All you can eat

Development

All you can eat

by David Alpert • December 8, 2008 2:52 pm

Two speakers, at two separate events I attended, today used the analogy of the all-you-can-eat buffet to describe aspects of our urban policy.

Photo by attack the darkness on Flickr.

This afternoon, Christopher Leinberger (author of The Option of Urbanism) gave a talk to the Washington Smart Growth Alliance. Despite centuries of experience building walkable urban places, Leinberger explained, after World War II we forced developers to build low-density suburban places (what Leinberger calls "driveable sub-urbanism") instead. We actually made it downright illegal in almost all areas where new development was happening. A developer in the 1950s couldn't build a walkable place without going through enormous and nearly insurmountable obstacles.

On top of that, our public policy gave huge subsidies to driveable sub-urbanism. Taxpayers paid for freeways, power, water, and other infrastructure without being reimbursed by what we now call "impact fees". Instead of charging developers proportionally to the cost of infrastructure, where those building in areas that required more expensive infrastructure paid more, we all paid equally for it. Therefore, developers built neighborhoods in areas that were cheaper to construct but cost more in infrastructure, instead of areas where construction cost more but with the infrastructure already in place. Imagine, said Leinberger, "if the goverment said all restaurants must charge one price for all you can eat. Then, someone on a diet is subsidizing those who are pigging out." The costs for high density and low density development vary between construction, maintenance, infrastructure, and more, but our public policy mandated one price (the tax rate) for the infrastructure, regardless of which choice people made.

Earlier, I attended the hearing on raising DC's meter rates to raise revenue to restore critical housing programs. I testified in favor of the bill, as I wrote last week, with the recommendation that we divert the new meter revenue to housing during this budget crisis, but return them to transportation use once our tax revenue recovers. Ed Lazere, of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, explained that cheap or free parking is like an all-you-can-eat buffet. I'd add that it's like a buffet where almost all of the food is gone, and all you can get is scraps, or go to the high-priced restaurant across the street. Likewise, as Councilmember Tommy Wells explained at the beginning of the hearing, people today can choose to pay about $13 an hour in downtown DC for a garage space, or circle for half an hour to find a $1/hour meter space.

All you can eat buffets are nice for the occasional restaurant, but most restaurants don't go that route. Let's stop having our laws require all-you-can-eat models for housing and parking.

12 comments

Tags: Christopher Leinberger, meter rates, sprawl, Tommy Wells

The passion of parking policy (Feb 7, 2008)
Audio interview with Christopher Leinberger (Feb 14, 2008)
Have DC Councilmembers ever tried to park downtown on a Saturday? (Dec 17, 2008)
MoCo "transit-oriented" zoning would encourage non-transit-oriented sprawl (Jul 18, 2008)
NoMA has no parks thanks to flawed upzoning (Nov 29, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I like the all-you-can-eat metfore. It reinforces the unintended consequence of epidemic physical inactivity, obesity and diabetes associated with the drive-as-your-only-option built environment created by the public policies described.

by Bianchi on Dec 8, 2008 4:52 pm • link • report

Bianchi, Actually, David missed the point in his testimony and in his post. An increase in the price of metered parking near retail and increasing enforcement is meant to increase parking turnover in the commercial district so that potential customers who would consider driving there will drive and shop there rather than elsewhere. A lack of available metered parking and the need for potential customers to endlessly circle the block to look for parking is a deterent to shopping downtown, and so the purpose of increasing metered parking is to move employees and other full day parkers into commercial garages and leave the on-street spaces available for frequent turnover and to encourage people to drive there rather then elsewhere.

David also failed to explain why he thought there was a nexus between parking meter fees and building out streetcars, other than his own desire to fund particular transportation projects.

by Mark on Dec 8, 2008 5:31 pm • link • report

Mark: I did explain. Raising parking rates creates turnover and lets shoppers be more confident that they can find s apce. It also costs some shoppers money. To avoid harming retail, we should use the money raised from better managing our curbside space to improve transit alternatives.

That way, people who want to go shop in an area can choose whether to drive or take transit. If they drive, they pay something (and in exchange, easily find a space), or they can take transit and not have to park at all. That's the nexus.

I also pointed this out when David Schwartzman called parking meter hikes a "regressive tax." A user fee is not a regressive tax when people have a real choice whether to consume that good or not. For example, a tax on private jets is not regressive even though it hits hundred-millionaires and bilionaires equally rather than in proportion to their wealth. You don't have to buy a private jet. If we ensure that people can choose to drive or can take transit, then it's an economic incentive, not a tax.

by David Alpert on Dec 8, 2008 5:44 pm • link • report

Generally agree with the "impact fees" comment, although consider that the freeways were paid for via gas tax dollars (which had much more purchasing power 40 years ago than they do today)...as close to a driving user fee as we have.

You also have to put suburbanization into historical perspective. During the 50s, 60s, and even the 70s, the threat of nuclear war was a VERY REAL possibility. Decentralization, including people moving out of the central city and into the suburbs, was seen as a way to spread out the population and reduce the potential casualties should a nuke be dropped on one of our cities.

Regarding parking meters, if an increase in the meter rates can better guarantee an available parking spot, then so be it...

by Froggie on Dec 8, 2008 5:59 pm • link • report

The Texas DOT says gas taxes don't pay for the cost of new freeways. Plus, gas taxes definitely didn't pay for the cost of power lines, water pipes, gas lines, the electricity to run traffic signals, the gas consumed by police officers patrolling, and much more.

by David Alpert on Dec 8, 2008 6:04 pm • link • report

Actually, since the primary effect is to move the employees and others who plan on parking all day into the commercial garages, raising the metered parking rates doesn't raise the total cost of driving to shop at the commercial area. It reduces uncertainty about being able to park and reduces the amount of time spent searching. Increasing turnover means increasing the number of shoppers that drive to and shop in the area, and they pay an extra 50 cents or a dollar, and save far more than that in time and aggravation.

The example that you gave, where you chose not to drive to Georgetown to shop at a branch of a Dupont Circle store because you felt that it would be too much of a hassle to find parking, but if they put this into effect you might drive there for a better selection, knowing that spaces would be easier to find, demonstrates clearly how this will increase turnover and increase the number of people who drive to each shopping district. I do however quibble with your statement that there isn't good public transporatation between Dupont Circle and Georgetown, since I have taken the bus between those locations many times. But your perception that there wasn't good public transportation is more important to the example than the actual availability.

I agree that David Schwartzman's characterization of this as a "regressive tax" was incorrect, but found the explanation that you gave at the roundtable to be off-point.

by Mark on Dec 8, 2008 6:07 pm • link • report

David: I was talking about already existing freeways, since I thought we were discussing past tense and not future (hence my comment about "purchasing power" and the reference to the 50s-70s). Back then, gas tax revenue went much further, and our freeway system WAS built with that revenue, especially the Interstate system (90% Feds, all from the Federal gas tax). State/local shares vary, but by and large the states' individual gas tax revenue or other transportation-related revenue (vehicle registration fees in my home state, for example) covered that.

by Froggie on Dec 8, 2008 7:16 pm • link • report

Or we can use grown up words like "rivalry" "excludability" and "public goods".

Why not charge parking at market prices rather than underprice them which would result in a shortage?

by Tim Yuskavage on Dec 8, 2008 8:23 pm • link • report

Careful, Tim. If you can't back up your use of those economist-like terms with PhD level analysis and data, some people around here will debate you ad nauseum :)

by Michael Perkins on Dec 8, 2008 8:46 pm • link • report

Uh, Michael, people will debate those kinds of things even if you come with the evidence.

by The King of Spain on Dec 8, 2008 8:53 pm • link • report

KoS: I know. I just remember what happened last time I brought up real economist terms like that. It was fun.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 8, 2008 9:38 pm • link • report

One thing that worries me - how often do we see 'short term solutions' that magically become long term policy. The fact that the 'short term solution' of raising meter rates results in more govt. revenue doubles my suspicion.

Also, why not auction off the right to manage the parking spaces to private firms and levy a tax? I'd imagine they'd meet market demand more efficiently and lower costs to to the cities (maintainence, enforcement, etc.). Since there wouldn't be shortage, people would stop hovering for the artificially cheap spaces and get on the damn metrobus.

by Tim on Dec 9, 2008 1:31 am • link • report