrant per day, I will attempt to use Realtor and internet resources to ascertain the approxiamate windfall to the governments and attempt to gauge the development potential of each parcel and guesstimate the long term effect on tax coffers of the projects I will publish this in a series of posts, and culminate the project with a PDF presentation of the findings, and as before, seek help in producing a video presentation to present to policy makers and the general public.
Indianapolis Alumni Network Project
This project is similar in structure to the above projects, but contributors will ideally be ex-pats themselves, or recently returned "boomerangers" from another City. Contribution will be taken on a as needed basis to study topic areas related to building a successful Alumni Network. Other contributions in the form of being lead points in other cities for the Network will also eventually be needed as the Network's strategy is ironed out.
For the initial part of the project, we must first look at what links are most likely to create a lasting impact on ex-pats. At the same time, we will look at successful Alumni networks of all sorts and see what model is best emulated by an Urban Alumni Network. When a strategy is in place, I will coordinate and attempt to raise funds for a marketing campaign as well as research that can help us find the sort of people that we are hoping to reach.
It is my sincere hope that this project gains a life of its own, and flourishes into an organization many other Tier 2 cities can be jealous of.
The Circle City Project
This is a project, which will be collaborative in the form listed above, that will start as a low-priority long-term undertaking. The basis for this project is an idea which I believe was started by The Urbanophile, Aaron Renn. In a post last year, Mr. Renn stated that a possible vision for success for Indianapolis is a model called something like "100 Monument Circles". I believe that this is a unique and powerful development strategy for the City of Indianapolis, and one that I think our City is particularly well suited for. But I believe that fleshing out that concept is selling ourselves short.
I believe that now is the time for Indianapolis to have its Burnham Plan. We have an opportunity to actively involve the entire private sector of our economy to craft a plan and brand strategy for our city for the next 100 years. This is a great chance for us to look at alternative means of doing all sorts of things, from local revenue collection, to revamping or replacing the single-use zoning regime, to decentralizing control of community schools. It would also allow us to set a bar for design in the city, as well as find ways that the private sector and general public can act voluntarily to improve public spaces and the "small details" of the urban experience.
Contributors will need to be many and of various talents, and would be given large swaths of time to finish research. Our initial stage will be a thorough planning of all things that would need to be included in the plan, followed by a information gathering stage where summaries of various similar plans throughout US history would be compiled and published. Then teams of contributors would begin work on developing various areas of the plan, while I worked on raising funds and hoping to attract mainstream attention(as well hopefully pro bono talent) to the undertaking.
After several months of this sort of work - with me posting the occassional progress reports and sharing all research with the general public through Google Docs - We would begin working to place the pieces together into a comprehensive plan with high quality renderings and artwork, as well as maps, charts, projections, and more. I would then host and distribute a copy of it online and, funds permitting, publish a printed copy for distribution to business and community leaders throughout the city.
In conclusion, I hope that I have imparted the fact that I really am committed to making this not just a personal spot for me to bloviate about the topics of the day, but a place where the interested public can come to participate in something that very well may make a positive change to our city and region. Feel free to contact me at anytime with question, suggestions, or with a request to be a contributor to one or several of these projects.
Thank you for patronizing The INDYpendent.
Senate Street Revamp Proposal
This first project is something that I myself have been trying to work on for the better part of a year now. No excuses, but I have not made nearly as much progress as I had hoped. I am looking for individuals who are interested in spending a small amount of time out of their week acquiring a little info. I'll beak down this important stretch of Senate - from Michgan to 11th St - into blocks and ask each person to provide the following for the lots on their respective block:
-Lot Size(Sq. ft. and frontage if available)
-Lot owner
-Current use/zone
-History of lot use(if available) and age of current structure
-Pictures
-Description of urban profile
-Description of architecture
This information will be compiled and presented as a post on The INDYpendent day by day. As this information is published, I will take feedback from the comments and the contributors and develop an "Opportunity Plan" for the local community association and other private development advocacy groups that operate in the area. I will also try my best to contact Realtors in the area and get their opinion on the potential for the area as a whole, as well as select parcels. I will maintain relevant documents for public contribution on Google Docs, and will post picture submissions to my personal Flickr account. As a last step, I may work with interested individuals to produce a PDF and video presentation for distribution, and in the case of the latter, sharing with the general public.
