July 22, 2004

Spokane home prices are soaring. I read in the Spokesman Review that the typical new home is Spokane now sells for over $200,000.00. I am told by a reputable source that the home my wife and I purchased in Spokane now has a market value over ten times what we paid for it in the 1970s. This may be good news if you are a homeowner, but it is supper bad news if you are looking to buy a home for your family.

Part of the problem causing the rise in home costs is government at the State and local level. At the behest of the professional planners and zealous environmentalists, we have been hornswaggled into the belief that urban sprawl is bad. Most of us have been persuaded that urban sprawl must be fought by legislating Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs), promoting greater population density in the city. This of course will result in smaller homes on shrinking lots and higher prices. The same planners and environmentalists want us to build mass transit, (billions for light-rail) as the logical alternative to the automobile.

Here is an example of what the planners foresee as your new home in Spokane... tiny new homes on 25 ft. wide lots. This sort of "in fill" will raise density and, (they think) make mass transit feasible. Is this your new dream home?

The planners envision masses of happy pedestrians living in townhouses or high-rise condos, if not old warehouse lofts. This vision includes a pedestrian environment where there is no need to own an automobile. Any location that you cannot readily walk to would be reached by light-rail or bus. Forget about the old days when we aspired to the American Dream of owing a suburban detached home with a garden and a two-car garage (now often four!)

According to Harry Richardson and Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, some interesting trends in population distribution and employment have taken place over the past 30 years:

Population densities have declined. (Exceptions are Los Angeles and Miami with high immigration increases)
Suburbanization has accelerated.
Employment has decentralized.
The Central Business District employment share in most metropolitan areas is small and continues to shrink.
Average travel times have remained stable over time.
In most cities the share of public transit has declined significantly.
Opportunities for "in fill" development in the central cities are limited.

Here is an example of what most people want... a single detached home with lots of room and a three car garage on a large lot. At the present rate of price rises, how long until this becomes the impossible dream for middle-class Spokane residents?

A major argument against sprawl has been the impact of urban development on the supply of prime agricultural land. But urban development accounts for less than 5% of total urban land uses in the United States. Agricultural land use peaked in the 1930 but agricultural output has had huge productivity gains since then.

Compact urban development is also touted as a means of fostering "community" and civic involvement. The problem is that there is no good evidence that this is true. Do people living in suburbs or rural area feel less connected with their neighbors? Where is the supporting evidence?

The UGBs (Urban Growth Boundaries) which we now have in Spokane County thanks to the Washington State Government has one very negative effect. Restricting the supply of urban land restricts the housing supply. With increasing demand, housing prices rise inside the UGB area.

The anti-sprawl protagonists ignore the residential preferences for larger homes, lower density, the principle of consumer sovereignty, access to countryside, recreational amenities, and the high degree of mobility afforded by the private automobile. The link between suburbanization and the problems of central cities is in fact more one of revealed preferences instead of misguided policies.

With the decentralization of jobs, there has been a subsequent rise in suburb-to-suburb commuting. But, according to Richardson and Gordon, it is just this decentralization that has allowed areas such as Los Angeles to have had a substantial population increase, a massive increase in vehicle miles, and yet commute times remain stable while freeway capacity increased only 1%. Also, if 70% of all workers live in multi-worker households, it is unclear as to how they could relocate to reduce the aggregate household commuting distances.

Most people who favor high-capacity rail transit continue to hope that other people will use it, not them. Per capita transit use in almost all of the nations largest metro areas fell by double-digit rates in the years 1980-97. Personal transportation is favored due to increasingly dispersed origins and destinations of travel, plus increasing automobile affordability. Freed from fixed routes and schedules, the personal automobile empowers people. This explains why car pooling in the U.S. is negligible. Even the dull witted concede that the private automobile is democratic, whereas the public transit is collective.

Here is a good example of a "mini-mansion" that only the wealthy can afford. Ordinary working people can ill afford to purchase the 10 to 15 acres of land, let alone pick up the construction tab. Have you noticed how many one million dollar plus homes are being built around Spokane? Most of them are not in the city. The UGB (Urban Growth Boundaries) are playing a roll in separating the wealthy from the common working people.

For the visitor to Spokane from Europe or the Orient, the idea that we are running out of land for urban development seems absurd. Having a nice big house, with individual bedrooms, a spacious yard and at least a two car garage is a common goal. The social engineers, the planners and the environmentalists want to tell you what to do and how to behave. Don't listen to them. Continue to dream the American Dream. WDM