Something to muse about!
A central reason why housing is so expensive in Portland (and most other
Oregon cities) is that the government has created an artificial shortage of
homes through zoning and other types of land-use regulation.
A recent study by the Brookings Institution found this to be true on a
national scale as well. The authors examined land-use polices among the
nation's 50 largest cities, and found that those cities with the least
amount of zoning - Dallas, San Antonio and Houston - had the cheapest rents
and the lowest home prices of all cities. Not only that, the three Texas
regions had lower concentrations of poverty, higher home ownership rates,
and larger concentrations of college graduates than cities with strict
growth controls such as urban growth boundaries.
The basis (2.05MB):
Austin is the city with all the college graduates, its not a region.
Population growth has to stop. The San Antonio and surrounding areas, rely
on the Edwards Aquifer for its only adequate water supply Between the year
long drought and sprawling residential areas eating into where rainwater
would normally enter the aquifer from the surface, its getting dangerously
low. West of Austin, some wells have run dry.
In fat times of rainfall, this isn't a problem, and hasn't really been a
serious problem till now. As populations eat away at the aquifer's source
of water by covering it with buildings, houses, roads and parking lots; and
increasingly continue to use its waters, the next drought will be dire for
all the inhabitants in the area.
Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Antonio all have the surburbanite
mindset of moving to the new housing developments always on its fringes or
just outside their city limits. Later to all be incorporated into their
cities shortly afterwards. Its a vicious cycle. This is not urban growth,
its incorporated new housing development with maximum taxable and income
growth to go with it for the city. Barely developed land or undeveloped
land for housing and commercial buildings has no realized money return.
Older housing is typically very run down almost inhabitable, very
inexpensive to rent or buy by middle income standards. There is no need to
regulate this if the money return for the municipality is there. That's the
bottom line, population growth (tax base) and uncontrolled land usage.
You must listen to right wing radio. Unrestricted capitalism is no better
than pure socialism. The only difference is in who controls. I would live in
Austin, Boulder or Portland. Afterall, I live in Arlington, VA
I never went anywhere. I am not an academic and graduated from a major U
about 23 years ago.
I had to take some lame Sociology class to graduate. I received a C because
I strongly advocated allowing gentrification to run its course unrestricted.
The prof. Dr Horowitz said that I had no facts and gave me a C. She just did
Back to the issue at hand. I have worked in City Planning in two cities. I
have seen the effects of both adequate zoning and inadequate zoning.
So, I do have a degree and a professional background in this issue. Oh yea,
I lived in Mexico City when I was young. Talk about unrestricted whatever.
You could taste the air and smell the water. We had to get the house rewired
just to make it safe to live in and this was a nice house in an exclusive
area. No zoning, no building codes and thousands die in an earthquake when
only several dozen would die in this country.
What do you bring to the table ?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.