Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

The Seattle Times

Editorials / Opinion


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Ed cetera

Join the informed, opinionated journalists of The Times' editorial staff in lively discussions at our blog Ed Cetera.

About the contributors| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

February 14, 2008 8:23 AM

The Cost of Land Restriction

Posted by Bruce Ramsey

The Times’ page-one story today is hugely important: our zoning, land-use regulations, and especially the urban growth boundary instituted in the early 1990s, are major causes of the run-up in house prices, which went from a median of about $140,000 to about $485,000 in 17 years. Most Seattle progressives, who have supported the increased control of land use for environmental reasons, don’t get this. They look at the house prices, they point to the increase in population, and their brains stop. Population growth did it. Microsoft did it. The Growth Management Act is innocent.

But it isn’t innocent. Other cities, like Dallas and Houston, have grown more than Seattle and had prices rise less. The difference is the land supply. Seattle starts out with a constrained land supply on account of Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish and the Cascades. You can’t help that. So our house prices will probably be higher than prices in Texas or Ohio or Missouri anyway. But we have added to the increase by drawing a line around the urban area and trying to force all the development inside it, while at the same time maintaining all the restrictive zoning inside the line.

Builders get this. They see it as plain as they see the price of Doug fir studs. Seattle’s progressives don’t see it. They look right at it and their eyes don’t function. Talk “affordable housing” and they think subsidies, bureaucrats and the Seattle housing levy—measures that are pup tents in the hurricane.

That land-use regulation is driving up the cost of housing is an old story. I wrote about it in 2002 and 2005, and these were not the first times. Now Times business reporter Elizabeth Rhodes has written a story that puts it on page one. Good. People have to understand: there is a cost to putting land off-limits to housing. In some cases the cost is worth it, but there is a cost, and the next generation of home buyers pays it.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by Russell Hokanson

11:04 AM, Feb 14, 2008

Thank you Bruce Ramsey! Over the years you have written about the non-market imposed restrictions that raise housing prices unnecessarily in our area. Nowhere is this demonstrated more clearly than in our current housing market conditions. Sales of single-family homes have slowed significantly over the last six months, yet we haven't seen a related decline in median housing prices. That's because the cost to create new housing in our area is so great. We're failing miserably to supply housing for middle-income families in the Puget Sound communities where they work. According to a 2007 report from the Seattle King County REALTORS, 17 of King County's 39 cities had no homes (thats zero!) affordable to middle income buyers. Artificial restrictions and costs make the situation that much more difficult to solve. We can only hope that some buyers take advantage of the current low mortgage rates and increased inventory as a window of opportunity. Thank you Elizabeth Rhodes and Theo Eicher for pointing out the true cost of our land-use regulations.

Posted by Don Clutter

12:16 PM, Feb 14, 2008

Finally the law of supply and demand smacks Seattle in the collective head. There will be no affordable housing with limited land supply. If you monkey with 'incentives' or demand that the government help, that will only drive the price of housing up even more. I guess the worker bees will have to live in city built dormatories.If the problem and the solutions cannot be understood, then the progressives need to look at how well the old Soviet model worked. Oh, it didn't!

Posted by Curt Moulton

12:03 PM, Feb 16, 2008

Growth management regulations will allow us to have local agriculture, forests and a healthier Puget Sound in the future while accommodating population growth. Let's not forget why we choose to live here.

Posted by Barrett

1:57 PM, Feb 16, 2008

Dear Elizabeth Rhodes,

I have an idea for a study.

How about a study that counts up the gargantuan direct and indirect subsidies that the real estate industry reaps from the taxpayer every year? I bet you will find that the real estate industry in America floats on a sea of welfare. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, capital gains tax treatment of housing, FEMA subsidized insurance, FHA, and on an on. All of these programs prop up the real estate industry by socializing the risks to builders, real estate agents, brokers, and borrowers. And ironically, you won’t find a more ardent group of free market enthusiasts than people in the real estate business. Let’s be fair. How about we strip away all of the subsidies that go to the real estate industry and then we can talk about the kind of deregulation they so desperately desire.

Want to know why homes cost so much? It’s called inflation. You know how you get inflation? One easy way is to put together a bunch of government subsidy programs that encourage people to over invest in housing. All this balderdash about government regulation adding to the price of housing is, at its root, a big lie. Where else can you put your money and pay virtually no capital gains? Answer: no place but housing. This, and other gems in the tax code, has caused people to dump everything they have into housing instead of other investments. “A home is a good investment,” the Master Builders say. Well, yes it is. But only because the federal government has distorted the market place so that it comes out on top.

Here’s a little lesson in economics. Housing isn’t an investment in the technical sense of the word. An investment is putting money into a capital facility that produces something of value. A house doesn’t produce anything. It simply rots. While we are bug eyed in front of the television watching the 24-hour home improvement channel, the Chinese are investing in factories. For all their flag waving, the real estate industry and their lobbyists will probably be responsible for single handedly lowering America’s standard of living relative to the rest of the world.

And by the way, God help us when we start comparing Seattle to Atlanta and Houston. Atlanta has sprawled their way into the most awful mess imaginable. Atlantans will soon run out of water to feed the beast the real estate community has created. And Houston? Have you every been to Houston? It’s the closest thing America has to a third world toilet.

Recent entries

Jul 30, 08 - 03:22 PM
Should puppies be banned?

Jul 30, 08 - 01:01 AM
Planet Obama

Jul 29, 08 - 05:55 PM
Notes on Finland

Jul 28, 08 - 01:30 AM
Obama's press

Jul 27, 08 - 12:00 AM
Summertime and the fishing is perplexing

Advertising

Marketplace

Advertising

Advertising

Categories
Calendar

July

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Browse the archives

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

Blogroll

Advertising

Buy a link here