Development is bad? No growth?

San Jose, CA freeway interchange 280 and 87

Want nature, while in cities? Dingbat!

New development finances itself. Just last year, a developer wanted to build in the Evergreen Section of San Jose, and was going to supply $200 million for new infrastructure. The city denied it, wanting to save the land for industry. There is plenty of land for industry. Part of the want for the potential Coyote Valley development is for there to be businesses first. For that to be the case, where would people live? Residences and workplaces can be simultaneous developments. Either can lead or follow. It is actually hard for an individual to get both at the same time. For there to be jobs in a new area, people will commute there. For there to be housing in a new area, people will commute from there, to their existing jobs. People don’t always realize how economies tend towards equilibrium. Distortions do occur, many times with government intervention. There are many studies on that. People in power don’t read them or think that the source is biased. Those in power also have selfish motives for their property to increase in value.

New development actually helps pay for existing expenses, thanks to Prop13. The average property tax might be about 0.6% of the existing value of land; read that previously. It’s probably even less now. Suppose the average year (~age) that each home was bought in, is earlier than 2000, when prices were less than half of what they are now, the average property tax paid now would then be equivalent to less than 0.5% of the current property value. Part of the ambivalence in allowing new growth, even within existing urban areas, is paying for infrastructure. How was that done in the past? All of coastal California had much higher rates of growth, years ago. Build it, and tax revenue will follow.

California is obviously a desirable place to live. The price of housing id changing the though.  Why should some be forced to leave because the housing is too high for them? And why should others be prevented from living here? Does the HDC (high-density coalition) not like sharing? California doesn’t have much affect on the overall U.S. growth rate, although there are more immigrants here. That is surprising. You would think that after choosing the U.S., a less expensive state would be preferred. Many immigrants just don’t know about the pricing differential. Also, many immigrants choose to live with family or similar ethnicities.

The 5% rate of urbanization in CA is slightly higher than the national average, but there are many other states that are higher. Comparisons of that, along with density, can be seen to the right. Four particular states stand out as being highly urbanized, while still having more than 60% of open space. Of course all of those are small, with New Jersey having the highest overall state density, by far, at over 1,000, which is about the same as the nation of India.


About Randall
A contrarian, not for conflict, but because many decisions are made, without considering the full impact & consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: