While I have not read the full study yet, I am not surprised by the findings. After all, in the words of panel head Thomas Dietz, since “a lot of science has to be applied to a very local context, local knowledge is essential.” Although a dearth of good research on the topic exists in the field of urban planning, I found several studies drawing similar conclusions. One interesting examination of 60 planning processes in Florida and Washington concluded that “with greater stakeholder involvement, comprehensive plans are stronger, and proposals made in plans are more likely to be implemented.” The study author went on to write (with two others) a subsequent article analyzing how states should mandate participation. I adopted that group’s general framework, derived as it was from the previous study of effectiveness, for my final paper describing how the Internet could be used as a participation tool.

I think the lesson from the National Academies panel must be driven home to the urban development community. Since we are so intimate with participation, we lose perspective on its broader importance and role. Given the legal requirements for transparency and professional approaches to participation, the key is to look beyond an obsession with the intellectually vague “NIMBYism” and design processes that foster consensus and prevent Morriss Fiorina’s “Extreme Voices” from having a monopoly. In particular, I think it means designing processes that are less time-intensive and allow involvement on a wider scale of commitment levels.

> [Read it Online] National Academies: Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
> NYTimes: “Report Says Public Outreach, Done Right, Aids Policymaking”
> Previous posts: NIMBYism, Urban Development, and the Public Involvement Solution, Public Participation in Urban Planning Series

In a splashy cover story this week, the quarterly magazine sent to thousands of local business leaders this week considers which Washington, D.C. neighborhoods will be the next “hot spots.”

The story appears in OnSite, a quarterly glossy magazine sent to subscribers of the Washington Business Journal. With a password-only website, the story’s only readers will be the 16,600+ subscribers who pay over $100 a year to receive the weekly newspaper.

Featuring incendiary graphics (above) and a map with the neighborhood identified with crosshairs, the article will do little to sooth the concerns of activists fearful their neighborhoods will be targets for new development with or without their input. Surprisingly, only 4 of the 13 are within the boundary of D.C., a sign of how much investment has happened in District neighborhoods and the barriers to additional development. In addition to the neighborhoods shown on the map below, the magazine additionally identified Gaithersburg and Laurel in Maryland and Occoquan in Virginia.

The article proposes a number of variables to predict where people “want to live, work and hang out.” They are: accessible to roads, near Metro or other rail, near water or riverfront, geographically distinctive, near parks and recreation, near anchor or stadium, upward economic capacity, arts uses, main gathering place, historical features, interesting architecture, and pedestrian oriented.

The most surprising locations may be Landover (picked due to the ongoing Landover Gateway planning effort), Greenbelt (which we covered on Rethink College Park), and Prince William County’s Occoquan.

Occoquan? Despite being over 20 miles from Washington, OnSite thinks the tiny historic town’s proximity to to I-95, several VRE stations, Fort Belvoir and Quantico bases, nearby “smart-growth style developments,” and attractive waterfront will make it a hotspot for growth.

What do you think of their picks? What places — or factors — are missing from the analysis?

The Arizona state geologist reports its now thought the dam breach was a minor contributor to the flood.

The dam, seen here, was created by a ranch to retain water.

Why might it have failed? According to this geologic study, the area of the dam contains deposits of coarse gravel, which makes a particularly bad foundation for a dam since the water can leak through air spaces in the material. Since the wash drains a huge area of desert, any unusual rain event can cause flooding so it seems reasonable the dam failure played a minor role.

However, there are larger dams in the state worrying officials. The Arizona Department of Water Resources maintains a list of unsafe dams in the state. Four dams are rated in the most serious category, “Unsafe Dams with Elevated Risk of Failure,” which the state thinks could fail during a “100-year or smaller flood event.” The dams are Fredonia, Powerline, Magma, and Cook Dams.

Although dam failures are generally rare, Wikipedia contributors have compiled this list of U.S. accidents. One of the most spectacular was the 1976 collapse of Teton Dam in Idaho, which luckily only killed 11.

Two California professors considered the issue in a new article titled, “Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes.” The study found that the lanes were disproportionately used by middle and upper-middle income people, and that the tolls were regressive. So what’s the rub? It turns out the usual means for paying for transportation infrastructure, such as sales and gas taxes, are even more regressive than tolls. In fact, the study concludes that:

… if [sales tax] funds had been used to finance the express lanes, the study found, the poor and wealthy would have paid more. Middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers would have paid $26 million less each year than they paid under the current cost-distribution system, and the very poorest residents would have paid over $3 million more than they actually did under the current toll system.

