New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The value of land in cities versus suburbs...

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
While contemplating and researching bankruptcies in CA cities I cam upon an article regarding urban renewal in Asheville, NC. It's a pretty clear call for high density development as opposed to sprawl...I found one bit of information especially useful...

Asheville has a Super Walmart about two-and-a-half miles east of downtown. Its tax value is a whopping $20 million. But it sits on 34 acres of land. This means that the Super Walmart yields about $6,500 an acre in property taxes, while that remodeled JCPenney downtown is worth $634,000 in tax revenue per acre. (Add sales tax revenue, and the downtown property is still worth more than six times as much as the Walmart per acre.)


For the basic idea...



In the 1950s, the five-story brick Asheville Hotel in Asheville, North Carolina, started to fall into decline, presaging what would happen to most of the city’s downtown over the next couple of decades. A department store moved into the ground floor while everything above it sat empty. Then the building got one of those ugly metal facades that’s designed to distract from the fact that all the windows are boarded up...

...In its vacant state in the 1970s, the Asheville Hotel didn’t contribute much to the public coffers. Today, though, that same parcel of land is responsible for exponentially more property tax revenue that helps pay for police, parks and city streets.


We tend to think that broke cities have two options: raise taxes, or cut services. Minicozzi, though, is trying to point to the basic but long-buried math of our tax system that cities should be exploiting instead: Per-acre, our downtowns have the potential to generate so much more public wealth than low-density subdivisions or massive malls by the highway. And for all that revenue they bring in, downtowns cost considerably less to maintain in public services and infrastructure.


“We really are kind of preachy, because we know it works,” says Minicozzi, who has performed similar tax studies in 15 cities across the country. “And the reason we know it works is because cities have been here forever. That’s all we’re saying: think urban. When I talk with people about urbanism, we as hairless apes have lived in these things called cities for thousands of years. Now over these last 40 years, we think we don’t need them any more?”


So, broke cities: Need money? If you’ve got underutilized buildings in your downtown, do anything you can to fix them up, because that’s where your wealth comes from. This is Minicozzi’s first lesson.




http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/#
 
There is a real difference in the value of land depending on how much of it is developed.

For instance if you own a house on 6o acres of land, only a portion of that land can be taxed as being developed. Every state has a different percentage, but in Tennessee it is determined by the value of the structure.

My uncle has 60 acres and only 4 are taxed as developed, the rest being taxed as vacant which is a much lower rate.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
There is a real difference in the value of land depending on how much of it is developed.

For instance if you own a house on 6o acres of land, only a portion of that land can be taxed as being developed. Every state has a different percentage, but in Tennessee it is determined by the value of the structure.

My uncle has 60 acres and only 4 are taxed as developed, the rest being taxed as vacant which is a much lower rate.
And this has what to do with Asheville's tremendous turnaround of their downtown tax base? In another top post, the bankruptcy of San Bernadino is noted. In my post, I've shown how cities can revitalize their cores through reinvestment. In the case of Asheville, it began with private collaborative investments...\

Urban redevelopment costs less to build, costs less to maintain...and provide a far greater return to the government than does suburbam sprawl.. Bottom line...urbanity is cheaper and more productive than sprawl.

It's across the country...we simply are not developing land in an efficient manner.

Minicozzi made some of these calculations in a study of Sarasota, Florida. A downtown 357-unit multi-family complex on a 3.4-acre site there, he found, pays off its infrastructure in three years. A suburban subdivision on a 30-acre site will take 42 years to pay off. After two decades, that downtown multi-family complex will have made the city $33 million in net revenue. The suburban subdivision will still be $5 million in the hole.
 
Urban redevelopment costs less to build, costs less to maintain...and provide a far greater return to the government than does suburbam sprawl.. Bottom line...urbanity is cheaper and more productive than sprawl.
Yep, a liberals dream. Force everyone to live in a Urban center. We could really save a lot of money by squeezing 4 families in an apartment. Sounds a little to much like the totalitarianism that is being disguised as 'sustainable developement.'

I like my 6 acres just fine.

Just goes to show, dense people live in densely populated areas.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Yep, a liberals dream. Force everyone to live in a Urban center. We could really save a lot of money by squeezing 4 families in an apartment. Sounds a little to much like the totalitarianism that is being disguised as 'sustainable developement.'

I like my 6 acres just fine.

Just goes to show, dense people live in densely populated areas.
Who said anything about 4 families in an apartment? Oh...you did.

Yeah...all of our cities are filled with dense folks...and the rural country is full of brain surgeons and rocket scientists.

I'm glad you ignored all the figures regarding costs and efficiency of land development.
 
