Economics of Land Use in Dallas County (Mart, Leonard: home, purchase)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The divergent poster framed California’s housing affordability crisis as a direct result of “California leftism“, that they claim “disrespects“ free market unimpeded high density development.
Myself and another poster countered this position, by maintaining that the most fervent pro-density advocacy is distinctly from Leftist institutions, politicians, academics, and people.
That's an opinion, not a fact, and certainly one I don't agree with. Anti-development advocacy comes from across the political spectrum, in my experience. It's not a liberal or conservative, left or right, type of thing. Trust me when I say, rich liberals and rich conservatives living in the same neighborhoods tend to band together on this issue. And given that wealthier neighborhoods ironically tend to be more politically diverse than middle-class and poorer ones (where a lot more "sorting" goes on politically), there are plenty of examples of that throughout history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
This issue may not conform entirely to an ideological echo chamber, but opposition or support of density, especially as it relates to suburban or established wealthy neighborhoods, is strongly correlated with political alignment. Which is to say that as far as this issue is concerned, the vast majority of “free market”, limited government interventionists are Leftists. Whereas those who value single-family homogeneity in their neighborhoods, wish to maintain neighborhood character, and prefer a more active role of government when it comes to zoning, are usually on the political Right. This really isn’t debatable.
As I said above, its certainly debatable regardless of your claim otherwise. I have neighbors that are on both sides of the political spectrum. I also have neighbors that have banded together to oppose a nearby tall building going up. Your experience may be different, but when it comes to development and how people perceive their neighborhoods, I don't see a lot of difference between left-leaning and right-leaning people in this instance. You're welcome to try to provide proof otherwise if you like, but my experience doesn't agree with your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
Your comparison between NYC and California is simplistic and lacks nuance. No, opposition at the neighborhood level to “upzoning” is not the primary reason why California broadly has the most expensive housing prices in the country. California’s high housing costs are mostly attributable to its nanny state-level regulatory policies around environmental protection, regressive taxation laws which benefit the wealthy and de-incentivize selling through capped property taxes (Prop 13), and the continued extremely high demand for housing in California, despite the severe social and economic problems plaguing it’s largest cities.
As for NYC, it is still extremely expensive in comparison to just about any other metropolitan area outside of Los Angeles or San Francisco. That said, NYC's “affordability“ in comparison to California cities is partially attributed to public housing and rent control, which do not exist in California.
There are parts of this where I agree with you. Prop 13 absolutely was a major factor in California housing prices increasing significantly. But the nuance is this - Prop 13 is fundamentally a law that enables NIMBYs. By disincentivizing selling and encouraging long-term ownership, it made those landowners more likely to fight *hard* against things they perceived as lowering their land value. So then local governments gave homeowners too much power when it came to municipal land use.
"Don't upzone - someone might build a duplex or an apartment complex!"
"Don't rezone - we need those jobs from this plant but let them go somewhere else so I can maintain my views!"
"Don't allow more height - I have a right to direct sunlight from dawn to dusk!"
(Simplistic examples, but you get the idea.)
So I guess we can say one enabled the other, but both are major factors. I don't think the regulatory environment is much of a factor, as California is far from the only state with strict environmental laws, and I definitely don't agree about the "regressive" (lol) tax structure being a factor here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
This argument is flawed.
There are plenty of high-demand metropolitan areas in the US, in which wealthy and/or established neighborhoods or communities have retained their character, free from unimpeded high-density development. Examples include Atherton and Burlingame near San Francisco, Alpine and Tenafly, on the New Jersey side of NYC, and Potomac and Bethesda on the Maryland side of DC. All of these suburbs maintain strict bans on high density housing, have not seen drastic changes in their demographic profiles or character over the years, and yet, they are part of high-growth, high-housing demand MSA’s.
This reoccurring pattern of decaying, disposable suburbs — a direct byproduct of uncontrolled, unregulated zoning and let’s be honest, white flight — is really a unique-to-Texas phenomenon. I just haven’t seen it in other states on anywhere near the large scale and predictable basis like I do here. Case in point, my hometown of Chicago.
In Chicago, the wealthiest, most pedigreed suburbs are Wilmette (my hometown), Kenilworth, Winnetka, and Glencoe. Like the Park Cities or River Oaks in Houston, these communities have remained exclusive and wealthy for a very long time, with very little socioeconomic (or racial demographic) changes throughout their long and esteemed existences.
