Everybody has to live somewhere, a fact that seems  completely to unsettle longer-term residents (why don't all these new folks just go away?--- especially those immigrants). When newcomers arrive they look for a place to live, and the first two things they usually ask me, their Realtor, about are: quality of schools and time to commute to their job(s). One thing America has always offered, at least since the civil rights revolution, is the right to choose where you live. The government does not dictate where you may live. Your choice depends on how much you can afford, and what you want. Surprise: many, many people who can afford it want NEW (or NEWer), especially if the NEW schools have a good reputation. So we have a combination of: land use decisions that propel builders of NEW homes further and further out because established localities cannot or will not permit lower-priced new development in their back yard, and a universe of new arrivals who prefer to buy NEW where they can find it, i.e., in a suburban milieu, and so it goes for each new wave of arrivals--- further complicated by the growth of multiple new centers of employment far from the old, inner city downtown. So land use creates new construction far from former city centers, and people move there because they want to, and that creates more land use decisions pushing construction out further, and so on and on.

Most people do not, repeat not, particularly want to live in a congested urban environment, at least not once they are raising children. Changing this bone-deep attitude is going to be a major cultural shift, and it will not happen simply because some of us dislike seeing so many dormitory communities leapfrogging across the formerly rural pastureland. It makes no difference that some of us are morally offended by what we call "sprawl," nor does it matter that we might think all these people "should" want to live near their jobs in an urban environment. That, by the way, raises another problem: people change jobs and job location with great frequency (not always voluntarily in today's economy); what happens when one of a couple's jobs moves from, say, Reston to Landover? What does that do to commuting patterns, eh?

Short of completely wiping out all construction for the past four generations and re-designing the land/cityscape for sensible mass transit use, I am not sure there is a tidy, satisfying solution to the non-transit-friendly sprawl we have now.  More importantly, it will short circuit the old American right to choose where and how each person lives.  

we have fun with these sorts of issues all day long

There are no easy answers... In fact I have come to the conclusion that leaving things alone is actually the best solution

Like you said Teddy the developers and builders are just responding to what people want.  Trying to tinker with what is occuring usually just makes problems worse.  Prices are falling the fastest in the suburbs while areas closer in are maintaining value.  Everybody knows about the traffic around here its part of the decision process that people make.  

When government steps in and tries affordable housing or transit oriented development at it best it usually masks temporary signs of a larger problem and sometimes even makes problems worse.      

the idea that "leaving things alone is actually the best solution", or sticking our heads in the sand because there aren't easy answers will only exacerbate the crisis.

one of the reasons virginia is so appealing is the natural beauty of the state. it draws a lot of people from other areas to our state. we're losing that beauty at a very disturbing rate. one day builders will realize that this is "what people want". they may try and respond but oh wait darn...looks like the wilderness is decimated. you think the housing markets bad now...wait til people start leaving because of how ugly the exurban areas have become.

our unique environment in virginia is our most valuable resource and worth preserving at the cost of giving people (mostly builders and developers) free reign to level it.

I don't want government to chastise you or anyone like children because you choose to live in Suburbia.  I just want government to charge the true cost of serving you.  Just like it costs the Post Office less money to deliver to mass mailboxes in high-rise buildings than to deliver to single family homes.  It costs more for all those roads, electric distribution, gas distribution, etc...  Right now people who are cheaper to serve, subsidize the lifestyles of those who are more expensive to serve.  Is that right?

And the government also needs to find a fair way to quantify those external costs which are difficult to define.  What is the cost of pollution, global warming, polar bear extinction, smog, clear cutting trees for acres of green grass, etc, etc, etc.?  There is no simple answer to this question, but to put a true cost on people's activities these other external costs need to taken into account as well.

is a good point--- sort of like finally acknowledging that the low prices at Wal-Mart actually cost taxpayers a significant amount to cover the medical expenses of low-paid Wal-Mart workers without health insurance. Or, another example, the cost of pollution and environmental degredation by some methods of industrial production and mining, costs which have never been reflected in the final sales price of their products. I suspect that every system ever invented coddles and subsidizes certain selected segments of society, perhaps unknowingly.

that the costs are difficult to define.  We know how many miles of road there are.  We know the contribution to congestion and wear on the roads are.  We know the cost of building materials.  We know the cost of labor.  So for costing transportation services, we have the information we need.  It is just about organizing and calculating.

