![]() Real Estate News and Advice |
| May 25, 2012 |
|
Need Product Help?
Local Guides
All Local Guides
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming |
by Peter G. Miller
Peter G. Miller
"Smart Growth" is here, a collection of proposals, guidelines, and goals that
will ultimately make homebuying less feasible and commuting more difficult. And
that's the good news.
The essential idea behind various "Smart Growth" initiatives is to move zoning
decisions from local communities to Washington.
This is necessary, it's alleged, because we have too much traffic congestion,
metro areas are getting too big, and we're losing too much farmland. To solve
such problems, we must allow the federal government to spend $10.5 billion for
programs and strategic planning.
The "Smart Growth" concept is a wondrously curious idea precisely because it
does not address the root cause of urban sprawl, to wit: more people need more
space. As our population has grown from 151 million in 1950 to 272 million
today, virtually all additional residents have opted to live indoors, thus
creating a need for more housing. The catch is that not only do more people
demand more housing, they also want to leave such housing from time to time.
This requires the construction of roads and also destinations for things like
schools, shopping, and jobs.
If you travel you quickly understand that this is a big country -- a very big
country. We do not have a shortage of land, a shortage of farm land, or a
shortage of forests. What we have is a desire by most people to live in certain
core areas, and those areas, not surprisingly, are densely populated.
There are a number of ways we could resolve the problem of urban and suburban
overcrowding:
*Less than 5 percent of the nation's land is developed and three-quarters of
the population lives on 3.5 percent of the land.
* Only about one-quarter of the farmland loss since 1945 is attributable to
urbanization.
*Predictions of future farmland loss based on past trends are misleading
because farmland loss has been moderating since the 1960s, falling from a 6.2
percent decline in farmland per decade in the 1960s to a 2.7 percent decline in
the 1990s.
*In addition, with dramatic increases in agricultural output, American farmers
are producing almost 50 percent more food than in 1970, using less land.
The Portland, Oregon metro region is often held out as a model of urban
planning. Growth is tightly controlled and the result is that property values
went from $64,400 in 1988 to $158,100 in 1998, according to the National Association of
Realtors. That's a 145-percent price increase and sure it sounds like good
news -- at least until it's realized that soaring home prices freeze out
everyone but the income elite.
"Smart Growth" planning presumes that local development should be controlled at
the federal level because, er, well, folks in Washington are simply smarter
than you and I.
But there's no evidence that federal planners are more adept than local zoning
boards, no consideration of the life-style limits implicit in "Smart Growth"
programs, no concern for the loss of housing opportunities that will develop,
no worries regarding personal preferences, no weight attached to the idea that
all real estate is both local and unique, and certainly no interest in such
issues as property rights and economic "takings."
The biggest problem in government today is a surplus of money. There is so much
money in federal vaults that new and inventive ways must be devised to spend
what we have, otherwise the notion will arise that taxes should be lowered.
"Smart Growth" policies exist not because they're needed, but because without
them both tax bills and government would be smaller.
Q
We're getting married in June and want to buy a home. I have great credit and
my spouse has a miserable credit report. Can I buy without him?
A Such financing is possible.
You could use your own income and credit to purchase a home. But will one
income be sufficient to qualify for the amount of financing needed to buy the
home you want?
As you are shortly getting married, and since marriages often involve the
receipt of money from friends and family, perhaps put off a purchase decision
until after the ceremony. Maybe there will be enough dollars on hand to pay
down some of his debts and have a better credit profile as a result.
Ever wonder how web designers build sites with moving banners, signs that seem
to teletype messages, and other tricks? The secret is a fascinating program
called the "Gif Construction Set" from Alchemy Mindworks.
Published: April 6, 1999 Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws. Related Articles: Editor's Note: This article reflects the opinions of Peter G. Miller only and not necessarily the views of this or any other publication, organization or Website owner. |
Real Estate News Network
Today's Real Estate Outlook
Mortgage Rates
30 Year Fixed: 3.83% 15 Year Fixed: 3.05% 1 Year Adj: 2.73% (U.S. Weekly Averages) Today's Headlines 04/06/1999 12:00:00 AM
Spotlight
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
for Agents
Readers' Choice
Our most popular recent articles
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||