Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say you're a developer. First you have to outbid the other developers for the land. Then you go for City or County approval. You know you're more likely to get it if you propose more expensive units. Then you have to pay for utility extensions. In many cases the School District wants impact fees. You better be charging enough to cover costs.
Texas has three of the ten largest cities in the US, and all the cities in Texas of medium size and above (say, Tyler and larger) are growing faster than the national rate. Why is it surprising to you?
I’ve never heard anyone claim Texas to be at the expense that the chart is showing.
It curious that the urban creed that more housing equals lower prices can be heard quietly dying in this thread.
They have a monopoly on housing discussion, and as such have given real estate developers with no interest in lower home prices a carte blanche to govern land distribution.
Community land trusts are a much better alternative; the house is owned privately, but the land is controlled collectively in a town trust. Not only will this tamper down on rent seeking, but it would also drive away speculators and investors who would otherwise have a community segregated and locked down based on income.
Sure there would be less money for white collar workers and less development overall, but that is a better deal than any of the hand waving philosophies we have received over the past 10 years.
I’ve never heard anyone claim Texas to be at the expense that the chart is showing.
Well, if you look at any of the DFW or Houston threads you'll read, over and over, about people who thought they could buy a big house with room for a pony inside the inner loop in one of those cities for $250,000 "because it's so cheap in Texas" only to be shocked, yes shocked, that what they thought were dusty sleepy little burgs where people still ride horses down Main Street were actually enormous metropoli wth high housing prices.
According to that chart, TX housing prices appear similar to AZ, MN, and NC, which is about where I would have guessed. Much less than all the West Coast, somewhat less than the Mountain West, less than most of the East Coast states north of DC.
So what is it that's surprising you? Again, Texas contains 3 of the 10 largest cities by population in the US; and of the top 10 metro areas by population, only Texas contains two of them, not even California has two of the top 10 metro areas. And unlike, say, Detroit, all the major metro areas in the state are growing faster than the national average (just walk down any street in Dallas, knock on doors and see if you can find any native Texans).
The idea of Texas as a dusty wilderness of small towns is about 120 years out of date, y'all.
Say you're a developer. First you have to outbid the other developers for the land. Then you go for City or County approval. You know you're more likely to get it if you propose more expensive units. Then you have to pay for utility extensions. In many cases the School District wants impact fees. You better be charging enough to cover costs.
Are you saying it is common practice for zoning departments to deny low and mid-income units based on their interpretations of land use regulations? Actually in my city low income projects can be fast-tracked so I would say the exact opposite is more prevalent.
It curious that the urban creed that more housing equals lower prices can be heard quietly dying in this thread.
They have a monopoly on housing discussion, and as such have given real estate developers with no interest in lower home prices a carte blanche to govern land distribution.
Community land trusts are a much better alternative; the house is owned privately, but the land is controlled collectively in a town trust. Not only will this tamper down on rent seeking, but it would also drive away speculators and investors who would otherwise have a community segregated and locked down based on income.
Sure there would be less money for white collar workers and less development overall, but that is a better deal than any of the hand waving philosophies we have received over the past 10 years.
What monopoly? You understand the prefix "mono" refers to one of something and not a group?
Land trusts will not lower the price of land within a city everything else held constant because the supply of housing does not change and the demand for it is likewise unchanged. Land trusts will not lower the property tax burden and may not yield development that is the "highest and best use" because there is less incentive to do so. That means that there are additional units which are never built which exacerbates the supply/demand imbalance further increasing housing costs. Land trusts will do nothing directly for the middle class and will indirectly decrease their buying power.
What monopoly? You understand the prefix "mono" refers to one of something and not a group?
Land trusts will not lower the price of land within a city everything else held constant because the supply of housing does not change and the demand for it is likewise unchanged. Land trusts will not lower the property tax burden and may not yield development that is the "highest and best use" because there is less incentive to do so. That means that there are additional units which are never built which exacerbates the supply/demand imbalance further increasing housing costs. Land trusts will do nothing directly for the middle class and will indirectly decrease their buying power.
Are you saying it is common practice for zoning departments to deny low and mid-income units based on their interpretations of land use regulations? Actually in my city low income projects can be fast-tracked so I would say the exact opposite is more prevalent.
There is always a range of variables in zoning. Developers will build based on what they think they can sell in the neighborhood and make the most profit. I see it with knockdowns in my neighborhood. The original houses range from 1100sqft to 1900sqft on mostly 50 x 100 and 100 x 100 lots. There is no profit for a builder to modernize a 1300 sqft house after paying for the house and the land. However, replace the 1300 sqft house with a 3300sqft, 4br/3.5 bath open concept colonial (that still fits the zoning) and the builder will make a boat load of money and the house will sell pretty quickly. There are now 6 within 600 feet of my house. They look out of place, but if this continues, my original house will look out of place.
If the plan meets the requirements of the zoning, there is not much the zoning board can do to stop the building. Now, the bigger the plan, the more leverage the town has to get the builder to pay to upgrade services affected by the plan (roads, drainage, water lines, school upgrades).
Developers exist to make money and selling high priced houses leads to more profits.
Are you saying it is common practice for zoning departments to deny low and mid-income units based on their interpretations of land use regulations? Actually in my city low income projects can be fast-tracked so I would say the exact opposite is more prevalent.
When a large subdivision is proposed, especially if it has not been annexed to the City/Village, how much it would bring in (properrty tax) vs. cost of services, is a big consideration. Also, existing residents usually object less to a high-income development. At least that was how it was where I used to live.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