The format above is very similar to the format that I hope to use for all later projects. Public contributors will collaborate through online tools and help with valuable research and "leg work", while I will assemble, edit, and publish the body of work. All contributors will have their work credited in detail.
City-Owned Center Township Parcel Liquidation Advocacy Project
This project will echo that of the above in form, but will serve a much different purpose. Actually, the purpose is three fold: To inform taxpayers about the sheer amount of land that the City and State own in the heart of the City Center; To inform policy makers to the possible financial return on liquidating these real assets; And to advocate for said liquidation of all appropriate parcels within the City Center.
Contributors will be responsible for tackling a quadrant of the city and identifying the properties that are State and City owned but not currently developed, or well underdeveloped with an older, poorly performing asset. They will provide largely the same information as in the Senate project, if applicable. True urban parks, not green fields, will not be included unless they are obviously of a transient mature.
After the presentation of this data, which will happen one quadrant per day, I will attempt to use Realtor and internet resources to ascertain the approxiamate windfall to the governments and attempt to gauge the development potential of each parcel and guesstimate the long term effect on tax coffers of the projects I will publish this in a series of posts, and culminate the project with a PDF presentation of the findings, and as before, seek help in producing a video presentation to present to policy makers and the general public.
Indianapolis Alumni Network Project
This project is similar in structure to the above projects, but contributors will ideally be ex-pats themselves, or recently returned "boomerangers" from another City. Contribution will be taken on a as needed basis to study topic areas related to building a successful Alumni Network. Other contributions in the form of being lead points in other cities for the Network will also eventually be needed as the Network's strategy is ironed out.
For the initial part of the project, we must first look at what links are most likely to create a lasting impact on ex-pats. At the same time, we will look at successful Alumni networks of all sorts and see what model is best emulated by an Urban Alumni Network. When a strategy is in place, I will coordinate and attempt to raise funds for a marketing campaign as well as research that can help us find the sort of people that we are hoping to reach.
It is my sincere hope that this project gains a life of its own, and flourishes into an organization many other Tier 2 cities can be jealous of.
The Circle City Project
This is a project, which will be collaborative in the form listed above, that will start as a low-priority long-term undertaking. The basis for this project is an idea which I believe was started by The Urbanophile, Aaron Renn. In a post last year, Mr. Renn stated that a possible vision for success for Indianapolis is a model called something like "100 Monument Circles". I believe that this is a unique and powerful development strategy for the City of Indianapolis, and one that I think our City is particularly well suited for. But I believe that fleshing out that concept is selling ourselves short.
I believe that now is the time for Indianapolis to have its Burnham Plan. We have an opportunity to actively involve the entire private sector of our economy to craft a plan and brand strategy for our city for the next 100 years. This is a great chance for us to look at alternative means of doing all sorts of things, from local revenue collection, to revamping or replacing the single-use zoning regime, to decentralizing control of community schools. It would also allow us to set a bar for design in the city, as well as find ways that the private sector and general public can act voluntarily to improve public spaces and the "small details" of the urban experience.
Contributors will need to be many and of various talents, and would be given large swaths of time to finish research. Our initial stage will be a thorough planning of all things that would need to be included in the plan, followed by a information gathering stage where summaries of various similar plans throughout US history would be compiled and published. Then teams of contributors would begin work on developing various areas of the plan, while I worked on raising funds and hoping to attract mainstream attention(as well hopefully pro bono talent) to the undertaking.
After several months of this sort of work - with me posting the occassional progress reports and sharing all research with the general public through Google Docs - We would begin working to place the pieces together into a comprehensive plan with high quality renderings and artwork, as well as maps, charts, projections, and more. I would then host and distribute a copy of it online and, funds permitting, publish a printed copy for distribution to business and community leaders throughout the city.
