a crank's progress

Progress and Poverty, first published in 1879, was American political economist Henry George’s most popular book. It explores why the economy of the mid-to-late 1800s had seen a simultaneous economic growth and growth in poverty. The book’s appeal was in its balance of moral and economic arguments, challenging the popular notion that the poor, through uncontrolled population growth, were responsible for their own woes. Inspired by his years living in San Francisco and his own experience with privation, George argues instead that poverty had grown due to the increasing speculation and monopolization of land, as landowners had captured the increases in growth, investment, and productivity through the rising cost of rent.
To solve this, George proposes the complete taxation of the unimproved value of land, thus returning the value of land, created through location, to the community. This solution would incentivize individuals to use the land they own productively and remove the tendency to speculate upon land’s increasing value. George’s argument was profoundly liberal, as individuals retain the right to own land and enjoy the profits generated from production upon it.
Progress and Poverty was hugely popular in the 1890s, being outsold only by the Bible. It inspired the Single Tax Movement, and influenced a wide range of intellectuals and policymakers in the early 1900s including Leo Tolstoy, Albert Einstein, and Winston Churchill.

And in keeping with the author’s principles, the book is free…no rent is extracted from it.

This guy gets it…

Colin O’Keefe, who owns a town home in Crown Hill, said that when he was looking for a home in the neighborhood, there was no need to search for a place with a backyard with Golden Gardens just a few minutes away by bike.

In almost 10 years, the 35-year-old estimates he has visited Golden Gardens more than a hundred times.

Nothing beats watching the sun set late in summer, the colors changing and rays moving each minute behind the Olympic Mountains, he said.

O’Keefe, who is planning his wedding reception at Golden Gardens, said he is disappointed about the decision to limit park hours and thinks spending money for police enforcement is a waste.

“When you lose people like us, who love parks and are the biggest advocates in the world for open space, it kind of feels like you lost the plot,” he said.

Who are cities and parks for?

It seems like the drag racing issue could be managed by traffic enforcement. And the crowd size issue tells me we need more public spaces, not reduced access to the ones we have.

How can cities manage their most valuable physical resource — land — for the benefit of everyone who chooses to live on it? How is the value created, who reaps the value, and how is it remitted back to the real investors — the community?

A 20% down payment on the standard Seattle home, which costs $800,000, will run you $160,000. Even with that down payment, you can expect to pay ~$3,400 on a 30-year mortgage. I must now remind people that I bought a home in the Central District for $70,000 in the not-too-distant year of 1998. (A 20-year adjustment to standard inflation places its value at around $120,000.) My down payment was $5,000. My mortgage, $600. I made less than $40,000 a year as a freelancer and adjunct lecturer. Those were the days for a young person in the arts. (Zillow presently places the value of that old house of mine at an unrealistic $800,000.)

We need to keep in mind that Seattle only had 563,374 people in 2000, not long after when he bought his little place, where today it’s at 753,675. That’s almost 200,000 — 34% — more people fighting over the same 84 square miles. If you don’t increase the density per square unit of area, every unit becomes more valuable. Charles Mudede knows that little house isn’t worth $800,000 but doesn’t expressly say why someone will pay that (and they will). It’s for the location, for the proximity to whatever the community has created there.

A reader made the observation that these missives don’t offer a lot of hope, don’t outline or explain the positives. Well, by chance, this came in today:

Today I took a walk in a beautiful neighborhood in Barcelona, where there is a famous palace/art museum called Palau Nacional de Montjuïc / Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya. As I walked toward it, coffee in hand before starting work, I remembered how while I was growing up in the suburbs in the U.S., I used to think that cities with places like this were somewhere you could only visit on vacation for a couple weeks a year. In my mind, beautiful countries were the stuff of luxury trips you could only afford if you were rich, or something you’d only see in movies or read about in books. I was shocked to realize, when I moved here for a research project several years ago, that people actually live in these places.

Sure, I theoretically understood this before, but to come face to face with this reality was moving and changed my worldview. I realized firsthand that normal people like you and me can and do live in beautiful, magical towns and cities year-round. And not because they are rich (I was a broke student for much of the time), but because in many places, it’s normal to strive to build beautiful, human-centered cities. It brings people joy and a sense of pride, it embodies values and culture in physical form, and it enhances our life experience in various ways. As I move forward with my work in the field of urbanism, my goal is not to encourage more people to move to these places (or to build castles), but rather to encourage people to make more places that are beautiful, interesting, exciting, fun to live in, unique and beloved. — emphasis added

What prevents us all from living in vibrant, interesting, people-centered places? Failure of imagination, fear of what we might lose…? For too many USAnian cities, the deeply-rooted car culture with the attendant waste of land on parking and roads, as well as the public health and environmental damage, will be hard to change. But a better future is out there and we could start working on it today.

As the saying goes, the best time to plant a tree is 100 years ago…the next best time is now. And the corollary that the wise plant trees in whose shade they will never sit. “An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport,” argues Enrique Peñalosa. If your city’s traffic is so persistent as to warrant dedicated daily news coverage, you almost certainly have demand for a dedicated busway or train. What you don’t need are more lanes or bigger highways. Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand induced demand doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t. We give up a lot for the freedom of driving which turns out not to be worth much in cities. For getting between cities, it makes some sense but not where land is valuable and where people need land for better uses.

So the sunlit uplands are there, if we want them. And if we can’t have what we want, what are we even doing? What is the value of choice if the choices are dumb and bad? We need to imagine better choices and make them reality.

No mention of why this property fetched such a high price…we see phrases like

the offering “garnered significant investor interest globally … due in part to the trophy quality of the asset in a submarket where the fundamentals are clearly improving.”