Yeah...all of our cities are filled with dense folks...and the rural country is full of brain surgeons and rocket scientists.

You've got that exactly right. Anybody that's got more than half a brain cell might work in the city, but they sure as hell don't live there.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
You've got that exactly right. Anybody that's got more than half a brain cell might work in the city, but they sure as hell don't live there.
You can't actually believe that; you know that's a mendacious statement. You just want to bitch...and you clearly do not care how idiotic it makes you appear...and believe me, it makes you appear plenty idiotic.

Tom Clancy...lives in downtown Baltimore. So does John Waters. Donald Trump lives in NYC, the Upper East Side...as do about a million other businessmen and celebrities. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is on the Upper West Side...

You are capable of writing lengthy essays quickly, so you clearly aren't a stupid man, but you do make some really stupid comments.
 

connieb

Senator
I have to agree with some of what Sarge says. I like my country lifestyle just as much. I live in a small town in a rural county and I have to commute about an hour each way to get to work. But, you couldn't pay me to live near where I work, nor could you pay me to live in downtown baltimore. I hate even having to go down there when my work takes me in that direction.

I want space, I want a yard, and privacy. I don't want to have to go 10 blocks to a city park infested with drug addicts, homeless people, and overrun with more kids than the space can handle so my kids can go play. I want to send them out in my backyard where they have as nice or nicer climbing equipment - enough space to run around, and they are safe and secure.

You all are welcome to the city life. Where you get to fight people for parking or crowd onto dirty public transit with all manner of people. Where you get to hear sirens all night, and the sounds of everyone else just living around you. Where you get to hear ever word your neighbors say, smell whatever they are having for dinner, listen to what is on their TV.......

Is it a more productive use of land.. probably so. But, I will take my nice big slice of the American Pie as far away from that cluster as I can get.

connie
 
G

Greenridgeman

Guest
I'm with you on the space and privacy. Nearest neighbor is a murderer, about a mile away.

That is plenty close.

My other murdering neighbor is two miles away, with a few families of ordinary thieves in between us, as well as one old couple that both worked.

Nothing like the country, where as long as they keep the killing within the families, it ain't much of a big deal.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
I have to agree with some of what Sarge says. I like my country lifestyle just as much. I live in a small town in a rural county and I have to commute about an hour each way to get to work. But, you couldn't pay me to live near where I work, nor could you pay me to live in downtown baltimore. I hate even having to go down there when my work takes me in that direction.

I want space, I want a yard, and privacy. I don't want to have to go 10 blocks to a city park infested with drug addicts, homeless people, and overrun with more kids than the space can handle so my kids can go play. I want to send them out in my backyard where they have as nice or nicer climbing equipment - enough space to run around, and they are safe and secure.

You all are welcome to the city life. Where you get to fight people for parking or crowd onto dirty public transit with all manner of people. Where you get to hear sirens all night, and the sounds of everyone else just living around you. Where you get to hear ever word your neighbors say, smell whatever they are having for dinner, listen to what is on their TV.......

Is it a more productive use of land.. probably so. But, I will take my nice big slice of the American Pie as far away from that cluster as I can get.

connie
Personal preference has little to do with the discussion. I'm speaking of urban revitalization, increasing tax bases and land use efficiencies. Sprawl is inefficient...not probably so, but decidedly so. It is the very lifestyle you seek that costs tax money to create and keep. The article I posted gave examples of the outrageous cost inefficiencies of sprawl. Not to mention the cost of the commute in time...and oil...that old bugaboo.

I love living in cities, although I'm not currently. But...I have no commute...and my little piece is but 3 miles to all the services I could want...just about. Compare this to living in Chicago where a 5 to 10 minute walk in Wrigleyville gave me access to a large number of restaurants...2 movie theaters, a bowling alley/bar, two grocery stores...and a baseball stadium...just to begin with.

Or Seattle's Capitol Hill with much the same circumstance....but the baseball stadium was a 15 minute bus ride.

I despise having to get in the car to get anything...because nothing is in reasonable walking distance. It's not only inefficient, it's part of the reason obesity is such a major concern in the nation...as we drive to our fast food emporiums.

Every city has serene neighborhoods...where sirens are barely heard and your neighbors are discreet and hidden by shrubbery...and cities attract all types of people...like Tom Clancy...and he's fine with living in downtown Baltimore.Michael Phelps lives across the harbor from Clancy...and Jim Palmer keeps a condo in Harbor East.

This yard is 3 miles from the Inner Harbor...

