Our friends at RaiseTheHammer, a group dedicated to the livability of Hamilton Ontario, is somewhat similar to the mission of Buffalo Rising: "Raise the Hammer is a group of Hamilton, Ontario citizens who believe in our city's potential and are willing to get involved in making the city a more vibrant, livable, and attractive place to live and work. We are non-partisan and our members come from diverse political backgrounds. Our common interest is revitalizing our city, a goal that benefits everyone."
They have consistently focused on urban issues such as sprawl and urban historic heritage as it relates to their city. Because of this, my research often leads me back to their pages. One in particular caught my attention because it dealt with a proposal in front of city government to raise fees for new sprawl style developments in order to pay the true cost of those projects incurred by the city. The council was under intense pressure from developers to actually lower their fees so that their product could be competitively priced in the market. They also claimed that recession was not the proper time to increase fees. The subtitle from the story which appeared about a year and a half ago read:
If suburban homes are no longer affordable once their prices reflect the actual cost of servicing, that suggests the logic of greenfield development is actually a false economy.
In the United States we have come to understand just how damaging a false economy based on the home building industry can be. We have not, however, translated that into an understanding of the damage done locally by subsidized sprawl. In metro Buffalo sprawl building continues unabated with little to no scrutiny of its costs and economic damage. There is also no apparent political will to reform taxes and fees to pay the actual cost of the choice of sprawl over more sustainable and cost effective form of building. Unlike Buffalo, Hamilton is starting to face up to the fact the unlimited creation of infrastructure for an increasingly thinly spread population is not good economic policy. At the time this story appeared on RaiseTheHammer a 'yes' vote on increasing development fees was not assured. Since then the city council did agree to a moderate increase, though still not enough to cover actual costs. It was a baby step for sure. But Hamilton is at least showing some foresight on this important issue and as a regional style government Hamilton was able react in regional manner. So far Buffalo is stuck in the mud. Fractured government and shortsighted thinking limits any progress metro Buffalo can make against its own cannibalistic development practices.
I encourage you to check out the comments from readers at the story link and go to this link for a follow up on this issue. RaiseTheHammer was kind enough to allow us to republish the story "Subsidized Sprawl Servicing a False Economy" in full here on BRO. They post a lot of great urban stories not just important to Hamilton. I recommend checking them out from time to time.
Subsidized Sprawl Servicing a False Economy
If suburban homes are no longer affordable once their prices reflect the actual cost of servicing, that suggests the logic of greenfield development is actually a false economy.
By Ryan McGreal
Published May 12, 2009 Editorial
Hamilton city planners want to increase development charges to recoup more of the cost of servicing new subdivisions. The Hamilton Halton Home Building Association (HHHBA), long accustomed to getting its way in Hamilton, has been busy whittling the city down.
Citizens at City Hall (CATCH) reports that while the planned increase has already been cut by $1,500 per house, the HHHBA request to freeze development fees at their current low rates could cost the city $7 million in unpaid servicing charges.
Planning staff recommend increasing the development charge per house by $7,394 to $26,967. Even with the increase, that would still put Hamilton in 20th place out of 25 neighbouring municipalities.
The issue is that current charges aren't enough to cover the necessary but expensive expansion of water and sewer treatment and distribution facilities, which are already running over-capacity.
The Hamilton Spectator recently echoed the HHHBA call to freeze rates at their current level, claiming that a recession is no time to increase development charges.
This, of course, is an excellent case in point of the often large gap between the rhetoric of free market capitalism and the actual political objectives of business interests. Businesses tend to want free markets for everyone else and preferential treatment for themselves.
Sprawl a Net Drain
It should go without saying that if suburban homes are no longer competitive or even affordable once their prices reflect the actual cost of providing public services, that suggests the logic of greenfield development is actually a false economy.
Now, if subsidizing sprawl produced a net benefit to society as a whole, it might be justified. Unfortunately, sprawl is a net drain by a variety of measures.
The configuration of low density sprawl land use requires high rates of car ownership and results in much higher distances driven, with accompanying higher rates of fuel consumption, air pollution and GHG emissions.
The air pollution results in higher rates of heart disease, and the sedentary habits that attend car-dependent living results in higher rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other lifestyle-related conditions (see here, here, here, here and here).
In addition, sprawl results in the destruction of dependable farmland. This is particularly disheartening in Hamilton, which is surrounded by some of the best farmland on the planet but lost 20 percent of its farmland between 1991 and 2006.
Sprawl also forces public service providers to re-deploy their scarce resources outward. Fiscal pressure from the steady growth of sprawl development is forcing the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) to close inner city schools so it can afford to build new suburban schools.
All the money and resources sunk into increasing road capacity also turns out to be counter-productive. As a result of induced demand and other counter-intuitive network effects, investments in increased lane capacity generally result in more, not less, congestion.