==============================
In conclusion, I hope that I have imparted the fact that I really am committed to making this not just a personal spot for me to bloviate about the topics of the day, but a place where the interested public can come to participate in something that very well may make a positive change to our city and region. Feel free to contact me at anytime with question, suggestions, or with a request to be a contributor to one or several of these projects.
Thank you for patronizing The INDYpendent.
Monday, January 12, 2009
A New Beginning for me, A New Beginning for The INDYpendent
So, just like that, my personal battle is over. I have spent the past 6 months trying my hardest to reconcile my marriage and move forward, but in the end, there was no way for it turn out than like this. The two of us have decided that an amicable divorce is the best thing for both of us - two people who still love each other very much - and as such I've chosen to relocate back to Indianapolis. This city is home, and being here and going through what I have recently has done a lot to humble me and center me.
It is my hope that those same experiences will help center this blog, and allow me to exert exponentially more effort to make this the first blog you check for your Indy development/urban affairs fix. I have went back to April of last year and read the initial post stating the intent of this blog, and I had to deal with the disappointment of how far I had fallen short of my goals. I now have a singular purpose, to make this blog the absolute BEST in the Indy Development arena. And I hope that by pouring my heart into improving this blog, I will in turn be improving myself and the community.
For those who have stood by me and supported my writing, thank you. I hope I can pay back your loyalty and support with a product that you come to cherish. Tonight I will work to complete my first true AOO, the dreaded Senate Ave. project that I have procrastinated on for almost a year although I already all of the pictures I need. Look for it to be posted in the next 24 to 48 hours. Fellow Indy bloggers, I appreciate any link love you would like to give, and please know that it will be returned. And for all you readers, if you like what you read in the coming month, please tell people you know that are passionate about local governance, development, and the future of our great city.
Reprint: Comments on Urbanophile's review of "Retrofitting Suburbia"
I have not read this book, and currently don't have the cash laying around to buy it. But I have to say that in this post you show a lot of what I enjoy about this blog.
When academic schools of thought come to the forefront in the past century or more, we have had a serious problem. The people who leave academia enthralled with (or maybe even indoctrinated with) said school of thought, many enter the political arena. Current political economy being what it is and has been since roughly the first World War, these people have been able to enact laws and policies that favor the outcomes they desire. That is why I believe that in terms of development and local public goods, we have transitioned into a soft command economy.
Towns and Cities that matured in the 1800's or before that often had much the same sort of built environment - most of that we would refer to as urban. This is a time when turnpike companies built inter-city and inter-state roads and local streets were built and maintained by the neighborhoods in which they existed. High quality transportation amenities greatly enhanced the value of property, and where such amenities were of a low quality, businesses and residents had incentives to live in a closer proximity to each other.
In short, people's abstract "ideal" preferences for their city was held greatly in check by the realities of economics and common sense. A number of changes in the political landscape caused a large shift here.
As you have stated many times, it was through the "vision" of politicians to bring their idealized forms to reality. Eisenhower wanted interstates bridging all major cities, Roosevelt wanted local governments to be able to plan communities from the top down. Later Presidents wanted to be able "re-develop" large swaths of towns and cities - and to provide transportation infrastructure at little to no direct cost to transportation users. After World War II, VA and FHA loans favored the type of development that the politicians of the moment saw as their "ideal" - the single family detached home. The large amount of homes bought with these loans by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines after the war caused a landslide of tract home subdivisions.
Of course, many say that technology changed the game. But remember this, once politicians had the ability and authority to build roads, industries that benefited from road building and "free" infrastructure prospered. Do you think if not for zoning ordinances(large lot size, deep setbacks, commercial/residential seperation), IHS, Urban Renewal, FHA, VA, and a myriad of other governmental programs that the built environment of today would not much more mirror that of the cities of the 1800's? Do you think this would really be the "nation of the automobile"? Maybe, maybe not.
What is troubling to me is that we seem to want to go down a similar path to revert to an urban pattern of development. This is not just or fair. If there is someone who wants to live on a 1 acre lot should be able to - but he should bear the costs for infrastructure directly. By breaking down governmental policies that subsidize any particular development pattern, the pattern that makes the most sense for the actual residents of the city would prevail. And it would be fluid - though not painless - unlike the current glacial change we see today. Many here will have contentions with this - but the free market(properly understood and implemented) is the best solution - for the long and short term - to our current woes in suburbia.