The upper middle class suburban Chicago communities — mostly due north and due west of the city — for the most part, have retained a level of demographic and economic stability over the years that is not common among Dallas or Houston neighborhoods that start out upper middle class. This is precisely because these communities have restricted undisciplined high-density development, instead employing strict zoning requirements. Examples include Lincolnshire, Highland Park (IL), and Downers Grove, a western suburb. The same can’t be said of analogously affluent Dallas or Houston communities. See Plano, Frisco, and the Woodlands in Houston, which are experiencing surging populations of low income/Section 8 families and all the corresponding challenges they bring.
Of course its possible, that's exactly what we're talking about here - affluent neighborhoods' ability to use zoning and NIMBYism to try to preserve their neighborhoods exactly as they are. Of course it happens all over the country.
My argument is that it decreases affordability and reduces the vitality of a city in the long term by driving the middle class out. In limited amounts, it has limited effects. We'll use these cities as examples. Chicago, Dallas, Houston and the like have remained affordable because at the end of the day, the number of neighborhoods exercising strict land use restrictions are limited in the context of the metro as a whole.
DC is a bit of a middle ground - there is a lot of NIMBYism in that region and when you add the height restrictions in DC proper, there's a lot of land use restriction. It makes the place more expensive than it should be.
And then of course you have the West Coast metros, where land use is very much controlled by NIMBYs and it is very hard to get upzoning approval anywhere.
There's a direct correlation there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
I can’t figure out why you continue to compare California and Texas, two places which couldn’t be more dissimilar as far as real estate development is concerned:
1. Texas has vast amounts of land to build on and California doesn’t.
2. Texas land is much cheaper than California land.
3. Texas is generally far more pro-developer with less restrictions than California.
4. Texas has drastically fewer environmental regulations than California.
California is not Texas and Texas is not California. To argue that Texas residents who oppose giving developers unrestricted, character-destroying access to their communities are facilitating a California-like environment where the poor are “banished to the hinterlands” is ridiculous. Just because Texas is largely pro-developer doesn’t mean every single neighborhood needs to adhere to this way of thinking. As I previously argued, some suburbs should retain — and have a right to retain — their character, exclusivity, affluence, high quality schools, and demographics. And residents of these areas should have a say in what is being built in their neighborhoods.
There is more than enough land here for developers to go on a multi-family building binge to satisfy all the pent up housing demand in Texas. Let them build those monstrosities in some other suburb, or better yet, designate certain areas as expressly for or predominately for multi-family housing.
Yes and no. Texas is California 30-40 years ago and at an inflection point (like California 40 years ago) where they are really having to think hard about land use. These conversations are taking place now because every major Texas city is going through these growing pains and trying to figure out how to best accommodate the people that are moving here.
The thing you're neglecting is jobs. Its easy to say "well not every neighborhood should change", but what are the criteria for these neighborhoods that are so special they should remain the same forever? It's easy to say "there's plenty of land!" but what purpose is it putting up a bunch of housing in areas of the metro where there are no jobs? Just to add to the traffic and stress of getting there for those poor people who aren't fortunate enough to have bought a house in one of the special neighborhoods?
No, no one has a right for their neighborhood to stay the same forever - that goes for the areas being gentrified as well as for lower-density areas being densified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
And I’ve already disproven your assertion that this isn’t a political issue, when it most certainly is. For a group of people who claim to value “diversity”, it’s always ironic how quick Leftists are to shut down “diversity of thought”, i.e., any viewpoint which runs counter to, dares to question, or rejects their Pharisaical narratives.
You haven't disproven anything, to be quite honest. All you've done is what I've done, reinforced your opinions with reasons. To me, the primary reason seems to be "I don't want those school-destroying poor people in my neighborhood." That's fine. I don't have to agree with your reasons.
But the true irony is you're complaining about folks "shutting down" your thoughts when they don't agree while simultaneously referring to people who disagree with you as "leftists" regardless of what they actually believe politically.
Everything is not political. Some things are practical. I'm sure you have some actual "leftist" neighbors who agree with your stance on this, and some right-leaning neighbors who don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
This is a ridiculous argument. My parents are multi-millionaires who could afford to live anywhere they wanted in DFW. That didn’t stop their community (West Plano) from the unwelcome demographic changes and decline that is an inevitable derivative of unrestricted zoning.