They conclude that “Using sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionately favors the more affluent at the expense of the impoverished.” The authors propose two policies to overcome the remaining regressive character of tolls: giving out free travel credits to low income commuters, or using the funds to invest in public transit. The comparison is between tolls and general sales taxes, not gas taxes, but I suspect gas taxes would have been only slightly less regressive than sales taxes. (Because the poor own fewer cars and drive less)

Previously I also suggested we should consider other benefits of congestion pricing in the equation - greater transportation choice for all (including low-income commuters), less pollution, and perhaps a shift in behavior towards transit, carpooling, or other more efficient modes. I also discussed before some of the implications for another form of congestion pricing — raising parking meter rates.

What most frustrates me with congestion pricing critics is not their concern — not enough research has been done on equity, and it is a valid point to discuss — but how misplaced it seems given our skewed policies. Our society is riddled with deeply regressive policies. Sales taxes, gas taxes, and lotteries are all known to be regressive. We spend more than twice as much money subsidizing housing for the rich than we do for the poor. The poor disproportionately live near sources of pollution, and consequently have higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and other diseases caused by environmental factors. Meanwhile, our public transit systems, critical lifelines to opportunity for the very poor, are crumbling. In that light, adopting less-regressive congestion pricing and spending some of the revenue on transit service seems like a good decision.

> UCLA: “Joint UCLA–USC study shows that toll roads are more fair than taxes”
> LATimes Blog: “Study finds congestion pricing doesn’t hurt the poor”

Since the late 1970s, thousands of unlicensed “dollar” vans (they now charge $1.50 or $2) have provided rides in several New York City neighborhoods. The industry got started in earnest during the 1980-81 transit strike, and have proliferated despite occasional crackdowns by authorities. In the 1990s, the MTA estimated some 5,000 feeder vans operated in the city, shuttling passengers to subway stations in boroughs where conventional taxis are hard to find. The vans often run in direct competition with busy bus lines, providing faster, more convenient service. Robert Cervero’s 1997 book Paratransit in America features a rare scholarly examination of these vans, illustrated with this map describing the parts of Broolyn, Queens, and The Bronx where the vans are active.

A Brooklyn friend confirms the Flatbush corridor is alive and well, New Yorkers are welcome to chime in about the others. Generally operated by Caribbean immigrants, criticism often focuses on ethnicity and safety since the unregulated vans do not have to be inspected or carry insurance. The MTA and city officials accuse the vans of “poaching” bus riders and unsafe operations, and have sought to curtail the vans through occasional crackdowns over the years. Nonetheless even critics concede the operators are providing transportation services with no public subsidy.

The latest crackdown effort came after a hit-and-run accident in Brooklyn involving a dollar van driver who fled the scene fearing arrest. In response, the city began a ticketing blitz and began the process of designing a sticker to clearly identify which of the vans are among the 279 officially licensed carriers, who are prohibited from picking up passengers on-demand by city rules. For now, at least, an uneasy truce exists. “Some van operators argue that one-size-fit-all standards are wrongheaded,” observes Cervero, who asks “Should everyone be forced to ride in vehicles that are fairly new, meet high liability insurance requirements, and have comfortable, padded seats, paying a premium fare for these provisions?” For the time being in most U.S. cities, the answer is yes.

One of the most interesting things that happened on my recent trip to the west coast occurred looking for a restroom. After pulling off I-5 south of Portland, Oregon, I missed the turn-in for a name brand gas station. I noticed another up ahead. My girlfriend Libby was skeptical. I peered ahead. “It has a green roof,” I noticed, “how bad can it be?” Pulling into the station we noticed solar panels, a vegetated bioswale, and sign advertising a variety of biofuels. Inside, a man sat typing on a laptop sipping a cappuccino in a cafe, and the racks were lined with organic foods. It was, as Libby observed, as if we had stepped into the future.

That’s how I visited the self-described “greenest gas station in America.” It turns out the exit was near Eugene, Oregon, and the station was one operated by the SeQuential fuel company. The station was a restored brownfield, the flagship location for the locally-owned biofuels company.

I’m generally skeptical of biofuels. Although they’re cleaner-burning, their net carbon production can equal or surpass fossil fuels. Nonetheless, SeQuential has taken pains to make their fuels as green as possible.