Some policies that may help
- Turning zoning power over to local NAs with more direct and accountable leadership, not to mention the ability to "sell" zoning variances that are in the best interest of the neighborhood. Also, allowing local public goods to be controlled by these NAs.
- Turning the IHS over to the states for them to lease to private operators that would either charge tolls or use some other fare mechanism to have cost born directly by IHS users. The gas tax could be repealed, favoring those who choose to drive on locally maintained roads and therefore those who chose to live in more dense neighborhoods.
- Removing restrictions on VA and FHA loans that give unfair disadvantages to ownership of condos and co-operative property - or do away with the loan guarantees period.
- Allow utilities to adjust their charges to customers that choose to live in lower density, lower ROI areas.
- End the tax preferences for freehold property, and allow leasehold properties to compete on a level playing field.
Not all of these are bulletproof, and many might take exception to some of them. But I could guarantee that once the costs are born and the decisions are made locally - or individually - you would see that the real preference for most people would be an urban lifestyle. And we would also see areas come to life as people with similar aesthetic preferences would come together into communities and we would see truly diverse neighborhoods and an increased sense of neighborhood and civic pride.
Sorry for the length.
When academic schools of thought come to the forefront in the past century or more, we have had a serious problem. The people who leave academia enthralled with (or maybe even indoctrinated with) said school of thought, many enter the political arena. Current political economy being what it is and has been since roughly the first World War, these people have been able to enact laws and policies that favor the outcomes they desire. That is why I believe that in terms of development and local public goods, we have transitioned into a soft command economy.
Towns and Cities that matured in the 1800's or before that often had much the same sort of built environment - most of that we would refer to as urban. This is a time when turnpike companies built inter-city and inter-state roads and local streets were built and maintained by the neighborhoods in which they existed. High quality transportation amenities greatly enhanced the value of property, and where such amenities were of a low quality, businesses and residents had incentives to live in a closer proximity to each other.
In short, people's abstract "ideal" preferences for their city was held greatly in check by the realities of economics and common sense. A number of changes in the political landscape caused a large shift here.
As you have stated many times, it was through the "vision" of politicians to bring their idealized forms to reality. Eisenhower wanted interstates bridging all major cities, Roosevelt wanted local governments to be able to plan communities from the top down. Later Presidents wanted to be able "re-develop" large swaths of towns and cities - and to provide transportation infrastructure at little to no direct cost to transportation users. After World War II, VA and FHA loans favored the type of development that the politicians of the moment saw as their "ideal" - the single family detached home. The large amount of homes bought with these loans by soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines after the war caused a landslide of tract home subdivisions.
Of course, many say that technology changed the game. But remember this, once politicians had the ability and authority to build roads, industries that benefited from road building and "free" infrastructure prospered. Do you think if not for zoning ordinances(large lot size, deep setbacks, commercial/residential seperation), IHS, Urban Renewal, FHA, VA, and a myriad of other governmental programs that the built environment of today would not much more mirror that of the cities of the 1800's? Do you think this would really be the "nation of the automobile"? Maybe, maybe not.
What is troubling to me is that we seem to want to go down a similar path to revert to an urban pattern of development. This is not just or fair. If there is someone who wants to live on a 1 acre lot should be able to - but he should bear the costs for infrastructure directly. By breaking down governmental policies that subsidize any particular development pattern, the pattern that makes the most sense for the actual residents of the city would prevail. And it would be fluid - though not painless - unlike the current glacial change we see today. Many here will have contentions with this - but the free market(properly understood and implemented) is the best solution - for the long and short term - to our current woes in suburbia.
Some policies that may help
- Turning zoning power over to local NAs with more direct and accountable leadership, not to mention the ability to "sell" zoning variances that are in the best interest of the neighborhood. Also, allowing local public goods to be controlled by these NAs.