In fact, cities that invest the most in road capacity end up with the worst congestion and the most air pollution. This is because more people drive longer distances more often when it is easier to drive. This 'traps' people in car-dependent living arrangements that persist even when increasing congestion wipes out the putative advantages to driving.
No Political Will
Unfortunately, City Councillors don't seem willing to stand up to the home building industry. A motion by councillor Brian McHattie for the committee looking at the issue to proceed with endorsing the staff recommendation and passing it to City Council was defeated 6-2.
Instead, they voted 6-2 to make no recommendation, which leaves wide open the possibility that the status will remain quo. For what it's worth, the audit and administration committee is open to delegations from local residents and organizations when it considers this issue at its June 4 meeting.
Contrast Hamilton's spineless pandering with Halton regional chair Gary Carr, who last October flatly stated, "Growth is not paying for itself. Until it does, we are not going to continue to grow. It's as simple as I can put it."
*Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer and writer. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Several of his essays have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. Ryan also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on twitter.
View image
They have consistently focused on urban issues such as sprawl and urban historic heritage as it relates to their city. Because of this, my research often leads me back to their pages. One in particular caught my attention because it dealt with a proposal in front of city government to raise fees for new sprawl style developments in order to pay the true cost of those projects incurred by the city. The council was under intense pressure from developers to actually lower their fees so that their product could be competitively priced in the market. They also claimed that recession was not the proper time to increase fees. The subtitle from the story which appeared about a year and a half ago read:
If suburban homes are no longer affordable once their prices reflect the actual cost of servicing, that suggests the logic of greenfield development is actually a false economy.
In the United States we have come to understand just how damaging a false economy based on the home building industry can be. We have not, however, translated that into an understanding of the damage done locally by subsidized sprawl. In metro Buffalo sprawl building continues unabated with little to no scrutiny of its costs and economic damage. There is also no apparent political will to reform taxes and fees to pay the actual cost of the choice of sprawl over more sustainable and cost effective form of building. Unlike Buffalo, Hamilton is starting to face up to the fact the unlimited creation of infrastructure for an increasingly thinly spread population is not good economic policy. At the time this story appeared on RaiseTheHammer a 'yes' vote on increasing development fees was not assured. Since then the city council did agree to a moderate increase, though still not enough to cover actual costs. It was a baby step for sure. But Hamilton is at least showing some foresight on this important issue and as a regional style government Hamilton was able react in regional manner. So far Buffalo is stuck in the mud. Fractured government and shortsighted thinking limits any progress metro Buffalo can make against its own cannibalistic development practices.
I encourage you to check out the comments from readers at the story link and go to this link for a follow up on this issue. RaiseTheHammer was kind enough to allow us to republish the story "Subsidized Sprawl Servicing a False Economy" in full here on BRO. They post a lot of great urban stories not just important to Hamilton. I recommend checking them out from time to time.
Subsidized Sprawl Servicing a False Economy
If suburban homes are no longer affordable once their prices reflect the actual cost of servicing, that suggests the logic of greenfield development is actually a false economy.
By Ryan McGreal
Published May 12, 2009 Editorial
Hamilton city planners want to increase development charges to recoup more of the cost of servicing new subdivisions. The Hamilton Halton Home Building Association (HHHBA), long accustomed to getting its way in Hamilton, has been busy whittling the city down.
Citizens at City Hall (CATCH) reports that while the planned increase has already been cut by $1,500 per house, the HHHBA request to freeze development fees at their current low rates could cost the city $7 million in unpaid servicing charges.
Planning staff recommend increasing the development charge per house by $7,394 to $26,967. Even with the increase, that would still put Hamilton in 20th place out of 25 neighbouring municipalities.
The issue is that current charges aren't enough to cover the necessary but expensive expansion of water and sewer treatment and distribution facilities, which are already running over-capacity.
The Hamilton Spectator recently echoed the HHHBA call to freeze rates at their current level, claiming that a recession is no time to increase development charges.
This, of course, is an excellent case in point of the often large gap between the rhetoric of free market capitalism and the actual political objectives of business interests. Businesses tend to want free markets for everyone else and preferential treatment for themselves.
Sprawl a Net Drain
It should go without saying that if suburban homes are no longer competitive or even affordable once their prices reflect the actual cost of providing public services, that suggests the logic of greenfield development is actually a false economy.
Now, if subsidizing sprawl produced a net benefit to society as a whole, it might be justified. Unfortunately, sprawl is a net drain by a variety of measures.
The configuration of low density sprawl land use requires high rates of car ownership and results in much higher distances driven, with accompanying higher rates of fuel consumption, air pollution and GHG emissions.