And furthermore, your argument vis-a-vis “gentrification” versus “ghettoification” of a neighborhood ignores the fact that the latter results in a host of negative outcomes for said community as it correlates strongly with declines in median household income, school performance, and overall neighborhood desirability. Not to mention slower appreciating or even declining property values. This isn’t the case with gentrification. Gentrification actually results in positive outcomes among all the variables I cited above.
Again, "unwelcome" demographic changes are what they are - a product of the market. There are areas of the country where the demographics are, have been, and will be stable for a long time, if that is important to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xalistiq
Your thesis suggesting that it’s impossible or unrealistic for established or wealthy cities to resist unmitigated development if they are part of high-growth, high-demand MSA’s is false and disproven by the numerous suburbs I cited above.
What we are talking about is a Texas specific issue that is rarely seen in other states and cities. As I stated in a previous post, I am extremely pessimistic about the near-term and long-term future of Texas (and the country) due to the sheer number of third world illegal aliens who have already breached our open border and continue to flood into our great state unconstrained. Unless there are mass deportations, I see this trend of declining suburbs/neighborhoods worsening to the point where the only nice neighborhoods with good public schools in DFW will be Highland Park, Westlake, and Southlake. Unironically, the only DFW suburbs with strict bans on high density housing. Preston Hollow would maintain its pedigree by way of the elite private schools that serve it.
Texas was already trending poorer as a whole, as the Hispanic population was set to eclipse the white population (and it finally did last year). These changing demographics and trend lines were well underway before the southern floodgates opened. But make no mistake, these changes have consequences: as economically disadvantaged (lower IQ) students make up larger and larger percentages of public school enrollment — as they already are and will continue to in suburbs with few zoning controls — school performance indices will worsen. When Plano and Frisco lose their reputation as high quality school districts, which is exactly where they’re trending (Plano on a faster trajectory than Frisco), what exactly will make these cities desirable or appealing? Sure, they’ll be close to all the corporate jobs in the area, but the primary factor that fueled their growth and success (their top rated schools), will exist no more.
mod cut
Yes, I get it. You don't like the demographic and cultural changes and hope to be able to kind of stiff-arm the point in time in which they will affect your life. But here's the thing - nothing is going to stop those demographics changes. Yes, immigration policies may slow it down or speed it up a bit, but nothing is going to actually reverse those changes due to birth rates and the reality of modern Western women's desire to raise kids. So your choice becomes to continue to go to higher and higher income places to outrun that, or to come to terms with it. My preferred method is to go out there and work with kids from the communities to show them what is possible with drive and an education, and do what I can to help change the culture. Contrary to your belief (and I'm sure the belief of many that had rich parents and don't actually interact much with poor people), poor kids are not low IQ, but low opportunity and surrounded by a culture that doesn't develop those opportunities. Increase those opportunities and start to change that culture, and those kids will be just as successful as kids have been in the past.
I can understand some of your fears, but many of these grievances are the same fears NIMBYs had in the past that ended up resulting in policies that made their metros unaffordable for their kids today.
Whew, you sure make a good of example of being from the windy city, don’t you? While I could not make it all the way through that novel you wrote, I must say that your arrogance and classism are off the charts. I don’t even think you are who you claim. I think you are a middle aged or elderly white Baby Boomer who hides behind a computer to say offensive while pretending to be Black so you can’t be called out. No Black person thinks or talks like this. No Black person looks down on Black and Brown people like this. And yes I think you are a racist. There I said it.
PS.. For someone who comes across as high and mighty and educated, you repeatedly capitalize the word leftist, which isn’t supposed to be capitalized. Stop being racist.
That's an opinion, not a fact, and certainly one I don't agree with. Anti-development advocacy comes from across the political spectrum, in my experience. It's not a liberal or conservative, left or right, type of thing. Trust me when I say, rich liberals and rich conservatives living in the same neighborhoods tend to band together on this issue. And given that wealthier neighborhoods ironically tend to be more politically diverse than middle-class and poorer ones (where a lot more "sorting" goes on politically), there are plenty of examples of that throughout history.
I don’t doubt there are a non-trivial number of Leftists, who live in largely homogenously white and affluent communities, and who, despite publicly and moralistically expressing their enthrallment with “diversity”, don’t want any in their neighborhood. Hence they block any all attempts by developers for medium or high-density construction, aka, “affordable housing”.