To your point on energy usage and the true cost of using certain types of energy, well you can estimate those costs too.  And there have already been estimates of the economic costs of using fossil fuels in terms of enivironmental degredation, health costs, and global warming.  If you want to match revenue to unaccounted for costs of fossil fuel usage, we can do that through a carbon tax.

Nothing is outside the range of accountants and actuaries.  =)

graduate level class I took, one of the key concepts was that externalities, almost by definition, are difficult to place a value on. For instance, how much do you value the non-extinction of the snail darter or the polar bear? How much do I value it? How much does Dick Cheney value it? I bet we get very different answers, particularly on the last example. :)

Or, on pollution that causes people to die younger, how do you place a monetary value on human life?

Etc., etc.

do it all the time.  Place a value on life that is.  May make us cringe, but it can be done.  In philosophical or spiritual sense, you can't put a value on life.  But in the world of risk management, everything has value.

I was talking about.  While I agree that the accountants can come up with costs for all sorts of things, when it comes to a personal value judgment there will be great disagreement on what the cost should be.  

This can be at an important level (extinction of species, health of people, global climate change, etc) or even at a low level (what does a person prefer).  

At the low level - What if I like looking at trees and someone else likes looking at a yard full of green grass?  I'd put a surcharge on anyone who levels their whole yard to grass it over.  The other guy would slap a surcharge on his neighbors for blocking his view with their trees.

And you can take this argument up the chain of importance - is it more important that the relatively few people in coal country aren't exposed to dangerous pollutants or that the huge numbers of power consumers pay lower costs for energy?  Do the needs (wants) or the many outweigh the needs of the few?  And if so, by how much?  

We need to do this, but it's a very tough call.

Government already tilts the playing field in innumerable ways towards sprawl and suburbia and against urban/high density areas.  At the minimum, make it a level playing field and see what happens.  Even better, internalize all the "externalities" - pollution, cost of defending the oil fields and sea lanes, etc. -- into the price of fuel and THEN see what happens!  Finally, I'd advocate being much more aggressive on setting aside land for parks, farmland, recreation and wilderness.  Meanwhile, don't forget that the sprawl pattern happening now IS a result of government policies at all levels, not just "what people want" or whatever.

Draft the gas tax bill

It would pass with some bipartisan support.  For example Cuccinelli would propably vote for it if he could help draft it.  A Saslaw/Cuccinelli plan.

The real problem is both sides of the house

Moran and the D leadership don't want a gas tax.  The Rs just want a regional solution.  Its time to put pressure on the house.  I'm looking at you Vivian Watts you want a legacy get your leadership in line.  I'm looking at you Tom Rust you want to keep your seat get your leadership in line.  

much better than some of the previous diaries on this topic.  

I also read Governor Kaine's Powerpoint on this.  If you look at the graphs closely, the increase in road construction funds appears attributable to a slight projected surplus in maintenance funds generated by his plan.  So, new road construction or congestion relief is quite debatable in his plan.  I think it is somewhat misleading to sell that to NoVA and HR residents as a solution.

Also, the more roads we build, the larger our maintenance budget must become.  It is costly to maintain a large transportation infrastructure, and we need to stop subsidizing people who choose to live out in BFE and commute to the city.  In Cost Accounting, there is a method called Activity Based Costing, whereby you better discern the true cost of an activity versus a generic allocation (like units of production).  It allows you to better see the margin of creating individual products or serving individual classes of customers.  This is what we need here.  Then we could design taxation to match revenue collection with those individuals that cost the most money to serve.

The problem I will reiterate here is that both Kaine and Pierce Homer are talking about revenue projections (see my earlier comment.  That doesn't talk about need.  We need to start with need and then talk about revenue to meet that need.  It is backwards to say: "Oh, downturn in the economy so we aren't collecting as much on Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax, we need to raise taxes."  That isn't a good argument.

In my opinion, Kaine needs to tell us why HB3202 is not enough and why just fixing the two nullified portions of that law is not sufficient.  If the best he can come up with is just that an economic downturn has impacted their revenue projections, then he deserves to see this fail.

This isn't a creative solution.  It is the same tired old BS.  I finally realize why Kaine is more popular than Webb in surveys.  Because Kaine is unwilling to take any risks, unwilling to spend any political capital, and unwilling to take leadership on better ideas that might be unpopular.  If it isn't his lousy transportation proposals, it is his unwavering support of Dominion Virginia Power.  

