Gyroscopic Investing

Even though I would rather see better (more) density, I just feel like raising taxes is more practical. The wealthier suburbanites, at least, will put up with it.

It might be interesting to see what people who move to the suburbs are actually after. Since technically I live in suburbia, here's my list:

Good public schools
Low crime
My own land
A certain amount of privacy
More space than is typical in an American apartment or condo; minimum 3 bedrooms
Space for a workshop
Affordable housing @ ≤ $100/sf
View of the sky and the mountain
Walkable to grocery stores, restaurants, banks, parks, etc

Notably, none of that actually requires huge lots, wide roads, deep building setbacks, "green space", 2 car garages, and the like, and the last one generally opposes them.

I'd be interested to see what the generally pro-suburb people (Tortoise and Clacy?) would have on their personal lists.

Pointedstick wrote:It might be interesting to see what people who move to the suburbs are actually after. Since technically I live in suburbia, here's my list:

Good public schools
Low crime
My own land
A certain amount of privacy
More space than is typical in an American apartment or condo; minimum 3 bedrooms
Space for a workshop
Affordable housing @ ≤ $100/sf
View of the sky and the mountain
Walkable to grocery stores, restaurants, banks, parks, etc

Notably, none of that actually requires huge lots, wide roads, deep building setbacks, "green space", 2 car garages, and the like, and the last one generally opposes them.

I'd be interested to see what the generally pro-suburb people (Tortoise and Clacy?) would have on their personal lists.

Low crime
Privacy
Quietness away from the manic city noise, crowds, traffic, crime - THE big one for me
My own property to landscape or not as I wish - trees, flowers, patio, bbq grill, etc.
Good access by car to 95% of what I want to do in 30 minutes or less, 60 minutes maximum to 100%.

... Mountaineer

I actually totally agree with you guys, particularly the no shared wall thing. Hearing my neighbors having sex always made me realize that they could probably hear me having sex. Awful. I am totally with you on the superiority of single-family detached housing to apartments or condos.

Thing is, none of these things we all want actually require suburbia. You can have safety by pricing out the criminals and with "eyes on the street" from people walking around instead of having a huge expensive police force full of fat vehicle-borne officers who never actually come to know their beats except through a windshield. Good schools without insane property taxes only really require a critical mass of families with children who care about them, plus a certain amount of conservatives. And a lot of the "loudness" we associate with city life is actually the sound of whooshing cars. I once lived in an apartment complex right next to a freeway and it was unbearable. It's really not so much the people who are loud, it's the cars! Access to where you want to go is largely a function of distance and speed. If it's far away, you need to go faster to get there; if it's close by, you don't, which means maybe you can walk. Unless you simply like cars for their own sake, there is no particular reason why cars should be required for getting to most of the places where you want to go if things aren't ridiculously far apart from one another, which they won't be if the city government doesn't mandate enormous roads, 20 foot setbacks on all sides, and single-use zoning everywhere.

Nathan Lewis (Mr. Really Narrow Streets) has some great articles on how you can have traditional walkable urbanism with nothing but single-family detached housing that preserves privacy, leaves you space for vehicles, and has land for you to garden in. A lot of it showcases Japan so I'm simply going to assume good schools and public safety, and the rest is pretty self-evident. I heavily recommend them:

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archiv ... 61211.html
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archiv ... 71711.html

Even if you don't want to read all the words, just look at the pictures and the captions.

Pointedstick wrote:You actually don't need to raise taxes in most cases. What what you need to raise is density and then taxes can stay the same or even fall. It's all tied into the concept of tax productivity.

Isn't that what urban metros do already? And it does seem against the natural inclination of relatively wealthier people wanting bigger spaces away from their neighbors. Just look at how stressful living in dense, crowded NYC is! It's a shithole, but of a different kind than SoCal represents. And yet, people put up with it, even the wealthy people, although they do put up different kinds of barriers than purchasing huge lots of land (like buying an entire palace suite floor at the top of a high rise).