While these hypocrites are by no means uncommon, the “zoning reform” movement, which seeks to fundamentally and dramatically alter how neighborhoods are zoned and designed, is largely driven by Leftist organizations, policy groups, and academics. Not individual people.
Examples include:
1. YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard)
2. Urban Land Institute
3. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
4. PolicyLink
5. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)
6. The Urban Institute
7. Brookings Institute
All of these organizations/institutions are decidedly, unabashedly Leftist-leaning. Can you name a single Right-leaning organization or group that advocates for less restrictive zoning policies? I can’t. If you can, please share.
I stand by my assertion that this is by and large a politically-driven issue. A few phony Leftists in Martha’s Vineyard won’t change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
There are parts of this where I agree with you. Prop 13 absolutely was a major factor in California housing prices increasing significantly. But the nuance is this - Prop 13 is fundamentally a law that enables NIMBYs. By disincentivizing selling and encouraging long-term ownership, it made those landowners more likely to fight *hard* against things they perceived as lowering their land value. So then local governments gave homeowners too much power when it came to municipal land use.
"Don't upzone - someone might build a duplex or an apartment complex!"
"Don't rezone - we need those jobs from this plant but let them go somewhere else so I can maintain my views!"
"Don't allow more height - I have a right to direct sunlight from dawn to dusk!"
(Simplistic examples, but you get the idea.)
So I guess we can say one enabled the other, but both are major factors. I don't think the regulatory environment is much of a factor, as California is far from the only state with strict environmental laws, and I definitely don't agree about the "regressive" (lol) tax structure being a factor here.
While it’s possible Prop 13 does indeed promote NIMBYism in some neighborhoods and among some homeowners, California is simply too large to make such a sweeping generalization. Concerns about traffic and congestion, and diminishing neighborhood character are also valid concerns irrespective of Prop 13.
The reality is that everything is more significantly more expensive in California (gas, food, services, labor, construction costs, etc), so drastically more costly housing is to be expected. And while I’m sure Prop 13 contributed to California’s astronomical housing prices, we can’t ever definitively know the extent to which it did. California is an irreparably broken state, and I doubt that the abolishment of Prop 13 would measurably affect or reduce its sky high housing prices.
That said, Prop 13 is definitely a regressive tax, as it limits annual property taxes, irrespective of market values or annual appreciation. This disproportionately benefits longer term homeowners, who are statistically more likely to be wealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
Of course its possible, that's exactly what we're talking about here - affluent neighborhoods' ability to use zoning and NIMBYism to try to preserve their neighborhoods exactly as they are. Of course it happens all over the country.
My argument is that it decreases affordability and reduces the vitality of a city in the long term by driving the middle class out. In limited amounts, it has limited effects. We'll use these cities as examples. Chicago, Dallas, Houston and the like have remained affordable because at the end of the day, the number of neighborhoods exercising strict land use restrictions are limited in the context of the metro as a whole.
DC is a bit of a middle ground - there is a lot of NIMBYism in that region and when you add the height restrictions in DC proper, there's a lot of land use restriction. It makes the place more expensive than it should be.
And then of course you have the West Coast metros, where land use is very much controlled by NIMBYs and it is very hard to get upzoning approval anywhere.
There's a direct correlation there.
Go back and read my last post. I expressly and explicitly argue that zoning restrictions should not be broad based or all encompassing. To the contrary, I propose certain areas be defined for primary medium and high-density construction. In addition, I agree that some suburbs/neighborhoods should allow a certain percentage of high density housing, but not every suburb.
Some suburbs should remain exclusive. Having a handful of aspirational, high income, top tier school district neighborhoods in a metro area of millions or tens of millions will not “reduce the vitality” of these cities. In fact, it will only make them more desirable.
There’s a reason why the Park Cities and Southlake are the most expensive and sought after suburbs in DFW, and will continue to have long-standing desirability and demand well into the future. It’s because they are inherently exclusive and restrictive. Not just anyone can afford to live there or send their children to their respective local schools. And that’s exactly how both HPISD and Southlake Carroll will maintain their extremely high academic standards, while more “inclusive” DFW school districts, by comparison, are largely middling or poor. Outliers like Plano, which still remain highly ranked, are already beginning to show signs of trouble as they “diversify” with more low income/minority student enrollment.
