Under your theory it would be more adventagous for there to be cities containing nothing but appartment buildings and no houses.
People mistakenly believe that appartment buildings don’t also contribute to urban sprawl. This simply is untrue as a lot of land developers are now putting up appartments instead of single family houses.
I’ve doe consulting work for municipalities. The work was not exactly related to what we’re talking about here, so I certainly can’t claim any expert status. But from what I have seen, it is not more of an advantage to have appartment building (ESPECIALLY low income appartments) than it is to have houses. Granted, the income difference to the municipality isn’t monsterous, but it is enough to back my arguement.
The problem with this debate is, we’re all from different areas, and taxes and how they’re used differs depending on where we live. So while I’m argueing apples, you may be argueing oranges.
I agree with pkbites, especially if one considers the effect of the apartment building on local governments generally. Schools are especially impacted. (more people = more schoolkids).
In fact, all residential development is a net drain on municipal resources. That’s why municipalities fight to attract factories and large retailers with incentives, but charge residential developers impact fees. (I concede that incentives are also motivated by the jobs that commercial development brings, and that sales taxes are also a factor.) At least in urban areas, the direct and indirect costs of such improvements as roads and sewers relate more closely to usage levels, not the distance they run.
(FWIW, I’m a municipal attorney who regularly sees how these facts affect municipal planning decisions.)
Well, random has it sorta right- residential areas tend to be a drain on the tax/budget system. Here in CA, the Cities get most of their cash from sales taxes- so that residential areas bring in less cash then they cost. But that’s not because residential areas COST more- they don’t- high density housing isn’t that much of a drain- it simply brings in no sales taxes. (Of course- in order for there to BE sales taxes the people have to live SOMEWHERE- but each city hopes that they will live in th enext city over- and shop in their City. Silly, I know, but…)
However, San Jose is of the opinion that “high density urban core housing” is a solution, and saves a lot of $$ over sub urban sprawl. Look up their plans- they are on the web.
And in CA, the property taxes- as a %- are pretty even overall- they are not higher in cities. This agrees with pkbites. However, it is also true that high income housing is better than low income housing- and that single family tends to be higher income. But the po’ folks gotta live SOMEWHERE. Thus again- cities want to attract rich dudes & discourage lower income families. However, that’s not part of this argue- since Cities also want upscale retail, and high rent office buildings. Given equal income residents- high density is cheaper.
And sure I can assume that “all the tenants would build new houses”- after all- what are they going to do- live in tents? They gotta live somewhere- either in a house or high density. High density housing gives the City all the advantages of scale- fewer roads, more effective mass transit, easier police & fire, etc.
Instead, it has everything to do with higher population density.
High-density housing is a result of high population density. Simple. The problem is that you likely can’t control for all other factors in this comparison: income level, population, mode of transportation, etc. So anytime you come across apartment buildings, it’s generally because there are so many people in that area that you need a high-density structure to house them all. All data about the drain on services is necessarily going to be skewed.
So you believe that a municipal planning decision to allow the construction of a large multi-family residential building won’t increase the population (and therefore the population density) of the municipality? That there’s all these people already in town (sleeping on park benches, I suppose) who will be the only new tenants or unit owners?
Of course not. That’s nonsense. While some or even most of the new residents will already live within city limits, many will come from nearby areas. If the building isn’t built, they’ll go elsewhere. That applies to the existing, in-town people, too. If there isn’t the vacant housing locally, they’ll go to another, nearby town. More multifamily units = more people = more population density = more local government expenses.
I have nothing against multiunit buildings. I lived in them (apartment, then condo) for over 10 years. If the supply of those units in town had been inadequate, because of governmental regulatory hurdles or otherwise, I would have gone elsewhere in the area. (Yeah, that’s an oversimplification. What really would have happened is that prices/rents would have gone up and someone other than me would have been priced out of the market and moved elsewhere. Same net effect.)
Sure, housing shortages also have another effect – people double up in existing units in town, which would not affect the net overall density. That only happens if the shortage extends throughout the area, beyond the borders of one municipality. Otherwise, people move out (to the next town) or don’t move in. As I’m talking about municipal zoning/planning decisions which affect the housing unit supply that (by definition) govern just one municipality, that doesn’t apply.
While (as someone said"poor folks have to live somewhere", and density nationwide will not change as a result of those local decisions, they will have a local effect, and determine just how many students there are at the local school, how many cars are on the local roads, how much shit gets treated at the local treatment plant, how big the local sewer lines have to be, how big the local library needs to be and how many cops the local department has to hire.
So you believe that a municipal planning decision to allow the construction of a large multi-family residential building won’t increase the population (and therefore the population density) of the municipality? That there’s all these people already in town (sleeping on park benches, I suppose) who will be the only new tenants or unit owners?
Of course not. That’s nonsense. While some or even most of the new residents will already live within city limits, many will come from nearby areas. If the building isn’t built, they’ll go elsewhere. That applies to the existing, in-town people, too. If there isn’t the vacant housing locally, they’ll go to another, nearby town. More multifamily units = more people = more population density = more local government expenses.
I have nothing against multiunit buildings. I lived in them (apartment, then condo) for over 10 years. If the supply of those units in town had been inadequate, because of governmental regulatory hurdles or otherwise, I would have gone elsewhere in the area. (Yeah, that’s an oversimplification. What really would have happened is that prices/rents would have gone up and someone other than me would have been priced out of the market and moved elsewhere. Same net effect.)
Sure, housing shortages also have another effect – people double up in existing units in town, which would not affect the net overall density. That only happens if the shortage extends throughout the area, beyond the borders of one municipality. Otherwise, people move out (to the next town) or don’t move in. As I’m talking about municipal zoning/planning decisions which affect the housing unit supply that (by definition) govern just one municipality, that doesn’t apply.
While (as someone said"poor folks have to live somewhere", and density nationwide will not change as a result of those local decisions, they will have a local effect, and determine just how many students there are at the local school, how many cars are on the local roads, how much shit gets treated at the local treatment plant, how big the local sewer lines have to be, how big the local library needs to be and how many cops the local department has to hire.
What about cigarrette taxes? In my state, a pack of cigarrettes costs FIVE BUCKS because the voters passed a new 75 cent tax raise. 70% voted yes, 30% voted no. About 75 percent of the state are non smokers, and 25 percent smokers.
IANAPO, but I always imagined that a good justification for taxing property owners was that if basic social services and public education aren’t properly supported, then conditions will deteriorate to a point that the value of the very property in question is jeopardized. Hence, it’s in the homeowners’ interest as well as the community at large.
