Disqus - Latest Comments for MarketUrbanism

Re: Why another book about cities?

Adam Hengels — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:44:14 -0000

Sandy is writing the book. http://marketurbanism.com/2...

Re: Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia

Adam Hengels — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:41:26 -0000

What? Now you are definitely just making stuff up out of thin air. I regret indulging a troll...

Re: Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia

Adam Hengels — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:00:31 -0000

"You are remarkably inconsistent in your logic. I have pointed out some of them." Huh? Where?
"You seem to want and urbanist fututre and use government incentives to produce your preferred outcomes"
I challenge you to find one such instance in all of my writing. If you are just going to make stuff up, I assume you are just trolling and aren't going to argue in good faith...

Re: Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia

Adam Hengels — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:16:01 -0000

bizarre circular arguments... You claim I don't prefer markets, but then assert I want markets to run rampant. Which is it? You claim, without evidence, that I want government incentives, despite publishing an entire website calling for an end to government incentives and intervention in land use markets, and your comment is posted on article that calls out many such subsidies. You claim I'm a class warrior, then claim that my preferences are inferior to yours (degrade your community) and should not be tolerated. You ask to peacefully coexist, but would use the force of the state to prevent me from building something you don't like on my own property.
Yes, let's coexist. You keep your single family home, I'm fine with that. But, I don't want to continue to be forced to subsidize your lifestyle choice. And I'll fight for your right to build something different on your property if you so choose.

Re: Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia

Adam Hengels — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:21:46 -0000

I agreed to the universal preference to single family homes, and you still ignore the argument. Yet, you believe society should subsidize your "dream." Not agreeing to subsidize your dream is class warfare? Give me a break. Sounds like you are on the front lines trying to continue to fleece my family and children who value location higher than separating myself from my neighbors.

Re: Subsidizing Suburbia: A forgotten history of how the government created suburbia

Adam Hengels — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:38:46 -0000

Of course, who wouldn't prefer a single family home? My preference would be to have a 5 acre lot next to Central Park. I'd prefer a new Corvette over the used car I currently own. I'd prefer lobster over the sandwich I had for lunch. But merely having a preference does not mean society is responsible for subsidizing that preference.

Market Urbanism calls for exactly what you ask for, market preference. If a single family home with a little back yard is important to you, go for it. But I wouldn't ask others to subsidize your choice, or forcibly prevent you (or others) from subdividing your property...

Re: Political Privilege and Class War in the Urban Housing Market | Foundation for Economic Education

Adam Hengels — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:14:29 -0000

sure, modern zoning didn't exist, but that doesn't mean prohibitions on building didn't. Here's a link to an article from 1698 that blames London's construction prohibitions for emigration to the new world, an example of the same dynamic I'm talking about in the article: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e...
Had London allowed itself to grow, it would have enabled even more wealth and vibrancy to grow. Instead, it forced people out except the wealthy who could afford it.

I'm not arguing for stasis. I'm arguing that Manhattan should be allowed to build up instead of forcing all the gentrification on poor neighborhoods in the boroughs.

Re: Political Privilege and Class War in the Urban Housing Market | Foundation for Economic Education

Adam Hengels — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:04:52 -0000

Absent zoning, gentrification would still occur, but at a natural pace. I'm addressing the gentrification that is concurrent with displacement in many over-regulated cities. If rich neighborhoods weren't preserved in amber, you'd see growth in the most productive neighborhoods instead of a displacement of people from the poorer ones.

Re: Market Urbanism Is Still Underrated

Adam Hengels — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 14:56:08 -0000

Prices decrease over the long run via filtering through depreciation of the housing stock. If enough new supply is added to satisfy overall demand, rents drop in the existing stock over the long-run as it depreciates...

Re: Why No Micro-Apartments in Chicago?

Adam Hengels — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:07:44 -0000

Thanks for making that clarification. Unfortunately, the MLA is still too high, but this helps...

Re: Market Urbanism MUsings April 1, 2016

Adam Hengels — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 00:09:17 -0000

Michael isn't on twitter that I know of, but he is active in the Market Urbanism facebook group. Come join us: https://www.facebook.com/gr...

Re: Rothbard The Urbanist Part 7: Pricing Highways

Adam Hengels — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:04:08 -0000

if people avoid the congested times, or move closer to work, or take transit or car pool, won't there a) be a decrease in revenue

Most likely revenue would be lower if behavior changes in response, but mobility would nonetheless increase.

b) tighter, or more focused congestion in the work centers?

I don't see why. Congestion should be eased if tolling is priced right.

In our local case, with the mix of tolled express lanes and free general purpose lanes, the tolled lanes won't really be of value, and make any money, unless there is some substantial level of congestion in the free lanes.

Yeah. It sounds like there's a massive oversupply of highway lanes there.