Essentially, what you’re advocating for is an egalitarian dictat to every neighborhood and every school district. Your argument is no different from someone who believes everyone should be able to drive a Porsche or be able to shop at Stanley Korshak. I’m sorry it’s an irrational view point rooted in entitlement. No one is entitled to the best. If people want the best, they should have work for it and earn the money to afford the best, not have it assessable to them on a silver platter, which is essentially what your argument boils down to.
Not to mention, as lower income/lower class people begin moving into to wealthier/whiter neighborhoods, those original residents start moving out in droves. Then, the entire neighborhood and school district goes down the toilet. It’s almost impossible to curtail this process (white flight) once it starts in earnest — it gains momentum at ever-increasing velocity. See Plano, whose white population fell to 48% in 2020 from 78% in 2000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
Yes and no. Texas is California 30-40 years ago and at an inflection point (like California 40 years ago) where they are really having to think hard about land use. These conversations are taking place now because every major Texas city is going through these growing pains and trying to figure out how to best accommodate the people that are moving here.
The thing you're neglecting is jobs. Its easy to say "well not every neighborhood should change", but what are the criteria for these neighborhoods that are so special they should remain the same forever? It's easy to say "there's plenty of land!" but what purpose is it putting up a bunch of housing in areas of the metro where there are no jobs? Just to add to the traffic and stress of getting there for those poor people who aren't fortunate enough to have bought a house in one of the special neighborhoods?
No, no one has a right for their neighborhood to stay the same forever - that goes for the areas being gentrified as well as for lower-density areas being densified.
Texas is not Calfornia, now or forty years ago, for all the reasons I already outlined.
The criteria for neighborhoods which shouldn’t change are neighborhoods with high performing schools and high real estate values. There should exist neighborhoods which are aspirational and unaffordable to the average person, that maintain a consistently high standard of living that is only available to those privileged enough to afford to live there.
There are plenty of affordable housing options in close proximity to the Park Cities or Southlake. Why do these neighborhoods specifically need low income housing? Why can’t they remain desirable and exclusive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
You haven't disproven anything, to be quite honest. All you've done is what I've done, reinforced your opinions with reasons. To me, the primary reason seems to be "I don't want those school-destroying poor people in my neighborhood." That's fine. I don't have to agree with your reasons.
I don’t. And since you seem to be implying that poor children don’t destroy schools, I’d love for you to provide tangible examples of school districts which started out mostly white and affluent and still retained their high academic standards after a surge in low income or minority enrollment. And I don’t mean districts that are in the process of undergoing this transition now such as Plano, I’m referring to school districts that have undergone these broad demographic changes over a period of twenty or more years.
Good luck finding any examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
But the true irony is you're complaining about folks "shutting down" your thoughts when they don't agree while simultaneously referring to people who disagree with you as "leftists" regardless of what they actually believe politically.
Everything is not political. Some things are practical. I'm sure you have some actual "leftist" neighbors who agree with your stance on this, and some right-leaning neighbors who don't.
Perhaps I should be less critical of Leftists, but as far as this matter is concerned the accusations of “classism” and “racism”, are largely from Leftists.
Just because class and race often overlap this issue doesn’t mean those who oppose high-density development in their neighborhood are racist or classist. The reality is that low income
students, who are largely black and Hispanic, destroy schools at a certain rate of enrollment.
The truth, as inconvenient and uncomfortable as it may be, is the truth.
Yes and no. Texas is California 30-40 years ago and at an inflection point (like California 40 years ago) where they are really having to think hard about land use. These conversations are taking place now because every major Texas city is going through these growing pains and trying to figure out how to best accommodate the people that are moving here.
Oh, no! PLEASE no!
We can't have all those Democrats!
The state and cities are bringing on the unsustainable growth themselves. They're effectively paying people to move here. It's one thing to accommodate growth but quite another to encourage it. We need to get rid of all these economic and tax "incentive" programs, among other forms of corruption, conflicts of interest, and kickbacks, especially in the bigger cities like Plano and Irving that already have more than they or surrounding areas can handle. Municipalities should not be using tax dollars to serve as chambers of commerce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch
No, no one has a right for their neighborhood to stay the same forever - that goes for the areas being gentrified as well as for lower-density areas being densified.