- Turning the IHS over to the states for them to lease to private operators that would either charge tolls or use some other fare mechanism to have cost born directly by IHS users. The gas tax could be repealed, favoring those who choose to drive on locally maintained roads and therefore those who chose to live in more dense neighborhoods.
- Removing restrictions on VA and FHA loans that give unfair disadvantages to ownership of condos and co-operative property - or do away with the loan guarantees period.
- Allow utilities to adjust their charges to customers that choose to live in lower density, lower ROI areas.
- End the tax preferences for freehold property, and allow leasehold properties to compete on a level playing field.
Not all of these are bulletproof, and many might take exception to some of them. But I could guarantee that once the costs are born and the decisions are made locally - or individually - you would see that the real preference for most people would be an urban lifestyle. And we would also see areas come to life as people with similar aesthetic preferences would come together into communities and we would see truly diverse neighborhoods and an increased sense of neighborhood and civic pride.
Sorry for the length.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Hey look, a new post
I have to apologize to anyone who read this site before the beginning of June. I have been just about as unproductive on this blog as possible. This is because my freelance web design business kind of blew up, and I was not expecting it. But anyway I figured I'd stop in today and at least tell you what I have been doing related to this blog.
The biggest thing that I have been doing is reading. Most of the stuff that I have been reading is on-line, including many of the insightful blogs you'll see to the right, especially The Urbanophile. But I have to take a minute to talk about the one book I've been weaving through in fits and spurts through the last few weeks. The title of the book is The Voluntary City, it comes from the Independent Institute(printed and distributed by University of Michigan Press). It was compiled by David T. Beito, Peter Gordon, and Alexander Tabarrok, and it includes several noteworthy contributors such as Donald J. Boudreaux, Randall G. Holcombe, Paul Johnson, and Robert H. Nelson.
The premise behind the book, which is actually a collection of essays, is how prior to the mid 1800's various cultural institutions, operating on a voluntary basis provided civic services and public goods in efficient and responsive ways. The goal here is to give historical examples of how we can hand over key aspects of local government back to civil society, and how it might become more civil in the process; while also showing the evidence that these solutions did indeed work, and work much better than has been admitted by modern scholars(and even various commentators at the time). The topics are varied, but I'd like to key in on some that are important and highlight the most novel concepts.
Contract Based Planning
They describe this as "laissez-faire" or "entrepreneurial" planning. They use the examples such as the development of the many London estates during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Chicago's Central Manufacturing District, the "Private Places" of St. Louis, and modern Home Owner's Associations.
In the relevant essays they speak about the power of covenants(restrictive and not), developer interest, and community ownership(in the literal sense, not that of "we all own the government") of local public goods. They not that developers that have the ability and incentives to plan long-range consistently do, providing for public goods and services in ways that government can not and should not.
Neighborhood and condo associations are numerous nowadays and have lead to most new suburban developments having high-quality infrastructure and stable-to-rising home values. When membership and payment of dues to such associations are taken on through a voluntary contract(by purchasing the home), the free-rider problem is largely solved and the small and dynamic structure of such associations allow for problems to be fixed quickly and for the neighborhood to react to changing conditions.
In the book, one of the books contributors goes as far as saying that the best way forward to increase the quality and quantity of public services would be to privatize infrastructure and planning to the neighborhoods through voluntary agreements while allowing for the cities to get much current and future debt off of the books. A tax reduction would take place for those properties that joined such an association, and the city departments would be pared down. Private companies would be free to purchase unneeded equipment and hire scuttled employees to compete for business from the various associations. Areas where the residents are in near unanimous agreement about needed changes could get the funding almost immediately and get the project done. The "planning" would also be amendable. In the context of local government, zoning can not be bought, and if the planning officials are not in agreement about a proposal, it will not get done - despite the effects it may have. Just the prospect of terms being arrangeable should impact artificial spikes in land values due to constriction of supply.
I think this is something that would work well in Indianapolis' developed areas. But I will cover this in another post.