737611_2.jpg
 
You know why? Because we do not understand urban planning at all. We keep thinking sprawl. In Europe, they go up. We got out. Go to any city or town in Europe. You will see masterpieces of urban planning and common sense. We need to start thinking that living in an urban area can be wonderful. We need to give up the front lawn, backyard, mailbox on the curb and 3000 sq ft home pipe dream. it costs too much to go out. If you go up and get more dense, all kinds of good things happen. Number one, you bring back the wonderful mom and pop businesses that really make life special. [Unwelcome language removed] Walmart and Costco. I want Luigi for the meats and cheeses, Pascal for the bread and pies, Tito for the fish, Amir for the olives and Jose for the chiles and vegies. bring back locally produced things.
 

connieb

Senator
Personal preference has everything to do with the discussion. You see - for the time being we are still a free country here - free to expand and live the lifestyle we want.

I am glad living in the city works for you. I would be homicidal if I had to live near that many people - so I guess I understand why there is so much violent crime in cities.

If we could all afford to live in those nice neighborhoods that may be one thing. I bet that house is worth over a million dollars. But, it doesn't keep the beggers and the drunks off your doorstep. I know well, as many of my friends do live in the pricey neighborhoods. And, if we are going to discuss harbor east - here - then we can't do that without discussing the relative shit hole that the inner harbor has become. Our latest escapade of random violence went viral - you may have seen it.. tourist beaten, stripped naked and sexually assaulted on St. Patrick's Day. It was a greatest hits on you tube. They just sentenced the looser scumbags who did it. The guy who threw the first punch got the most time - a year but he'll likely be out in 3 months according to his attorney.... got to love city life. I bet that tourist can't wait to come back.

"Costing" a city tax dollars is not the same as actual costs of having the sprawl. The "cost" is the services and maintenance, etc. Not getting your hands in someone's pocket is NOT a cost. If the tax payers in the suburbs pay taxes sufficient to provide them the services, road maintenace, etc - then it is not "costing" anyone anything for their lifestyle.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Personal preference has everything to do with the discussion. You see - for the time being we are still a free country here - free to expand and live the lifestyle we want.

I am glad living in the city works for you. I would be homicidal if I had to live near that many people - so I guess I understand why there is so much violent crime in cities.

If we could all afford to live in those nice neighborhoods that may be one thing. I bet that house is worth over a million dollars. But, it doesn't keep the beggers and the drunks off your doorstep. I know well, as many of my friends do live in the pricey neighborhoods. And, if we are going to discuss harbor east - here - then we can't do that without discussing the relative shit hole that the inner harbor has become. Our latest escapade of random violence went viral - you may have seen it.. tourist beaten, stripped naked and sexually assaulted on St. Patrick's Day. It was a greatest hits on you tube. They just sentenced the looser scumbags who did it. The guy who threw the first punch got the most time - a year but he'll likely be out in 3 months according to his attorney.... got to love city life. I bet that tourist can't wait to come back.

"Costing" a city tax dollars is not the same as actual costs of having the sprawl. The "cost" is the services and maintenance, etc. Not getting your hands in someone's pocket is NOT a cost. If the tax payers in the suburbs pay taxes sufficient to provide them the services, road maintenace, etc - then it is not "costing" anyone anything for their lifestyle.
No...I'm sorry, it doesn't. Not in the thread I want to discuss...which is regarding land use efficiency and the tax base. If you want to live in boonies...good for you...but I'm trying to have a discussion regarding the concepts I mentioned and the differences in cost efficiencies, not one about where people on the board want to live.

You're in finance right? The discussion is about finance...that's why I posted in the economics forum.

“As a community, if you have a finite limit of land, would you want $6,500 or $20,000, or $634,000 downtown an acre?” he asks. “I tell people, ‘What would you rather grow: wheat, soybeans or marijuana?’ People understand that cash-crop concept, so why aren’t we doing that downtown?”