Last night he was also a proponent of the "we're all in this together" approach.  He didn't talk too much about specific tax plans, but sure he didn't see this as a regional problem.

No offense, but when I read something like this:

1. "[I]t's time to stop exporting Northern Virginia tax dollars to the vast part of the state that has zero traffic problems."

It is so frustrating on so many levels. First, it is wrong. Do you really believe that Charlottesville, or Danville, or Lynchburg have "zero traffic problems?" (BTW, I could not find this line in Fisher's column, but I could be having a brain fart).

Here in Charlottesville, for example, there has been a project on the drawing board for a long time for a Rt. 29N bypass. For those of you unfamiliar with the area, Rt. 29 runs from Gainesville through C'ville and Lynchburg all the way to Danville. It connects NOVA to the rest of the state, and this road is essential for economic development pretty much throughout all of Central Virginia -- we're talking more than a million Virginians, here.

In C'ville, the local traffic on Rt. 29 (which is a commercial stretch of strip malls, shopping centers, car dealerships and Applebee-like eateries) mixes with the commercial traffic passing through between NOVA and Southside. It is both unpalatable and dangerous (just the other day, a high school student was killed in an accident on the road).

I am neither an engineer nor an urban planner, but I am a citizen, and I'll tell you, this is a traffic problem that affects the state's economy and directly impacts the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people. To me, that constitutes a "problem."

Also, how do you square the circle of arguing, at the same time, that the entire state should support solutions in NOVA and Hampton Roads because those are the engines driving the state's economy with your equally fervert desire to stop "exporting" (I love that!) tax dollars out of the region elsewhere in the state?  

What do you mean when you say "it is wrong?"  Are you disputing the fact that northern Virginia only gets back around 20-30 cents on every dollar in transportation money it sends to the rest of the state?  If so, I'd like to see those stats.

that transportation issues mean traffic problems. Yes, traffic is one problem -- there are many others.

obviously transportation is the biggest one. how can you not expect there to be traffic problems when you have out of control growth as is the case in loudon, prince william, stafford, etc.
building roads is not the answer to these problems. for example on idea is to build a rt. 29 bypass around charlottesville. has anyone driven north of charlottesville lately and seen what's happening in greene county? the land is being leveled on either side for a whole bunch of new strip malls. so a bypass would just dump people off into that mess.
sprawl continues to be a huge contributing factor to environmental degradation. the landscape that makes our state unique is being wiped out and in many cases it is now impossible to distinguish between virginia and the sprawling northeast corridor (that people are supposedly coming here to get away from).
people have commented on here about how their right to choose where to live trumps quality of life for everyone else (and eventually them) not to mention the environment. sounds like a position the house gop would take.
im not saying that everyone should live in a condo in arlington at all. we must be smart about the growth that we do have and get a hold on sprawl instead of sticking our heads in the sand. otherwise we can count on quality of life in virginia to become so shitty that people being leaving the state to go pave over west virginia.  

So how exactly do you propose we do that

Once you start doing this you

1. Become a NIMBY

2. Increase housing costs (by limiting options and choice) which ironically ends up creating more sprawl

We are growing and will continue to grow.  People have to live somewhere.  The facts are like you said most people don't want to live in a condo.  Most other housing options close in are too expensive for people.  So the only choice is to sprawl out away from the NIBMY areas which once again JUST CREATES MORE SPRAWL  

_______________________________________________________

The Affordable housing option is a neverending cycle because

1.  You are just creating a new class of people that can't afford hosuing

2.  Long term you are artifically inflating the market instead of letting a much needed correction occur.  (If you left the market alone at some point there wouldn't be enough service workers willing to commute an hour plus to work in Arlington... as a result rents would decrease to allow workers to live closer)      

The market works on some areas well, but in others it doesn't. Also, a lot of what happens in the market has a direct relation on how the government is punishing or rewarding certain activity.

As for Northern Virginia, low credit rates and poor regulation rewarded real estate speculation. The WaPo reported a few years ago that as much as 25% of transactions in the previous year were done by speculators.

This ran up the price of housing dramatically in the area. And this encouraged sprawled by making smaller houses in the area cost the same or more than new bigger houses far away.

Also, I believe that you got the possible market reaction wrong. Service workers and rents have no direct connection. It is quite plausible that wealthier people with better jobs in the region can keep the rental market at a high price. In fact, I believe that Falls Church already is living through a similar scenario, where their teachers cannot afford to live in the city where they work.