"The Hotel Model"
Not all of the contributors are high on Associations though. Spencer Heath MacCallum argues that long-term land lease versus fee simple ownership maybe more useful in solving future problems. In the essay he makes some great points, noting how tyrannical some HOA's can be and how CID(common interest developments) may have achieved predominance in development more due to government favor in terms of loan guarantees.
MacCallum proposes that developments be built on the "hotel model", where a tenant leases a space within, and also expects various services to be provided as part of the cost of the lease. Developments of this sort abound in the commercial realm, but are relatively absent from the residential(minus apartment complexes). He focuses on the land lease, where the land would be leased for term like 99 years. The tenants could then build to suit their needs, and the developer would maintain the common areas and provide for services and other public goods. Something along the lines of the current industrial park setup(like IntechPark in Plainfield).
There is a lot to be said for this model, but leasehold tenancy is looked down upon in contemporary America, especially for people who want "their own home"(never minding the fact that even with no mortgage, the local government is first leinholder in case of default on tax payment). I believe the best way to foster such developments is to allow developers a tax break for building these developments and providing for the attendant public goods. These savings could then be passed along to tenants, and result in a near cost-neutral option for those who want to live such communities. The benefits could be more responsive service and much higher quality infrastructure within the development.
This could be the mold for redeveloping old industrial sites(like the old Olin Brass plant) in or near the city's core. Whether strictly residential(townhouses let's say) or a mix of uses(MUD), these developments could turn old large parcels of land - that are already outside of the normal grid - and turn them into veritable cash cows for the government. All the city would have to provide for is education and city-level infrastructure(policing and fire protection ideally being handled more or less by the developer).
Other topics, which I could go on for hours about, include the actual history of such things as the private provisioning of Police; private education before the Education Act of 1870(in England) and in 19th Century America, and modern day India; Medical care through mutual association, fraternal orders, societies, and their ability to provide mutual aid, insurance, unemployment, and career assistance; and how markets have challenges while it is governments that truly have failures.
If you have read my work here, or in the comments of other blogs, or on SSC, you know that I am pro-voluntary. I understand that the current system of compulsory taxation, regulation, and control is well entrenched in Indianapolis and throughout the nation, but I believe that it is very important when someone can write a book detailing exactly how we can transition back to a true "civil society" where actions that benefit the many are provided on a voluntary basis through cooperation and goodwill - not coercion. Competition is actually the greatest form of cooperation, and truly fosters goodwill. Men are friends when they know they have a chance to succeed to the extent of their talents, they are enemies when they are fighting for possession of the regulated piece-of-pie.
The Voluntary City does an excellent job of not only providing the means, but for providing the historical precedent and record(based on the facts, not accounts of ideologically-biased commentators). I recommend reading it to any and all interested in development or local politics.
The biggest thing that I have been doing is reading. Most of the stuff that I have been reading is on-line, including many of the insightful blogs you'll see to the right, especially The Urbanophile. But I have to take a minute to talk about the one book I've been weaving through in fits and spurts through the last few weeks. The title of the book is The Voluntary City, it comes from the Independent Institute(printed and distributed by University of Michigan Press). It was compiled by David T. Beito, Peter Gordon, and Alexander Tabarrok, and it includes several noteworthy contributors such as Donald J. Boudreaux, Randall G. Holcombe, Paul Johnson, and Robert H. Nelson.
The premise behind the book, which is actually a collection of essays, is how prior to the mid 1800's various cultural institutions, operating on a voluntary basis provided civic services and public goods in efficient and responsive ways. The goal here is to give historical examples of how we can hand over key aspects of local government back to civil society, and how it might become more civil in the process; while also showing the evidence that these solutions did indeed work, and work much better than has been admitted by modern scholars(and even various commentators at the time). The topics are varied, but I'd like to key in on some that are important and highlight the most novel concepts.
Contract Based Planning
They describe this as "laissez-faire" or "entrepreneurial" planning. They use the examples such as the development of the many London estates during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, Chicago's Central Manufacturing District, the "Private Places" of St. Louis, and modern Home Owner's Associations.
In the relevant essays they speak about the power of covenants(restrictive and not), developer interest, and community ownership(in the literal sense, not that of "we all own the government") of local public goods. They not that developers that have the ability and incentives to plan long-range consistently do, providing for public goods and services in ways that government can not and should not.