This concept is true everywhere. In Raleigh, for instance, it would take 600 single-family homes on a 150-acre subdivision to equal the tax base of the 30-story Wells Fargo Capitol Center downtown. And it sits on 1.2 acres of land.
All of this is also just looking at the revenue side of the ledger. Low-density development isn’t just a poor way to make property-tax revenue. It’s extremely expensive to maintain. In fact, it’s only feasible if we’re expanding development at the periphery into eternity, forever bringing in revenue from new construction that can help pay for the existing subdivisions we’ve already built.
Minicozzi made some of these calculations in a study of Sarasota, Florida. A downtown 357-unit multi-family complex on a 3.4-acre site there, he found, pays off its infrastructure in three years. A suburban subdivision on a 30-acre site will take 42 years to pay off. After two decades, that downtown multi-family complex will have made the city $33 million in net revenue. The suburban subdivision will still be $5 million in the hole.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
You know why? Because we do not understand urban planning at all. We keep thinking sprawl. In Europe, they go up. We got out. Go to any city or town in Europe. You will see masterpieces of urban planning and common sense. We need to start thinking that living in an urban area can be wonderful. We need to give up the front lawn, backyard, mailbox on the curb and 3000 sq ft home pipe dream. it costs too much to go out. If you go up and get more dense, all kinds of good things happen. Number one, you bring back the wonderful mom and pop businesses that really make life special. [Unwelcome language removed] Walmart and Costco. I want Luigi for the meats and cheeses, Pascal for the bread and pies, Tito for the fish, Amir for the olives and Jose for the chiles and vegies. bring back locally produced things.
I agree those are benefits to density...and ones I enjoy when in such a place.

I found the concepts in the article fascinating and am not surprised some are fairly new to the planning crowd. A terrific look at urban places is Rediscovering the City Center by renowned planner William H Whyte. He tells a tale of two pocket parks, both in NYC. One was quite close to many workers and was bathed in sunshine midday, but the park was unused. Another park was in shade at midday and was a bit farther from the workers, but was packed at lunch. Initially confused by the situation, he studied them for a day. The answer was obvious to him...the unused park had no place to sit, the used one did.

It's these simple concepts that sometimes elude us. You see how folks want to talk about where they want to live, not about land use and taxation efficiencies...
 

connieb

Senator
You can't just look at finances though when you want to talk about deciding where people want to live and allowing development. Forcing people to live in a city against their wishes, despite the financial aspect of it would be be akin to things that happen in communist countries. Is big brother going to assign us an apartment, too? Can we get on the wait list for a really great apartment if we find the right ass to kiss?

It is a personal decision.

In regards to his calculations - I did not see where he took into account development fees. Additionally, neighborhood infrastructure - i.e the streets of a development are typically provided by the developer and turned over to the county as construction is completed. They are in the developer's costs of construction and therefore paid for by the home-owners. It is unclear what costs and he is including and how he arriving at his calculation. Additionally, it appears he considers the initial infrastructure costs but doesn't include the potential cost savings of maintenance. You are not putting in roads and sidewalks and leaving them sit there untouched in any local for 33 years. So, at some point their is repaving and resurfacing of those roads. Do city roads need to be resurfaced more frequently. I would imagine that they should be - whether they actually are is another matter. What is the comparable costs of the construction to repair those city streets compared to the suburban areas? In my experience city based construction is more costly - particularly because it is more complex. There are more considerations the contractor must consider, his work period may frequently be shortened to accommodate high traffic flow periods, etc. So, where are these differences in the costs of up keep of the infrastructure accounted for in his analysis?

And, again, NOT getting tax revenue is NOT the same as a cost. Yes, there is less taxes going into the public coffers of the cities as an result of urban sprawl. But, again - that is not the same as an actual cost. The presumptive fact ( and I have yet to see all the calculation considerations) is that city dwelling creates more revenue. So, essentially, you are just finding the ways to tax people more. That is not the same as a cost. The development you discussed at 42 years is "in the whole" 5 mill. Again without understanding the complete calcuation - lets assume that is the case - at some point it will break even. At that point - it hasn't cost anyone anything. The city has lost out on tax revenue. Well, boo hoo.

What you are essentially asking for is that those who want to live in the surburban areas finance the cities. Clearly its not working for the cities as they are struggling most. Why - because low income people gravitate there. So, what you want is to make higher income people move back into the city - to provide benefits and services to the poor people. A redistribution of wealth if there ever was one.

If there is really an issue where the suburban areas are not paying enough to cover the costs of services and infrastructure, that is a problem and needs to be addressed in the taxing authorities. But, at the point that they are paying for their own services, and their own infrastructure, the fact that they are NOT then paying in enough to help offset the costs of the city - is the city's problem.

connie
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
You can't just look at finances though when you want to talk about deciding where people want to live and allowing development. Forcing people to live in a city against their wishes, despite the financial aspect of it would be be akin to things that happen in communist countries. Is big brother going to assign us an apartment, too? Can we get on the wait list for a really great apartment if we find the right ass to kiss?

It is a personal decision.

