The real housing crisis is one of quantity

[Matt W. Barrow]

No, it doesn't, except in Keynesian economics.

"Perfect knowledge" isn't necessary, which is why Keynes was a sham.

[Sid9]

Republican Reagan was a Keynesian. Republican jr is a Keynesian.

[Matt W. Barrow]

So?

"We are all Keynesians now" - Richard Nixon.

Did you know that Keynes had ONE SEMESTER of economics in his entire school career?

If you can't stick to the topic and keep throwing "streams of consciousness", there's no point in further discussion.

[george conklin]

Technically it means any growth sactioned by planners, following goals set by the APA.

[george conklin]

I am not sure what land rent meant, but I did comment on the fact that populations are concentrating is the result of social policy, such as Smart Growth, which encourages increasing density using such terms as "infill."

[drydem]

Indentations are not necessary style element nor are they required.

Also your summary of my posting is incorrect. There was no comparison or judgement involved. - my posting focused on the economic mechanism that drive the development of housing in the Washington DC Metro Area.

For the most part, It depends on what my local community (+700 homes) wants to focus on. My focus has normally been with the crafting local laws, zoning ordinances and variances.. most of the time its rather tedious - and almost always obscure, e.g. the environmental impact of methane generators.

The last time I testified it was to argued for my community to get some type of relief from noisy low flying helicopter operations.

That's our federal government for you! It's to be expected - Why our country even elected a hollywood celebrities (Ronald Reagan) for President!

Unfortunately, Hollywood celebrities just aren't attracted to any of my local civic meetings ... but just in case I'll have my camera ready for them :-) yeah that would be sooo cool to have Jessica Alba or Orlando Bloom as guest.... :-)

[drydem]

Yours.

Who builds a road is irrelevant - so called Smart Growth government policies is focusing on reducing the cost and demands of economic development by making more efficient use of current existing infrastructures and services. Economic growth not has a capital improvement cost component but an on-going operational service cost component. Developers may come and go but the government and the community remains.

[The Trucker]

I am well aware of what land rent is. I have written quite a bit on the subject here and in various other forums. I wonder why you would think that someone is a "statist" because they are aware of land rent. Could it be that you are a typical Republican rightard?

[The Trucker]

The clumping of population is much less affected by social policy than by natural resources and voluntary social interactions. "policy" certainly will have an effect; especially tax policy and such things as zoning. But zoning and such as that are the candles on the cake. People live where they do much more because of climate, jobs, family, and all sorts of stuff that is not "policy". Good local policies regarding local development can be very beneficial. But people will tend to clump together near natural water and such without any "policy".

[The Trucker]

NO time. But you are right to look at the community as opposed to the whole damned financial and federal taxation system.

[Mark M.]

Thanks. That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

Mark M.

[george conklin]

The stated goal of Smart Growth IS population concentration. It is the same in UK. Urban growth boundries for example. Infill for another. This not "natural." It is manipulation for ideological reasons by people who have an agenda, and the public good is not a part of the agenda either.

[george conklin]

Smart Growth wants urban growth boundaries. This is population concentration. Smart Growth wants infill. This is population concentration. Smart Growth wants "shared walls." This is population concentration. The Sierra Club wants "efficient urbanization." This is population concentration. Population concentration is social policy and it does not good to hide the fact.

[Mark M.]

Sprawl happens because around every city land is hoarded in anticipation of price appreciation. Land users must bypass this high priced land. This means a settlement footprint greater than land users actually want.

There is nothing natural about millions of people spending two or more hours a day in their cars just to get to and from work. It is a symptom of something stupid.

If all land were up for lease bid, what kind of settlement pattern do you suppose would result? Would people prefer to live farther from their jobs, friends, shops, entertainment, and services?

Why is land much more expensive where population is dense rather than in the sticks?

What makes a great retail location?

Mark M.

[George Conklin]

Paranoid emotions do not cause sprawl.

Land users must bypass this high priced land. This

More paranoid rantings. The average commute is 21 minutes. Sorry about the FActs. They make you look silly.

[Clark F Morris]

And then there is the person who drowned in the stream with an average depth of 6 inches (15.24 cm.). Averages on this are misleading for several reasons. The accuracy of the reporting of commute time may be open to question (I suspect that transit may be more underestimated than automobile). My wife did have about a 20 minute commute when she was working. The transit or drive portion of my commute when I lived and worked in Bloomfield, NJ varied from 2 minutes (train) to 5 minutes (bus) with the car being in between. Given parking the walking varied from 2 - 5 minutes so the time spent moving was about

10 minutes. Add 5 - 10 minutes wait for the transit depending on how closely I timed it (and if I ate breakfast and read my newspaper I timed it fairly close to the schedule), I spent less time waiting in the morning. I would time my departure from work to the transit schedule. You can tell I was lazy in a sense since the walk was 20 - 25 minutes door to door.

I would assume the commute time includes people who work from home. I don't know how they account for people who have varying work locations (housekeepers, visiting nurses, electricians, consultants, etc.).

The distribution of commutes and the sources of information would be of great interest.

[George Conklin]

anticipation

Averages are the true picture, not your emotions.

[Andy Energy]

Dave, love your Hypocrisy. Lets add home that consume 80-90% more than they sould at present. With the progress of the buildign science we should soon be able to easly get the net consumption to Zero.