If workers cannot afford to commute to Arlington and there is no affordable housing, then the salary of service workers would increase up to a certain limit. After that limit has been crossed, businesses will start closing. The net result is that the cost of living in Arlington would go up.

"If workers cannot afford to commute to Arlington and there is no affordable housing, then the salary of service workers would increase up to a certain limit. After that limit has been crossed, businesses will start closing. The net result is that the cost of living in Arlington would go up."

At this point you have yuppy stores moving in.  Clearndon is a perfect example of this happending right before our eyes.

People have good, bad, netural views on this

However, to me this is a naturally occuring cycle.  It happens all the time.  DC is famous for this.  Dupont to Logan circle to H street.  A previously low income area gets transformed.

The bottom line is people can't live everywhere they want.  Is just part of life.  Trying to change market conditions by government action either

1.  Delays the inevitable

2.  Creates unforseen consequences that add more costs later on short term gain long term pain  

it is what caused prices in arlington to skyrocket. the fact is people were buying places they couldn't afford. people who couldnt afford to compete in the arlington market moved out to prince william and loudon where speculators began skyrocketing prices there. those counties became unaffordable for many. so people began moving out to stafford, fauquier and culpeper. and so begins a spiraling out of control cycle of sprawl.
some people will stop at nothing to get a 4 bedroom house with a three car garage even if it means commuting 2 or 3 hours a day. i hate to break it to some people but everyone can't live like this...not with 300 million people in our country. people have to start making some sacrifices and living more responsibly and yes that means living a little closer together. the fact is we just cannot sustain sprawl.
btw real estate speculation is a huge cause of the foreclosure crisis (people buying houses they couldn't really afford and paying more than they were worth). unfortunately some people's response is to keep building more of the same, farther out.  

The existing housing stock was too expensive

The only option was to build further out at a cheaper costs

All the developers were/are doing is supply and demand related

What would you have done during 2000-2005.  The people had to live somewhere.  

There is finally a healthy price correction occuring

As far as the "forclosure crisis" is concerned the only people affected need to look in the mirror

Its just like the oil issue or the transportation issue.  Its time for the politicians to quit pandering.  The fault of all of this is us and our idiotic consumer actions.

I can't help that some of us are smarter than others and I am not willing to bail out people who make idiotic choices.  Its time the people face the consequences for their actions.

i propose saying "not in anyone's backyard"--within reason of course. i propose saying before we build more huge subdivisions or malls let's get a handle on our existing problems with schools, roads, and other infrastructure.

when i say not everyone has to live in a condo that also means that not everyone should live in a huge dump on 2/3 of an acre (lets face it thats what most of these far out developments are like)amidst strip mall after strip mall containing the same thing. we can do a lot better job of limiting this all over northern virginia and having responsible growth.

and yes, we will continue to grow. but what's wrong with growing at a reasonable pace? who says we have to add 30% more people every 5 or 6 years. after all, we cannot sustain this without running into environmental disaster and we are already seeing consequences.  

Thats the exact definition of NIMBYisim.  I got mine and screw anybody else that wants to come in behind me.

Could it be that the earth is rapidly approaching its limits on how much biomass of human beings the earth can support, or support at a level above bare subsistence? Unrestrained reproduction, never mind how you interpret the Bible, is certainly pushing the envelope. What really is the limit before we must start building satellite earths or terraforming Mars to handle the overload?  As we face food riots and floods of refugees, Malthus begins to make sense.

We are nowhere near maximum capacity.... Fly over the heartland of America lately :-p

The bigger problem in this country is the coming costs of Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security.  Dont have the stats off hand but these programs are going to continue to increase.  In less than 20 years we are going to be facing ginat tax increases and/or massive program reductions  

Back to stats There are some interesting statistics in terms of demographics

Most of the 1st world countries are aging rapidily and losing population

The United States is only increasing in population due to immigrants (legal and illegal)

Most second world countries are young and increasing rapidly

As far as your Christian comment there is a small minority that is trying to have big families but they are a very small subgroup

Mainstream Islam on the other hand actively encourages the rapid reproduction school of thought.  

maybe if i were living in some slapped together mcmansion out there somewhere and i were calling for something to be done against sprawl it would be. calling for smart/slow growth is hardly "nimbyism". i mean at some point citizens need to be able to say enough is enoough rather than "well, there's just nothing we can do".