It's impossible for a neighborhood to stay the same forever even in the absence of any development. They age. Residents change. Some do a good job of staying quite nice and well-kept, though. A residential neighborhood itself is unlikely to change density. It's undeveloped land in the surrounding areas that will likely get developed. In my vocabulary, a "neighborhood" refers to a single subdivision. It doesn't span an entire city or zip code.
Growth is fine if it happens in a balanced fashion at a sustainable pace with the resources needed to support it. The rate has to be controlled, and that's not been happening.
There’s a reason why the Park Cities and Southlake are the most expensive and sought after suburbs in DFW, and will continue to have long-standing desirability and demand well into the future
The Park cities are far more uniformly dense than any other city in Texas, and they have plenty of mutli-family housing. To get as dense as the Park Cities, Plano would need almost 500,000 residents, Southlake over 150,000.
Southlake is far too young to make long-term generalizations, but IMO it's build-out is far too 'generic suburban', so I have my doubts. And the fact that it's closer to Ft Worth, the lower income side of the DFW metroplex. On the plus side, it's pretty small, only 22 sq miles, so not that much area to maintain. In terms of it's age it's Richardson in 1965 or Plano in 1975.
Quote:
A residential neighborhood itself is unlikely to change density.
Also incorrect. Residential neighborhoods swing wildly in density over the course of their lifetime, ie: with people having children, the number of people increases pretty dramatically, and then they move out and people die. A single-family residential neighborhood can swing wildly from 1-5+ people per household over time.
The state and cities are bringing on the unsustainable growth themselves. They're effectively paying people to move here. It's one thing to accommodate growth but quite another to encourage it. We need to get rid of all these economic and tax "incentive" programs, among other forms of corruption, conflicts of interest, and kickbacks, especially in the bigger cities like Plano and Irving that already have more than they or surrounding areas can handle. Municipalities should not be using tax dollars to serve as chambers of commerce.
It's impossible for a neighborhood to stay the same forever even in the absence of any development. They age. Residents change. Some do a good job of staying quite nice and well-kept, though. A residential neighborhood itself is unlikely to change density. It's undeveloped land in the surrounding areas that will likely get developed. In my vocabulary, a "neighborhood" refers to a single subdivision. It doesn't span an entire city or zip code.
Growth is fine if it happens in a balanced fashion at a sustainable pace with the resources needed to support it. The rate has to be controlled, and that's not been happening.
How do you suggest to controll growth? Limit number of residents?
How do you suggest to controll growth? Limit number of residents?
At least stop encouraging it! There are several ways. Stop making the government chambers of commerce, eliminate the "incentives" and any form of recruiting efforts that government provides to business, and perhaps put in place and enforce some sensible regulations and taxes.
Utility entities (gas, water, and electric) need to set limits on requests for net new customers, especially power-consuming businesses and massive residential developments, beyond their ability to provide.
At the city level, zoning should preclude single family residential development too close to major thoroughfares or highways. If the infrastructure is lacking, and neither the city nor the developers cannot supply it at their expense, then it shouldn't be allowed. It's that simple. The state is also a problem in that it excessively limits city authority again in an effort to bring in more growth it doesn't need and can't handle.
The state pulls out all the stops to add growth as do the cities. That's not what needs to be happening right now.
At least stop encouraging it! There are several ways. Stop making the government chambers of commerce, eliminate the "incentives" and any form of recruiting efforts that government provides to business, and perhaps put in place and enforce some sensible regulations and taxes.
Utility entities (gas, water, and electric) need to set limits on requests for net new customers, especially power-consuming businesses and massive residential developments, beyond their ability to provide.
At the city level, zoning should preclude single family residential development too close to major thoroughfares or highways. If the infrastructure is lacking, and neither the city nor the developers cannot supply it at their expense, then it shouldn't be allowed. It's that simple. The state is also a problem in that it excessively limits city authority again in an effort to bring in more growth it doesn't need and can't handle.
The state pulls out all the stops to add growth as do the cities. That's not what needs to be happening right now.
And where are you going to put the increasing population?
The population would not increase as much without all the incentives and employers. It would grow at a sustainable rate.
Another thing we need to do is put an end to the H1B visas. At a minimum, they need to be barred from owning homes.
Considering the national cap being 65k plus a 20k lottery for those with Masters and above - how many purchase a home in DFW?
You can also consider number of asylum seekers with granted Green Cards and then whatever comes in at both border.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