The air pollution results in higher rates of heart disease, and the sedentary habits that attend car-dependent living results in higher rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other lifestyle-related conditions (see here, here, here, here and here).
In addition, sprawl results in the destruction of dependable farmland. This is particularly disheartening in Hamilton, which is surrounded by some of the best farmland on the planet but lost 20 percent of its farmland between 1991 and 2006.
Sprawl also forces public service providers to re-deploy their scarce resources outward. Fiscal pressure from the steady growth of sprawl development is forcing the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) to close inner city schools so it can afford to build new suburban schools.
All the money and resources sunk into increasing road capacity also turns out to be counter-productive. As a result of induced demand and other counter-intuitive network effects, investments in increased lane capacity generally result in more, not less, congestion.
In fact, cities that invest the most in road capacity end up with the worst congestion and the most air pollution. This is because more people drive longer distances more often when it is easier to drive. This 'traps' people in car-dependent living arrangements that persist even when increasing congestion wipes out the putative advantages to driving.
No Political Will
Unfortunately, City Councillors don't seem willing to stand up to the home building industry. A motion by councillor Brian McHattie for the committee looking at the issue to proceed with endorsing the staff recommendation and passing it to City Council was defeated 6-2.
Instead, they voted 6-2 to make no recommendation, which leaves wide open the possibility that the status will remain quo. For what it's worth, the audit and administration committee is open to delegations from local residents and organizations when it considers this issue at its June 4 meeting.
Contrast Hamilton's spineless pandering with Halton regional chair Gary Carr, who last October flatly stated, "Growth is not paying for itself. Until it does, we are not going to continue to grow. It's as simple as I can put it."
*Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer and writer. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Several of his essays have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. Ryan also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on twitter.
^Click to enlarge
...much of my research leads me back to their pages...
First, looking at someone else's webpage and then providing no actual data or proof to support your argument hardly qualifies as research.
The problem with this series is that it lacks four main points of understanding:
1. You haven't defined subsidy, just used it as a generic term to try to discredit sprawl. Are you suggesting that local governments are paying for development to be constructed, particularly residental which is a significantly larger portion of the increase in developed acres in WNY? Some suburban business development is subsidized, and I agree unnecessarily. Pay your own way. However, the home building industry IS NOT subsided. Developers pay their own way on the entire project, which means everything from buying the land to designing the project to construction. If you're claiming negative externalities from sprawl, say so, but back it up with some empirical proof and data. Just because everyone thinks its bad or doesn't like people having a choice of where and how to live (city vs. suburban, high-density vs. low-denisty) doesn't automatically make it bad. I've agreed many times that sprawl in WNY is unnecessary and has severe negative impacts, this "series' adds nothing to that discussion and is continually beating an already dead horse.
2. Impact fees, which you are referring to are illegal in NY. Your "research" should have shown you that. Research has shown that commerical development aften pays for itself and it a revenue generator for community and homes are not, but when done in the right mix, they provide no negative fiscal return.
3. Government fragmentation leads to each community trying to develop and raise tax reveneu for what's best for its residents, not the region. Again, don't hate the players, hate the game (the structure). So long as community borders matter to Williamsville, Amherst, Sloan and these other places, the issue will continue. No one is ever overturning home rule in NY and therefore wasteful expenditures of tax dollars on academic exercieds like the Framework for Regional Growth will have no impact. That documents is worthless because it has no legal authority.
4. You can never compare one place to another, one region to the next because the government and regulatory issues are not the same. Anti-sprawl folks love to cherry pick places and projects that have a negative impact but never going so far to actually prove anything here in WNY. Sprawl has to be contextualized to fully understand it and then offer solutions.
A good report on sprawl would set the table with an firm understanding of the government structures in place and the theory of why communities like Amherst and Clarence choose to grow. That could be followed by some research shpwing if the cost of sprawl outweighs the benefit.
But these stories amount no to research but to normative, moral arguments against public choice with any empirical support to prove its a problem. You're taking the "it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck approach" which I guess is good for an unsophisticated audiance but falls flat if anyone asks any questions or has a greater understanding than you.
Probably the best comment I've seen in a long time on BRO. ^^
On the other discussion you said suburban subsidies were just as bad as urban subsidies. Why the change of heart? Oh I forgot. We are still pretending subsidies in the burbs don't exist. Carry on.
You got all that from 11 words? You are such a tool!
When logic and reason fail you name-calling is the best option.
It costs more to build in a sprawl style-that is a fact. The extra cost is spread over the entire populatioin-that is a fact. The Buffalo area population is shrinking-that is a fact. The Buffalo area continues to add new infrastructure while deferring maintenance on its existing infrustrcuture-that is a fact.
The city of Hamilton is beginning to undersatnd that sprawl should be a choice and if you choose it you should pay for it. I am not sure what your argument is with any of this.
Well said.