Using grease from Burgerville restaurants and Kettle Foods (makers of potato chips), as well as other sources, the company produces over five million gallons of biodiesel at their local plant. They boast their fuel recycles waste grease and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by “over 78%.” Their ethanol, sold pure or in blends with conventional gasoline, comes from Eastern Oregon family farmers, and they say growing “canola in rotation with wheat enables farmers to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use and to sustainable increase crop yields.”

SeQuential’s innovation is impressive. Until we can all plug our electric cars into a solar-powered grid, this might be the next best step.

Update: I found this amusing interview with one of the people behind the station on something called “Peak Moment TV,” also this blog has some information about the impact of biofuels on waste grease prices.

The photo above is a beautiful sight. No mere pile of dirt, the picture shows excavation for the foundation of a new house in a formerly vacant lot. Located at 1502 10th Street NW, the lot has been vacant at least as long as I’ve lived nearby (2 years) and most likely much longer. Although estimates range, the city of D.C. has thousands of vacant buildings and lots (the official list of buildings alone has over 3,500). Many other cities have much more - roughly 30% of the land of Detroit is vacant. While perhaps some should be reserved for public use, much of this should return to residential and commercial uses.

Holding aside the related issues of housing cost and neighborhood change, redeveloping vacant property in the center city is a good thing. The address discussed here near public facilities, served by public transit, and served by existing infrastructure. It’s also located close to jobs, and it’s a safe bet the future tenant will drive very little, if they own a car at all. It’s smart growth.

Up the street, another long-vacant property is being converted into housing at the corner of Q and 9th. Neighbors celebrated when a property owner evicted a used car lot at 9th and P, posting a large banner advertising the land for sale. Through a rough economic analysis, I argue these events are related. Vacant property is being developed in this part of Shaw because housing sale prices have reached the cost of construction.

My simple model of redevelopment is this: residential development will happen on vacant land when it can be sold for more than it costs to construct. I assume land costs and taxes are sunk costs, and land owners are rational and build when they can make a profit, not speculators. Luckily both sale prices and building costs are available. Let’s see how the numbers work out. (For simplicity I’ll discuss home and condo sales, however from an economics perspective the reasoning should also work for rental properties through a net present value calculation.)

Sale Prices

A review of recent sales (I used Zillow.com) in the Dupont Circle neighborhood finds sale prices ranging from $500 per square foot to over $710 per square foot for homes and condominiums. Conversely, recent sales in eastern Shaw are less, ranging between $303 per square foot for a property on 7th to $502 per square foot for a condo at 6th and Q. Although there is some variation in each neighborhood, sale prices generally follow a pattern when measured by the square foot.

As for our property, just up the street at 1516 10th Street, a 756-square-foot condo sold in 2005 for $332,000, roughly $439 dollars per square foot.

Zoning

Zoning determines how much housing can be built on our lot. The parcel, measuring 1,285 square feet, is zoned R-4, a standard residential zone in the district for row home neighborhoods. Here’s the summary of what the zone requires:

Permits matter-of-right development of single-family residential uses (including detached, semi-detached, row dwellings, and flats), churches and public schools with a minimum lot width of 18 feet, a minimum lot area of 1,800 square feet and a maximum lot occupancy of 60% for row dwellings, churches and Flats, a minimum lot width of 30 feet and a minimum lot area of 3000 square feet for semi-detached structures, a minimum lot width of 40 feet and a minimum lot area of 4000 square feet and 40% lot occupancy for all other structures; and a maximum height of three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. Conversions of existing buildings to apartments are permitted for lots with a minimum lot area of 900 square feet per dwelling unit.

Note the actual lot size is smaller than the zone’s “minimum” size, this is typical for historic neighborhoods. I’m not sure if this affected the owner’s actual lot occupancy, but I can find no mention of the property on the Board of Zoning Adjustment website. It was subject to historic preservation review but the report does not mention the planned lot coverage. If we assume the owner is allowed the 60% coverage, that results in a building footprint of 771 square feet. Multiplied by the allowed height of three stories we get 2,313 square feet for the new building.

Building Costs

Costs of construction can vary depending on a host of factors and the design and character of the structure. The RSMeans website provides a free calculator for zip-code specific costs for various types of buildings. Each estimate includes the building cost, contractor profits, and architectural fees. Using their free cost estimator, I estimated the cost of a 2,313 square foot wood frame apartment building. The estimates ranged from $806,766 on the low end to $1,120,508 on the high end. Recently contractors have been affected not only by increased costs of gasoline, but also increasing costs for metals, piping, and other raw materials. Furthermore, the historic preservation review process may have resulted in additional architectural fees.