Neighborhood and condo associations are numerous nowadays and have lead to most new suburban developments having high-quality infrastructure and stable-to-rising home values. When membership and payment of dues to such associations are taken on through a voluntary contract(by purchasing the home), the free-rider problem is largely solved and the small and dynamic structure of such associations allow for problems to be fixed quickly and for the neighborhood to react to changing conditions.
In the book, one of the books contributors goes as far as saying that the best way forward to increase the quality and quantity of public services would be to privatize infrastructure and planning to the neighborhoods through voluntary agreements while allowing for the cities to get much current and future debt off of the books. A tax reduction would take place for those properties that joined such an association, and the city departments would be pared down. Private companies would be free to purchase unneeded equipment and hire scuttled employees to compete for business from the various associations. Areas where the residents are in near unanimous agreement about needed changes could get the funding almost immediately and get the project done. The "planning" would also be amendable. In the context of local government, zoning can not be bought, and if the planning officials are not in agreement about a proposal, it will not get done - despite the effects it may have. Just the prospect of terms being arrangeable should impact artificial spikes in land values due to constriction of supply.
I think this is something that would work well in Indianapolis' developed areas. But I will cover this in another post.
"The Hotel Model"
Not all of the contributors are high on Associations though. Spencer Heath MacCallum argues that long-term land lease versus fee simple ownership maybe more useful in solving future problems. In the essay he makes some great points, noting how tyrannical some HOA's can be and how CID(common interest developments) may have achieved predominance in development more due to government favor in terms of loan guarantees.
MacCallum proposes that developments be built on the "hotel model", where a tenant leases a space within, and also expects various services to be provided as part of the cost of the lease. Developments of this sort abound in the commercial realm, but are relatively absent from the residential(minus apartment complexes). He focuses on the land lease, where the land would be leased for term like 99 years. The tenants could then build to suit their needs, and the developer would maintain the common areas and provide for services and other public goods. Something along the lines of the current industrial park setup(like IntechPark in Plainfield).
There is a lot to be said for this model, but leasehold tenancy is looked down upon in contemporary America, especially for people who want "their own home"(never minding the fact that even with no mortgage, the local government is first leinholder in case of default on tax payment). I believe the best way to foster such developments is to allow developers a tax break for building these developments and providing for the attendant public goods. These savings could then be passed along to tenants, and result in a near cost-neutral option for those who want to live such communities. The benefits could be more responsive service and much higher quality infrastructure within the development.
This could be the mold for redeveloping old industrial sites(like the old Olin Brass plant) in or near the city's core. Whether strictly residential(townhouses let's say) or a mix of uses(MUD), these developments could turn old large parcels of land - that are already outside of the normal grid - and turn them into veritable cash cows for the government. All the city would have to provide for is education and city-level infrastructure(policing and fire protection ideally being handled more or less by the developer).
Other topics, which I could go on for hours about, include the actual history of such things as the private provisioning of Police; private education before the Education Act of 1870(in England) and in 19th Century America, and modern day India; Medical care through mutual association, fraternal orders, societies, and their ability to provide mutual aid, insurance, unemployment, and career assistance; and how markets have challenges while it is governments that truly have failures.
If you have read my work here, or in the comments of other blogs, or on SSC, you know that I am pro-voluntary. I understand that the current system of compulsory taxation, regulation, and control is well entrenched in Indianapolis and throughout the nation, but I believe that it is very important when someone can write a book detailing exactly how we can transition back to a true "civil society" where actions that benefit the many are provided on a voluntary basis through cooperation and goodwill - not coercion. Competition is actually the greatest form of cooperation, and truly fosters goodwill. Men are friends when they know they have a chance to succeed to the extent of their talents, they are enemies when they are fighting for possession of the regulated piece-of-pie.
The Voluntary City does an excellent job of not only providing the means, but for providing the historical precedent and record(based on the facts, not accounts of ideologically-biased commentators). I recommend reading it to any and all interested in development or local politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