In regards to his calculations - I did not see where he took into account development fees. Additionally, neighborhood infrastructure - i.e the streets of a development are typically provided by the developer and turned over to the county as construction is completed. They are in the developer's costs of construction and therefore paid for by the home-owners. It is unclear what costs and he is including and how he arriving at his calculation. Additionally, it appears he considers the initial infrastructure costs but doesn't include the potential cost savings of maintenance. You are not putting in roads and sidewalks and leaving them sit there untouched in any local for 33 years. So, at some point their is repaving and resurfacing of those roads. Do city roads need to be resurfaced more frequently. I would imagine that they should be - whether they actually are is another matter. What is the comparable costs of the construction to repair those city streets compared to the suburban areas? In my experience city based construction is more costly - particularly because it is more complex. There are more considerations the contractor must consider, his work period may frequently be shortened to accommodate high traffic flow periods, etc. So, where are these differences in the costs of up keep of the infrastructure accounted for in his analysis?

And, again, NOT getting tax revenue is NOT the same as a cost. Yes, there is less taxes going into the public coffers of the cities as an result of urban sprawl. But, again - that is not the same as an actual cost. The presumptive fact ( and I have yet to see all the calculation considerations) is that city dwelling creates more revenue. So, essentially, you are just finding the ways to tax people more. That is not the same as a cost. The development you discussed at 42 years is "in the whole" 5 mill. Again without understanding the complete calcuation - lets assume that is the case - at some point it will break even. At that point - it hasn't cost anyone anything. The city has lost out on tax revenue. Well, boo hoo.

What you are essentially asking for is that those who want to live in the surburban areas finance the cities. Clearly its not working for the cities as they are struggling most. Why - because low income people gravitate there. So, what you want is to make higher income people move back into the city - to provide benefits and services to the poor people. A redistribution of wealth if there ever was one.

If there is really an issue where the suburban areas are not paying enough to cover the costs of services and infrastructure, that is a problem and needs to be addressed in the taxing authorities. But, at the point that they are paying for their own services, and their own infrastructure, the fact that they are NOT then paying in enough to help offset the costs of the city - is the city's problem.

connie
Ah...It's "redistribution of wealth"...I see...

I present an article about urban revitalization and efficient reuse/re-purpose of structures...and you see it as a commie plot. I'm sorry...you have missed the entire point. I'm not asking anything of anyone...I'm trying to discuss land use efficiencies. Sprawl simply doesn't generate enough income to pay for services.

Yes...that house with the nice yard is expensive...because it's in the city. Because of the location. Yet...you're trying to tell me cities are terrible places nobody wants to live. Do you see the problem there?
 
You know why? Because we do not understand urban planning at all. We keep thinking sprawl. In Europe, they go up. We got out. Go to any city or town in Europe. You will see masterpieces of urban planning and common sense. We need to start thinking that living in an urban area can be wonderful. We need to give up the front lawn, backyard, mailbox on the curb and 3000 sq ft home pipe dream. it costs too much to go out. If you go up and get more dense, all kinds of good things happen. Number one, you bring back the wonderful mom and pop businesses that really make life special. [Unwelcome language removed] Walmart and Costco. I want Luigi for the meats and cheeses, Pascal for the bread and pies, Tito for the fish, Amir for the olives and Jose for the chiles and vegies. bring back locally produced things.
see below
 
You know why? Because we do not understand urban planning at all. We keep thinking sprawl. In Europe, they go up. We got out. Go to any city or town in Europe. You will see masterpieces of urban planning and common sense. We need to start thinking that living in an urban area can be wonderful. We need to give up the front lawn, backyard, mailbox on the curb and 3000 sq ft home pipe dream. it costs too much to go out. If you go up and get more dense, all kinds of good things happen. Number one, you bring back the wonderful mom and pop businesses that really make life special. [Unwelcome language removed] Walmart and Costco. I want Luigi for the meats and cheeses, Pascal for the bread and pies, Tito for the fish, Amir for the olives and Jose for the chiles and vegies. bring back locally produced things.
The gentrification of inner city areas is all fine and well for the Dinks and the folks with the resources to send their kids to private schools. No way would I want my kids going to the inner city public schools around here and yes we have both in Houston there is a revitalization of the downtown area. But there is also a lot of master planned communities with an abundance of park and nature areas and better schools
 

gabriel

Governor
it seems to me that in the eyes of many middle class americans, youre all being held hostage by fear of your minorities! it's interesting when chickens come home to roost! did you guys really hope that the effects of centuries of slavery and segregation would disappear when the causes did?? lol
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
it seems to me that in the eyes of many middle class americans, youre all being held hostage by fear of your minorities! it's interesting when chickens come home to roost! did you guys really hope that the effects of centuries of slavery and segregation would disappear when the causes did?? lol
Hell...I just thought Asheville did some good things with old buildings...and increased their tax base in doing so. :noidea:
 
Top