Adding it Up

If the new house sells at $300 a square foot, the going rate for condos farther east in Shaw, the property would net $693,900, over $100,000 below RSMean’s lowest cost estimates. At $400, the property would bring in $925,200, and at $500 the property would be worth $1,156,500. Although the calculations are rough, they do seem to corroborate the theory. According to the RSMeans estimate, housing cannot be profitably built in the neighborhood at $300 a square foot, but at $500 a square foot a small profit looks possible. Of course, there are a host of variables that can make housing profitable in neighborhoods with lower prices, including the greater economy of larger buildings and public subsidies like tax credits. Nonetheless, the exercise serves to underscore the role of construction costs in neighborhood investment patterns. If you’re wondering why nothing’s happening with vacant land in your neighborhood, get calculating. Or ask a developer, since they would likely know best.

According to the program press release, “Plans to further expand the program are currently under way. DDOT is planning to place additional stations in other neighborhoods in spherical paths working towards the outer parts of the city.” It occurs to me a logical place to expand the system would be at Metro stations, something they already seem to be doing with the downtown locations.

The banking industry sometimes claims the differences in lending between whites and blacks and Hispanics are due to differences in credit and income. Although income plays a role, last year the New York Times reported that after controlling for the size of the loan and income of the borrower, blacks were 2.3 times more likely and Hispanics two times more likely than whites to have a high-cost loan. They cite the example of two neighborhoods in Detroit, both with median incomes around $50,000 — 70% of loans in the black neighborhood had high interest rates, while only 17% did in the white neighborhood.

Another study found that homeowners in upper income black neighborhoods (income above 120% AMI) were twice as likely to have subprime loans as homeowners in low-income (income below 80% AMI) white neighborhoods. Almost 40% of the loans in the affluent black neighborhood were subprime, versus 18% in the low income white neighborhood.

One article (PDF) thinks it is precisely that statistic that suggests something more - whether discrimination or a simple lack of prime lenders — is to blame:

The finding that upper income African-American borrowers rely more heavily on the subprime market than low-income White borrowers suggests that a portion of subprime lending is occurring with borrowers whose credit would qualify them for lower cost conventional prime loans. There is also evidence that the higher interest rates charged by subprime lenders cannot be fully explained solely as a function of the additional risks they bear. Thus, a greater presence by mainstream lenders could possibly reduce the high up-front fees and interest rates currently being paid by residents of low-income and minority neighborhoods.

The Times speculates in addition to a lack of prime lenders, other reasons could include aggressive sales in minority neighborhoods, less financial saavy, and lower net worth of minority lenders. Regardless, the stark numbers show that while the worst redlining may be behind us, the problem of equitable housing finance for urban neighborhoods still eludes us.

> NYTimes: What’s Behind the Race Gap?
> W. Post: Subprime Mortgages and Race
> HUD: Subprime Market Growth and Predatory Lending (PDF)

The National Association of Realtors explains the the pay-back requirements:

It is not a full credit because you do have to pay back this amount over a 15 year time period from the second year. The payback provisions also have many conditions, which we are further researching. But in the worst case, you would need to pay back the $7,500 over a 15 year time span from 2010. So in your 2010 tax filing, you would need to pay $500. Even in the worst case scenario of paying back the tax credit fully over a 15 year time span, the tax credit is still a huge benefit to homebuyers. First, money today is worth more than money tomorrow - far more than money 15 years from now. Money loses value over time due to inflation and from the interest income one would receive on that money before fully paying it back.

Let’s take a look at the effects of the existing homeowner tax benefits.

This 2004 report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition has some interesting analysis. This graph breaks down the estimated size of the various housing tax benefits, including the mortgage interest and property tax deduction and housing capital gains exemption. They point out these three benefits were more than double HUD’s total outlays in 2004.

The particularly interesting things about these benefits is how deeply regressive these benefits are. When housing programs and tax benefits are factored, we spend 2.2 times more money on housing for the richest two-fifths of the population than the poorest two-fifths. The richest fifth of society — with incomes above $86,585 in this 2004 report — get over $50 billion in benefits.

Since the benefit is something of a sacred cow, I don’t expect it to go away anytime soon. We should just keep them in mind when debating funds for affordable housing or the equity of congestion charges.

> National Low Income Housing Coalition: Changing Priorities: The Federal Budget and Housing Assistance 1976 – 2005
> USAToday: Housing rescue bill may fall short; Who benefits?
> The Tax Foundation: Who Benefits From the Mortgage Interest Deduction?