Also, if congestion pricing is good for highways, is it not appropriate for other roads and modes? Should transit be subject to congestion pricing as well? And recover their full costs at the (farebox) as seems to the core message of this article?

Yes, in theory... Transit services should probably charge more during rush hour if they are crowded, and charge more for longer trips. I don't think it's likely that (m)any highways or transit would recover full costs, so they should start by charging prices that ease congestion/crowding.
Regardless, the first step should be to stop building new highways.

Re: Liberate the Garage!: Autonomous Cars and the American Dream

Adam Hengels — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 15:37:06 -0000

I'm also looking forward to eased demand for on-street parking. NIMBY will no longer fear losing their free parking...

Re: Don’t demonize driving—just stop subsidizing it

Adam Hengels — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:12:35 -0000

"When we experienced the epidemic of drunk driving, we didn’t go back to prohibition."
Actually, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was a response to drunk driving and MADD's misguided advocacy. It's a prohibition with numerous unintended consequences....

Re: Happy Birthday Jane Jacobs! (Now Let’s Have A Debate)

Adam Hengels — Tue, 05 May 2015 13:00:03 -0000

Benjamin,
I interpreted the article as a critique of people who put words in Jacobs' mouth. But you seem to interpret it as Scott actually putting words in her mouth. Scott is trying to say that individual's ideology skews how people view and celebrate her work.
He is saying the typical left-wing urbanist focuses on aesthetic considerations of her work, to the detriment of understanding the economics. Thus these people attempt to recreate the results, instead of studying the process....

Re: Planned Manufacturing Districts: Planning the Life Out of Districts

Adam Hengels — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:41:49 -0000

If it's perfect for the maker economy, the maker economy would be happy to outbid residential uses or be happy to co-exist with residential uses. This is an example of how the mix of uses would make the neighborhood more vibrant.

Re: Can you be an engineer and speak out for reform?

Adam Hengels — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:45:44 -0000

frame that letter, and display it proudly

Re: On the Mixing of Incompatible Uses and Incumbency

Adam Hengels — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 00:34:21 -0000

Absolutely. Nuisance laws and common law (and just being neighborly) are a better way to address these types of disputes, rather than codifying land use patterns. And as Matt points out, codifying use almost gives permission to be "heavy" industry when it might not even belong there...

Re: On the Mixing of Incompatible Uses and Incumbency

Adam Hengels — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 00:29:34 -0000

Yes, that is a core point of the original post.

Re: Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)

Adam Hengels — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:32:46 -0000

I too get turned off by extreme rhetoric. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention, and I'll try to reflect on how I may have gone astray.

Re: Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)

Adam Hengels — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:46:15 -0000

EC, I've written thousands of words on this site thoroughly demonstrating the dangers of rent control. I linked to many of my writing right here in this very thread of comments.

Yes, it's been thoroughly demonstrated:
*There is no issue in all of economic debate with as much consensus as rent control.*

For the South Bronx, rent control was absolutely devastating. To brush it off as "not ideal" is pretty hard to swallow.

In this light, it hard for me not to take offense to accusations of sidestepping the topic or unfair rhetoric .

Re: Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)

Adam Hengels — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:28:12 -0000

Assar Lindbeck: ""next to bombing, rent control seems in many cases to be the most efficient technique so far known for destroying cities"

South Bronx:

Re: Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)

Adam Hengels — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:41:18 -0000

As tempting (and hilarious) as it is, I wouldn't be so cynical to give them credit for harboring nearly godlike forethought, while simultaneously exposing profound economic naivety.

Re: Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)

Adam Hengels — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 11:22:01 -0000

Supply and demand isn't Free Market Fundamentalism, it's just plain old economics.

I do appreciate the time you took to write a well-thought-out comment, but we just aren't going to be able to have a constructive dialogue if you are going to poopoo an entire social science...

Rent Control has thoroughly demonstrated to be one of the most destructive policies ever conceived, and has been considered "worse than bombing" even by socialist economists. Here are some of my writings on the matter:

http://marketurbanism.com/2...
http://marketurbanism.com/2...
http://marketurbanism.com/2...
http://marketurbanism.com/2...
http://marketurbanism.com/2...

http://marketurbanism.com/c...

Re: How to Fix San Francisco’s Housing Market

Adam Hengels — Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:46:12 -0000

I think its important to note that taxing land to encourage development does not necessarily result in higher density in the long run. Taxing land simply to encourage development in lieu of speculation can have a harmful long-term effect. http://marketurbanism.com/2...

I'd favor land-value-tax under certain conditions:
- the bureaucracy of the city is set up in way that a feedback loop between zoning and taxes where a political entity is incentivized to loosen zoning in order to increase tax revenue.
- I would suggest that most or all revenues generated in a land-value tax be spent locally, with the hopes of turning NIMBYs into YIMBYs who want to increase land values in the area, not just values of their own home.
- the tax replaces another tax, and doesn't just become another revenue source added to the other burdens