But no discussion of those fundamentals…that Seattle, like every city, has all the land it will ever have and the price to occupy and access it rises with demand, forcing the cost of living up. Forget all that stuff about money supply or the Wiemar republic and hyperinflation…the cost of land and its impact on the cost of living are constant and ubiquitous. The rising cost of land reflects the value of location and forces wages to rise for the businesses that value that location. Those who don’t command those wages are forced out, as shelter costs track the rising wages, like a buoy on the tide.

I guess I can’t expect the Business Journal to concern itself with these deeper issues but these articles are what we used to call “bead stringing” or “rip and read.” You just take the “news” releases from whatever industry you cover and print them, with a little light massaging or none at all.

A lot to unpack here — why do we continue to conflate housing with houses? — and the reluctance to accept that other people also want a place of their own, even if it means density.

“As a 30-something-year-old who is fully employed, my family and I have spent 18 of the last 24 months living in my in-laws’ basement. Not because we wanted to, but because we couldn’t find a house to buy.”

If a house is out of reach, is there no other option? People do raise families in multi-family buildings, some in very desirable locations. Not that his neighbors will accept a multi-family development:

Eskic went on to read a letter from a concerned citizen to a local Utah city council, in which the resident opposed a proposed townhome development and said they didn’t want to “live next to the kind of low-income people who typically reside in high-density housing.”

“I do not want their delinquent children attending the schools that my children attend. I do not want to deal with the increase in crime and drug use that inevitably accompanies such high-density housing units,” Eskic read from the letter. “I do not want my home values to decrease.”

We’ve already seen that density drives values up, as one would expect. But racism, xenophobia, whatever afflicts people like that isn’t amenable to reason.

The subject of the piece is a researcher but I wonder how many housing options they have seen, let alone researched. Are there no benefits to density and reduced car use, shorter distances between services? How would cities have grown without the car, in an alternate timeline? I get it, people want their private park and distance from their neighbors. They want a place to park a couple of extra cars or plant a garden or build a play structure for their kids or whatever. But doing that within a city comes with a cost. Not just to buy the land itself, but the opportunity cost of a city that allows more people to access it, to invest in it. It becomes a club, in other words.

This is all depressingly familiar, just another example of failure of imagination. “I want a house with a decent fraction of an acre and mature trees and good neighbors who look like me and drive nice cars and keep their lawns mowed and go to bed early” is not an urban planning strategy.

What if you lived in a building with people, some of whom look like you but many of whom are similarly educated, perhaps also work as researchers or knowledge workers, who have also decided they have better things to do with their time than commute to work by car or cut their grass for the approval of their neighbors? Is there nothing to gain from that set of choices? The 1950s are long gone. But they seem to linger in people’s minds, as some kind of dream world no one really wants to return to, if they had to.

Contrary to expectations, rates of homelessness tend to be lower where poverty rates are higher.

Contrary to whose expectations?

A quick comparison of income/GDP and homelessness suggests that higher incomes push up the rate of unhoused people…why, it’s almost as if housing (ie, land) prices chase wages, and those whose wages don’t rise so fast are forced out of whatever housing they could afford.

src

src

Is it a perfect correlation? No, there are other factors but the assertion that homelessness is tied to poverty rates, rather than inequality or a widening gulf between rich and poor, makes me wonder how much the authors want to understand the problem. But then I am reminded of Upton Sinclair’s dictum that “[I]t is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Housing as a market good rewards speculation. Recapturing the value of land to fund and build social housing, through outright public ownership of land or a tax that recoups the dividends of public productivity, can curb it.

Homelessnessness isn’t a housing problem: it’s a land problem. There is no affordable housing without affordable land. Seems like it wouldn’t take a PhD to get that. Maybe having one makes it harder to see the obvious.

Yet another well-argued and sourced explanation of why land rents are not just the “least bad tax” but good actually. The fact this never seems to be part of the debate, as tax rates in high earners (and investors) fall and working people find themselves under more stress makes a person wonder, why not?

A real Populist would make hay with this, if such a person existed. What’s the old saying? “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Nor can you make someone understand something if their power depends on not understanding it…not that congressional salaries are unimportant (if the national minimum wage were $15, they would make about 12 times that, not counting staff and other expenses) but power is the real draw. Corporate boards and other sinecures await the obedient.

The Seattle Process is alive and well…just as a consortium to build social housing gets some traction, another then opposes it and who knows if anything will ever get built?

The land is there, the funding could be found, but as noted in this piece, the bust part of the cycle, where the fortunate few watch the rest of us struggle or leave, has cheerleaders. Seattle doesn’t want to be a fair and equitable city, One Seattle, or anything of the kind. I think the promise of that, as unveiled at the 1962 Century 21 Exposition, scared people. (What this writer seems to forget is that all the changes he and his mossback friend decry were all wrought by local people cashing out their local businesses or failing to keep up with the times.) The local voters were offered a future with transit and managed growth but opted out, cherry-picking pools and parks for themselves (and to keep other people in their own neighborhoods) and rejecting anything that connected people.

According to the City of Seattle, currently most surplus public land is sold to the highest bidder; however, a state level bill passed in 2018 (SB 2382) “grants authority to cities to sell surplus property for below fair-market value – all the way to $0 – as long as the land is used for permanently affordable housing.”

And as we already know, that just turns what could be productive land into a speculative investment.

No matter what the bloviators on right wing media claim, Seattle is far from “woke,” whatever they think that means. It’s still a propertarian city of private parks surrounding single family homes that are no longer housing but tradable commodities…Wall Street, not your street.

This encapsulates the current mood pretty well, reminding me that Seattle is a city that is willing to share, as long as it doesn’t have to give anything up.
src