Right wing water-carriers: Still thinking short term on sprawl (but personally profiting, nonetheless)

Let's hand it to conservative water-carrier Patrick McIlheran for at least exercising consistency if not sound logic in his column entitled "Goodbye Ducks, Hello Aspirations."

For this free market warrior, the equation is so simple: Build more houses and those houses will be CHEAPER. No need to think deeper than that - - even as we read about people having to sell their exurban "cheap" houses because they can't afford the car commute to work every day; school districts can't afford to gas up buses to get students to and from school (because kids can't walk to schools that are yards away); formerly "affluent" exurbs are abandoned and become slum-like.

Taxes go up. Or they don't; we can proclaim "tax freeze" and just let things like parks and infrastructure continue to crumble.

But houses will be cheaper!

McIlheran points out:

Houston’s been getting a lot of buzz lately, with Chicago and New York newspapers reporting how well it avoided the housing bubble.

Ah, "Houston buzz." From the Houston Chronicle:

Motorists in this region drive more miles per capita than residents in any other U.S. metropolitan area, eating a big chunk of the family budget. The average Houston-area family spends $9,566 per year on transportation, more than any other metropolitan area except Dallas-Fort Worth and Anchorage, Alaska. The U.S. average is $7,633.

That statistic comes from the Surface Transportation Policy Institute. They are pro-smart growth; there's your grain of salt.

But houses are, er, cheaper, you see, and...

"Far-sightedness" is not in Mr. McIlheran's skill set, evidently, when molding the issues to fit his worldview. Nor is relevant sourcing: calling Demographia, his "source" for the claim that median home prices are rising in Milwaukee, "a St. Louis-area consultancy" without mentioning its relationship to right wing extremist (and bought-and-paid-for anti-transit zealot) Wendell Cox is par for the course.

Go ahead and Google Mr. Cox. Let the nuttiness sink in. That nuttiness is amply funded by a collection of pro-highway, pro-petroleum organizations and lobbies, of course. He personally profits from his viewpoint, so why change it to reflect reality? Grain of salt, anyone?

In other news: Franklin's mayor is relieved that the 76th Street reconstruction (for the portion of the road that serves, for instance, the Little League Complex) will be "no frills"  - a four-lane undivided rural highway with culverts but no sidewalk or streetlights. No money in the budget to pay for a roadway that can be useful and safe for non-vehicular traffic.

Sprawl 101: If your child has a ball game or would like to play some pick-up ball at the Complex, you'll be giving him or her a ride to and from the diamond in your SUV.

But, evidently, houses are cheaper this way.

UPDATE (with thanks to SLOW HOME): McIlheran doesn't read The Washington Post? From their story, "Gas Prices Apply Brakes to Suburban Migration":

"When people bought homes, they punched the numbers and said can we afford the mortgage payment and taxes," [Bruce] Katz [director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution] said. "This new paradigm is going to have families being more deliberate about the cost of transportation spending and energy costs. That's a new phenomenon in the United States. That will be the change that will change development patterns."

Katz and others said high fuel prices will increase demand for transit-oriented development, where homes, townhouses and office buildings cluster around transit hubs that link jobs with population centers.

But, Mr. Katz, you don't understand - - the houses are cheaper, you see ...

Comments

[Lisa]

At the school board meeting yesterday, some woman complained that the schools are paying to transport children via bus that live 11 houses away from Southwood Glen . She said t.he district should cut that sort of thing to save her and the rest of the property tax payers money. Jim Miltzer replied that all of Franklin was considered a hazardous area, so the district is required to offer transportation. The woman got all huffy, said she didn't know this and said that the school district should put this fact in brochures to prospective families so they would be informed. It's a catch-22. People would complain if the district didn't offer busing to families that live near schools that it would be unsafe for their children to walk. If a child were to be injured walking to school, the district would be faced with an expensive lawsuit that would wipe out any savings from skimping on busing.

I lived right next door to Southwood Glen, with a sidewalk leading right to the school, and my mom made me ride the bus when I was little even though I begged her to let me walk. I lived so close my parents could watch me the whole way and they could see me walk into the building from our house. I thought it was ridiculous even when I was seven. Once the bus broke down in sight of the school right in front of my house and we had to wait 30 minutes for another bus to pick us up because it would have been a liability to have the students walk a half a block. Busing is just another consequence of poor neighborhood design that comes back to us in the form of higher property taxes and transportation costs.. You can pay now when a neighborhood is built, or pay more later. The attitude is focused on saving in the short run in Franklin, and that's a shame.

[john]

You're absolutely right. Short term thinking has left us so disconnected that kids are completely dependent on vehicles. The situation you describe is more and more common. And very sad.