Yes I do practice what I preach. I drive a hybrid, my electric bill has been a -$100 each of the last 6 years (yes that is a minus). My highest gas bill las winter was around $80 and that is at $1.49 a therm (CCF). My house is a modest 1,500 sq ft for two people. Each year I do another project to reduce our usage. Since the house is built it gets harder to fix the rest of the items. In new construction it would have beed easy and inexpensice to fix.

Andy

Think, Whole House Performance, it is the right thing to do....

[Amy Blankenship]

--------------------------

I've never once hear anyone say "I have to live at least 10 miles from where I work." I would think that unless you're in an unpleasant business, like sewage treatment, there's more likely to be a _maximum_ difference people want to live from their employment.

-Amy

[George Conklin]

messagenews: [e-mail]...

Your arguing the wrong side, here, George. These are means. They take into account people with tremendously long commutes. I'm sure there are some people who commute 2 hours each way the skew the numbers pretty badly. In all likelihood, the median is probably lower yet.

But anyway, I think Clark's point is that further examination of the numbers might be very interesting. For example, what do the quartile numbers look like? What's the distribution? Are there a bunch of people with 1 minute commutes and a bunch with 45 minute commutes and few in between? I don't know, but it would be interesting to look at. One number, by itself, is seldom interesting (or useful).

Another FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2005 Stephen Buckner/Joanna Gonzalez Public Information Office [phone]/457-3620 (fax) [phone] (TDD) e-mail: CB05-AC.02 Ranking tables [PDFs]: State | County | Place Extreme Commutes Photos Press Kit

Americans Spend More Than 100 Hours Commuting to Work Each Year, Census Bureau Reports New York and Maryland Residents Face Most Time Traveling to Work Americans spend more than 100 hours commuting to work each year, according to American Community Survey (ACS) data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This exceeds the two weeks of vacation time (80 hours) frequently taken by workers over the course of a year. For the nation as a whole, the average daily commute to work lasted about 24.3 minutes in 2003.

"This annual information on commuters and their work trips and other transportation-related data will help local, regional and state agencies maintain, improve, plan and develop the nation's transportation systems," said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon. "American Community Survey data will provide valuable assistance to agencies offering housing, education and other public services as well."

Based on a ranking of states with the longest average commute-to-work times, the ACS showed that New York (30.4 minutes) and Maryland (30.2 minutes) residents spent the most time traveling to their jobs. New Jersey (28.5 minutes), Illinois (27.0 minutes) and California (26.5 minutes) were also among states with some of the longest one-way commute times. States with some of the lowest average commute times included South Dakota (15.2 minutes), North Dakota (15.4 minutes), Nebraska (16.5 minutes) and Montana (16.9 minutes). (See state rankings [PDF].)

Of the 231 counties with populations of 250,000 or more covered by the ACS, Queens (41.7 minutes), Richmond (41.3 minutes), Bronx (40.8 minutes) and Kings (39.7 minutes) - four of the five counties that comprise New York City - experienced the longest average commute-to-work times. Additionally, workers living in Prince William County, Va. (36.4 minutes); and Prince George's County, Md. (35.5 minutes); - suburban counties located within the Washington, D.C. metro area - also faced some of the longest commutes. (See county rankings [PDF].)

In a ranking of large cities (with populations of 250,000 or more), New York (38.3 minutes); Chicago (33.2 minutes); Newark, N.J. (31.5 minutes); Riverside, Calif. (31.2 minutes); Philadelphia (29.4 minutes); and Los Angeles (29.0 minutes) had among the nation's highest average commute times. Among the 10 cities with the highest average commuting times, New York and Baltimore lay claim to having the highest percentage of people with "extreme" commutes; 5.6 percent of their commuters spent 90 or more minutes getting to work. People with extreme commutes were also heavily concentrated in Newark, N.J. (5.2 percent); Riverside, Calif. (5.0 percent); Los Angeles (3.0 percent); Philadelphia (2.9 percent); and Chicago (2.5 percent). Nationally, just 2.0 percent of workers faced extreme commutes to their jobs. (See extreme commutes rankings [PDF].)

In contrast, workers in several cities are fortunate enough to experience relatively short commute times, including Corpus Christi, Texas (16.1 minutes); Wichita, Kan. (16.3 minutes); Tulsa, Okla. (17.1 minutes); and Omaha, Neb. (17.3 minutes). (See city rankings [PDF].)

Other highlights:

Chicago; Riverside, Calif.; and Los Angeles were the only cities among those with the highest average travel times to work that are not located on the East Coast. Among the 10 counties with the highest average commuting times, the highest percentages of extreme commuters were found in the New York City metro area: Richmond, N.Y. (11.8 percent); Orange, N.Y. (10.0 percent); Queens, N.Y. (7.1 percent); Bronx, N.Y. (6.9 percent); Nassau, N.Y., (6.6 percent); and Kings, N.Y. (5.0). Among the 10 states with the highest average commuting times, the highest percentages of their workers commuting 90 or more minutes to their job were found in New York (4.3 percent), New Jersey (4.0 percent) and Maryland (3.2 percent). The new ACS is the cornerstone of the government's effort to keep pace with the country's ever-increasing demands for timely and relevant population and housing data. Being mailed to about 250,000 (roughly

1-in-480) addresses a month nationwide, the ACS will provide current demographic, housing, social and economic information about America's communities every year - information previously available only once every 10 years.

- x - The American Community Survey data are based on responses from a sample of households across the nation. The estimates and rankings may vary from the actual values because of sampling or nonsampling variations. The statistical statements have undergone testing, and comparisons are significant at the

90-percent confidence level. Additional information and data profiles for the nation, states, counties and places may be accessed at or .