Florida's Foreclosure Disaster - A Message For Us

Just finished reading this story from the New Yorker Magazine. Then went onto Windows Live Maps and traced the latest aerial photos of State Road 54 in the Tampa area. The two-dimensional aerials are really telling, illustrating numerous empty subdivisions. Land stripped, roads put into place, some construction completed. Just totally amazing.

Pictured above is one area adjacent to State Road 54 which illustrates a new subdivision (center on the picture), an unfinished subdivision (to the left of the new subdivision) and an unfinished commercial plaza (on the right edge).

While we may not have had the rampant speculation and flipping of properties that is reported in the article, some areas of Massachusetts have experienced a rapid run-up of property values as the second home market brought in piles of outside cash to the housing market.

Then, as I thought more about it, there is some level of housing speculation involved with pursuing Chapter 40B developments over traditional land development. Albeit these projects have certain limits, there is clearly a profit to be made or those in the business would not be seeking approval of these developments.

Why do I believe that Chapter 40B projects fall into the land speculation side of the equation? Well basically, a traditional subdivision can be laid out, and then delayed until market conditions will support building the housing. Or, the housing can be custom built for particular buyers. Not a lot of risk, except perhaps for the value of putting in the infrastructure. A Chapter 40B project on the other hand is issued by way of a "comprehensive permit." These permits generally have strings attached, by the community - say it must be used within a particular time period - or the funding agency - which requires the funds be drawn down within a particular fiscal year. Either of these force construction to advance even if the market cannot support the amount of housing being proposed. Below is a one such development. To activate the permit, the road has been put in and land clearing begun.

This site is less dramatic than many others that are out there. I read regularly the postings to the egroup Reform40B. This group lists many half built projects that have stalled across the state. These projects do not provide the promised housing, either for those needing affordable homes, of for the general labor market.

These shortcomings illustrate the problems with supply-side considerations when thinking about the relationship between housing and the economy in general. It argues that the state housing programs need to be re-thought. We need more focused housing programs, not as many projects spread haphazardly through-out the state to meet the 10% rule in every community, but to ensure that regions are meeting their true needs, this includes protection of open space and focusing jobs and housing in areas served with appropriate infrastructure. While 2 acre lot sizes are not justified across the board, I firmly believe that certain areas should be pushed to open space protection zoning and agricultural protection zoning with lot sizes that are appropriate to ensure that the state does not lose its farms and open areas to ill-thought-out housing programs.

As a closing thought in this post, is it appropriate to build affordable housing in an area not served by public transit, then increase the gasoline tax to a level that is harmful to these people who must live in this remotely located affordable housing? Is our tax policy consistent with our housing policy? Or are we making it necessary for the working poor to support the transportation services made available to the high end jobs located in downtown Boston?

The Massachusetts Gasoline Tax Proposal

The governor has just proposed to increase the Massachusetts Gasoline Tax. Putting on my Transportation Planner hat for a while, I can see pros and con's to this proposal. Obviously, there is a need to ensure that alternatives to the automobile are properly funded. The gasoline tax has always and should continue to serve this purpose. However, is it appropriate to use the gasoline tax as the primary source of revenue to replace tolls? That is a harder argument to swallow.

The tolls on the turnpike, the tunnels and the bridges pay for the debt service and maintenance of a key set of facilities in the heart of Boston. Specifically speaking, the Central Artery and Tunnels. For years these facilities sucked up the major portion of the federal roadway dollars destined to the state. As with many who do not use these facilities on a daily basis, it is hard to understand the argument that these facilities need to be paid for by people driving through Dalton or Cummington.

It is my personal belief that unless there are measures put into place to ensure that the revenue from the gasoline tax is returned in equal portion to the commuter sheds paying the taxes, there will continue to be an unfair redistribution of income from some of the less served areas of the state in favor of the areas with greater levels of transportation facilities. For instance, the Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority does not have the financial resources to ensure that even the public transit needs of people simply trying to travel around the two densest communities on the Cape, Barnstable and Yarmouth, have adequate opportunities to forgo the car, let alone make it possible for people living in the other communities served by the authority could make such a choice.

Clearly, this will lead to more vehicle miles per capita being traveled in suburban or rural areas, where transportation choices are the most limited. A fair mechanism is needed to return gasoline taxes to these areas to increase the choices that are available.

Here are a few thoughts on what I think could make the proposal more fair.

Parking Taxes - The Boston/Cambridge Parking Freeze really isn't. The freeze only affects public parking, forcing up the costs of people who may have an occasional need to travel to the city, while not truly discouraging employee parking. A parking tax of perhaps $2 per day levied on ALL (public and private) parking spaces within the core of the Boston Metropolitan Region should be instituted. This tax revenue should be dedicated to the MBTA.

Tolls - The governor wants to avoid toll increases on the Turnpike, tunnels and bridges leading into Boston, while at the same time suggesting that new toll facilities should be explored at the major entry points to the state. There are a number of problems with this logic. First, the toll facilities are ones which have parallel mass transit services. Metrowest, one of the noisier areas when it comes to tolls, has rail service and, from Route 128 on in, rapid transit services. There are similar services to the other areas affected by the existing tolls. If one of the goals is to reduce traffic congestion in the city, spreading the cost of maintaining these core transportation services to the hinterlands of the state, should not come with the added impact of promoting more automobile travel in the most congested portion of the state. The entire concept of congestion pricing would argue for increasing tolls, at least during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Secondly, adding tolls at certain border crossings need to be approached with due care. Would the economies of Lawrence of Haverhill or Lowell be adversely affected by tolls on Interstate 93 or Route 3 at the borders? Will we be telling potential visitors to stay home, that we do not want their shopping or tourist dollars? Will we be punishing workers in our state, especially in border communities, who were able to find more affordable housing in adjacent states? Will we be telling our own residents who may work in bordering states that it is time for them to leave? Tolls on our borders will have major image impacts, most of which will be negative.

Gasoline Taxes - Yes, a gasoline tax hike is necessary and inevitable. The tax, however, should be balanced with the other forms of transportation revenue and not be a sole revenue source. When the gasoline tax goes up, there will be impacts through-out the economy. Disposable income of residents will be reduced as people will have to spend a greater portion of their income on gasoline. When gasoline prices jumped to $4 per gallon over the last few months, other, discretionary spending was reduced. Gasoline prices will also impact other consumer products. Basic staples will cost more as transportation costs increase. Overall, consumer spending capabilities will decrease, especially in areas of the state where there are few alternatives to the automobile.

Some will argue that we need to spend our way out of this recession. That is most definitely true. However, we need to use care in how we generate the revenue to meet this crisis. If we generate the revenue in a fashion that simply takes other funds away from our residents, we need to fully understand whether there is a net benefit. Will the expenditures triggered by increasing transportation revenues (whether through the proposed gasoline tax or a balance or revenue options) off-set the lost spending capability of those who have to pay the new taxes? If not, then the proposal will be a drag on the economy, as opposed to the push that we are seeking. Unfortunately, the state needs a balanced budget and in order to support transportation bonds that could increase immediate spending above the immediate tax revenues generated, we will need to raise additional revenue. I just hope we can see real balance in both how the revenue is generated and in how the revenues are distributed across the state.