One of the
great things about the urbanist community is that high-profile social issues will
always elicit cogent and insightful comments from active urbanists. It’s partly that a cohort of good critical
thinkers has become attached to urbanism and partly that urbanism is a good
solution to many contemporary social ills.
To be clear,
urbanism isn’t a panacea to every issue that might need improvement, but it’s
one of a half-dozen building blocks that can make the world a better and more
sustainable place in the 21st century.
So I’ll
return to the Google bus issue and sample some of the best
thinking that has bubbled up around it.
Of course, the
North Bay doesn’t yet have its equivalent of the Google bus issue. Because of the historical happenstance of Silicon
Valley continuing to burgeon while the North Bay’s equivalent, Telecom Valley, stagnated,
the North Bay doesn’t yet have as much of the young demographic segment looking
for an urban lifestyle.
But the
North Bay is a good place to live that is eager to remain economically vital, so
will soon attract the young and affluent who are roiling other areas of the Bay
Area. The Google bus issue should be
studied in the North Bay so we can be smarter when our time comes.
On the
Google bus issue, several commenters have noted that San Francisco and Oakland
aren’t alone in their failure to anticipate and to prepare for the coming flood
of young adults looking for an urban lifestyle.
Fingers are being pointed at Peninsula and South Bay communities for
failing to facilitate the type of development that would have been attractive
to techies.
I agree with
the finger-pointing. A more far-sighted
residential program around the Silicon Valley would have defused much of the
Google bus issue. In an odd coincidence,
I found myself in conversation over the weekend with someone who owns a large
chunk of land in the South Bay which now has a low-density land use. The landowner is intrigued by the possibility
of creating a higher-density, urbanist use, but finds daunting the prospect of
tackling the public, city, regional, and state issues that would be raised.
Others have concurred
with me that blaming the tech buses is akin to blaming the messenger. As Michael Coyote noted on Twitter, “I can
totally understand why people are mad, but who does it help of you are mad at a
tech worker versus some NIMBY?” While NIMBYism certainly had a role, I'd also add CEQA and ponderous land-use processes to the list of wrongdoers.
But perhaps the
most interesting thinking was put forth by Noah Smith in an article published
on Quartz. Dusting off the work of Henry
George, a long-dead economist from San Francisco, Smith suggests that a
property tax that focuses more on the land, especially the land
that has an increased value because of public facilities such as street and
sewer, is more fair than the current system which focuses on appraised value.
Early in my
urbanist reading, I came across a suggestion that property taxes should use a
sliding scale, with taxes in the urban core based solely on the value of land,
taxes in surrounding rural land based solely on the value of the improvements,
and taxes in between based on a combination.
My memory is that it was James Howard Kunstler who put forth the concept,
but I haven’t yet come across it in my rereading of his work.
The Henry George and the sliding scale concepts
are largely similar. And I see value in
both. But I also see points of
discomfort in both.
As currently
constructed, property taxes are intended to ensure that a uniform standard of
public facilities and services are available across the community, while also
keeping cities solvent. Those are valid
goals that must be preserved. Modifying the
property tax system to encourage urbanism while maintaining the first two goals
would be a tricky endeavor.
Also, one of
the greatest benefits conveyed to land isn’t public improvements, but
zoning. If we’re to tax the property
owner for having a public street across the front of his land, taxing him for
higher zoning seems reasonable. Indeed
it seems only fair. Changing zoning from
rural to residential can be a windfall of a million dollars or more per acre to
the property owner.
But what if
a city does rezoning on its own initiative, perhaps as the result of a new
General Plan, and not at the request of the land owner? And what if it’s likely to be a decade or
more before the land is developed? Is
the property owner liable for the higher tax burden over that decade, even if
it pushes him toward bankruptcy?
Lastly, I’ve
often argued that many of our current institutions, including property taxes,
lending practices, judicial rules, etc. have been inadvertently slanted toward drivable
suburban development and that urbanism would do fine if we could just rebalance
the rules to be closer to a free market.
To now argue that we instead must bias the rules toward urbanism is philosophically
uncomfortable to me.
None of this
is intended to reject the Henry George concept, only to note that it would be a
deep pool with tricky currents that should entered only after careful thinking and
planning, neither of which are strong points of our political system.
I’ll look at
more Google bus thinking in my next post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment