The study finds that the streetcar will pay for itself by raising the property tax base. From a Smart Growth perspective, though, this is a problem because it will make housing less affordable. The study suggests that inclusionary zoning will provide the necessary affordable housing after the streetcar raises property values. Current zoning laws require new multifamily buildings with 10 or more units to comply with inclusionary zoning requirements for low-income housing. As Stephen has pointed out before, inclusionary zoning is just a more complicated policy that ultimately has many of the same unintended consequences as rent control or subsidized housing. Subsidizing the cost of housing for a select group necessarily makes it more expensive for those of all income levels who are not lucky enough to secure this subsidy. Forcing developers to provide this subsidy does not change its economic impact on those who are left paying market rate.

DDOT  The Office of Planning predicts that by far the greatest gains in real estate value will accrue to property owners within one quarter of a mile of the stops along K Street (see graph on page 24 of the study). It’s important to note that the vast majority of these gains will be realized in higher per-square-foot prices rather than new square footage since that area is just about built up to what the Height Act will allow. Are K Street building owners really a group that we DC taxpayers want to be subsidizing? If in fact this project would create over $3 billion in value for these property owners by raising the value of existing buildings and spurring new development, the Downtown DC BID should be clamoring for the opportunity to build it. This should present an opportunity for the city to lease the rights to the BID to construct and operate a streetcar that would be profitable, benefit downtown transit users, and raise the property tax base as a result. The study does allude to potential opportunities to seek financing help from developers, but it’s shy on specifics. Additionally, private funding for a public project carries the risk that the project will take on the “monstrous hybrid” characteristics of a public private partnership that Jane Jacobs warns against in Dark Age Ahead, benefiting private interests at public expense.

In lower-income areas where private funding will not likely be available, this public investment amounts to picking winners and losers among neighborhoods; what makes H Street more deserving of the first line over other transit-starved neighborhoods? By allowing private streetcars to determine the placement of lines, we can be sure that better incentives are in place to determine where these lines will be most useful, and the profit and loss mechanism will provide feedback along the way.

The study emphasizes DC’s history with streetcars that operated from the 1800s through 1962 but downplays that these lines were operated by private companies that were gradually regulated out of existence. A new publicly operated system represents a significant break from this history. Privately operated streetcars internalize the risk and reward of this investment, whereas a publicly funded project disperses the risk among DC taxpayers.

Conspicuously missing from the study is any evaluation of DDOT’s performance in building and running streetcars thus far. The H Street line is currently way behind schedule, and the project’s Buy America requirement is complicating even the procurement of the cars. The years long construction project was welcomed by many along the H Street corridor as it has resulted in private investment pouring into the neighborhood; however, if streetcar construction experiences such extreme delays on K Street or M Street in Georgetown, two of the most congested streets in the city, public opinion could easily turn completely against the project.

I certainly think that the District can support improved transit options, especially in light of growing frustration with WMATA. However, I’m not convinced that DDOT is a more competent bureaucracy based on the H Street results. If the study’s predictions of the economic impacts that a streetcar could have are correct, this project represents an opportunity for DC to really turn back to its transit roots in the form of private streetcar companies operating profitably.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

They’re using a Kickstarter-like investment model, in which individuals pledge to buy land contingent upon the group reaching the critical mass needed to get the project underway. The development would use covenants to limit building to require attached buildings, arcade sidewalks, and a building height limited to four stories based on the Really Narrow Streets model of dense low- to mid-rise buildings.

On a previous post, some commenters came out strongly against covenants as a means for determining land use restrictions. What do you all think of them here? To me, this case illustrates the effectiveness that covenants have for shaping land use over an area broader than individual lots without the coercion of zoning.

Tracy has created a presentation on the preliminary objectives for Piscataquis Village. He writes:

We envision a settlement evolving organically and growing incrementally. Those people or groups of people that wish to pursue their own, various versions of the Good Life within the bounds of the Village are welcome.

This project reminds me a bit of seasteading, the libertarian vision of a bottom-up society living on a water vessel to escape government coercion and violence. While I believe that most of the initial Piscataquis Village investors are from Maine and wish to continue living there, the projects’ rural location draws attention to the impossibility of a similar village emerging in the open space of, say, Howard County or Loudoun County because the realities of the political planning process would make it impossible to escape street width, parking, and setback requirements.

Best of luck to the Piscataquis Village investors in achieving the freedom to build an urbanist community.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

2. Once again in New York upzoning is linked with affordable housing. Expanding student housing at NYU also depends on the university providing land and potentially a building for a public school.

3. In San Francisco, an activist is working with developers to achieve upzoning approval for waterfront property. Despite the positive upzoning, on the surface this deal wreaks of crony capitalism. But the real kicker comes from the proposed funding:

First up, the plan to build a high-rise residential tower near the waterfront at 8 Washington St. with funding from the state teachers’ retirement fund.

The plan is being backed by Pak’s business allies, developer Simon Snellgrove and lobbyist Marcia Smolens. The project spokesman is P.J. Johnston, former spokesman for Brown.

Approval of the deal could yield millions of dollars in affordable-housing money to help fund one of Pak’s pet projects, a $32 million apartment complex being built on Stockton Street by the nonprofit Chinatown Community Development Center.

In my job I do a lot of work with pension reform, and this project would be an egregious abuse of CalSTRS, one of the most underfunded public pension plans in the country. Public pension funds should be managed to minimize risks for retirees, employees, and taxpayers, not to provide kickbacks to business interests.

4. Last note on special interests in upzoning: At least some property owners must hope to sell in the future rather than hold on to their real estate forever. In upzoning cases, why don’t we see these groups coming out as loudly in favor of the change as those who oppose increased density in their neighborhoods? Since upzoning in a place like Hollywood will unambiguously make land more valuable, why don’t these stakeholders lobby in favor of the change? If it’s a matter of their financially-driven motive sounding too crass compared to NIMBYs with lofty goals like preserving Hollywood, these bootleggers just need to find themselves some Baptists in the form of density-loving environmentalists.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

I’ve started a Flickr group with the hopes of providing another way for urbanists to share their own images of beautiful (or not beautiful) streets and talk about city design. I’ve started it off with some of my own photos with a couple of disclaimers. I know nothing about photography except that I’m not good at it, and I’ve never been to many of the cities known for really narrow streets. I hope to add some photos of nice small streets right here in the Mid-Atlantic sometime soon.

I’m sure you all have many better pictures of really narrow streets and pedestrian environments, and I hope you’ll share some. I would suggest flagging your photos as Creative Commons which means that any bloggers would be free to use them with attribution, but if you’d prefer not to allow others to use them, feel free to add them to the group as copyright protected. To add photos to the group, you just have to create a Flickr account, upload photos, and then add away. You can also comment on any of the photos I’ve added or on the group’s discussion board.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

The Atlantic Yards development relied on obtaining many properties through the standard of eminent domain made possible by the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London . Before the Kelo decision, eminent domain could only be used for public use, accepted to mean government purposes such as road or transit building. That landmark decision widened the potential use of eminent domain to any development that will benefit the public by, for example, increasing the tax base.

Battle for Brooklyn has received positive reviews and has been shortlisted for and Oscar. The film follows the work of Daniel Goldstein, the Jane Jacobs-style community activist who has been leading the losing battle against eminent domain.

I’m planning to attend the  movie this Sunday, January 15th at 6:00 pm. If any of you would like to go to that showing as well, would you like to meet up for drinks before or after? I would suggest Galaxy Hut but I’m open to somewhere closer to the theater also. If you’re interested, please comment or send me an email at emilybwashington@gmail.com.

The film is also playing this week in Chicago, San Francisco, and Pittsburgh. In March it will be in Boston, so check the movie’s website if you’re interested in seeing it in any of these cities.

Related Posts:

• No Related Post

Pretty interesting article in the NYT today about the Gotham West development that recently broke ground on Manhattan‘s far west side. But I think the part about affordable housing could use some context:

But the bulk of the project will be affordable units, 682 of them, or more than half the total homes....

Continue reading at Forbes...