And lets be honest, the vast majority of Americans are now fucking fat and/or obese. They literally need more square footage just to move around in comfortably and not engage in traffic congestion with each other. So I got a really hard time understanding how you can envision taking all these whales and packing them into even more density than we have at present.

What a world!

Pointedstick wrote:I pay $1,400 a year in property taxes. Pretty low. Back in the 60s, my current half acre parcel could easily have been subdivided into four 1/8 acre lots each with its own single-story single-family house of the same size. Doing this, if the total property bill remained the same, each household would personally pay a bill of $350, or only one fourth as much as I pay now! If the city decided to raise a lot more money and doubled the total tax bill, each house would still only pay $700--half of what I pay. A broader but shallower tax base that results from higher density can raise more money in total while actually reducing each individual property's bill. Everybody wins. And you could probably put six or more two-store houses in the same place. They could even have nice big backyards if they weren't set back 20 feet from the street, and there's no reason for that anyway since vehicle traffic in these kinds of neighborhoods rarely goes faster than 15 MPH and any desired separation from the street can easily be accomplished with a little 5-foot front garden and a low wall which are nicer anyway than a sterile, unused patch of grass.

I'm confused. Aren't you arguing for the Bay Area shithole you already fleed from here? If not, then what is the crucial difference?

dualstow wrote:I really appreciate PS's thoughts on this. I used to visit your town, PS, in the 70s and 80s. Needless to say, it was a lot smaller back then.

You sure been around! So where do you live now? You don't have to be specific. I don't believe in stalking.

Kriegsspiel wrote:Ok, yes, or that. I meant, to get what they seem to want (the low density suburbia they moved to), they need to pay more in taxes. Don't want to be bait-and-switching people, now do we? Incidentally, I just watched his talk in the "What are you doing, Maine" article, which shows this with real numbers. He's a very personable speaker, so even non-nerds might enjoy it.

That's pretty interesting. Maine and Vermont are actually on my relocation state short list. They seem like the last bastions of non-congestion, non-density and non-multiculturalism.

dualstow wrote:Even though I would rather see better (more) density, I just feel like raising taxes is more practical. The wealthier suburbanites, at least, will put up with it.

How will that work? All that higher property taxes do is makes the location more of a tony, exclusive gated community enclave with superior schools, higher property values, etc.. We don't tax houses and use it for general funds. Sales taxes and gas taxes provide all that other jazz that comes with the trappings.

Pointedstick wrote:Even if you don't want to read all the words, just look at the pictures and the captions.

This is pretty much my version of suburban hell:




Not even a private backyard?!! Fuck that.

When you live that close to the neighbors, its really not that much different than living in attached homes, apartments or condos. You can't be who you really are because of the public etiquette pressure (unless you're just an outright uncaring asshole!). I'd say that is chronically stressful for anyone but extroverts or brown-nosers.

But the biggest advantage of having undeveloped nature around that you can actually go into, is the ability to destress. People just don't seem to get this, which is why they're all fat/obese, insominacs on anti-depressant medications or pain killers or alcohol, etc. Notice a trend here???

P.S. I'm not a fan of density, but boy Japan really does seem to do it right... it feels very inviting and interesting.

MachineGhost wrote:Maine and Vermont are actually on my relocation state short list. They seem like the last bastions of non-congestion, non-density and non-multiculturalism.

Have you actually spent any time in Vermont? I grew up there and return almost every year to visit family. Nice place to visit, glad I grew up there, but I wouldn't want to live there again.

Yeah, forget the pictures of American "New Urbanism." It's trash. Don't those Japanese pictures just look… civilized? I'd sure like to live in one of those neighborhoods.

I really do get the disadvantages of American urban living, believe me. My sister who lives in New York City was just mugged at gunpoint by a huge scary black man last night (she's okay). It's a sewer.

But again, we shouldn't confuse correlation with causation. New York City isn't a crime-infested pit because it's high-density; it's because a persistent criminal underclass lives there, along with a police force that's kneecapped by stupid liberal PC policies, and a population that accepts crime as a consequence of their lifestyle instead of something that is totally unacceptable.

flyingpylon wrote:Have you actually spent any time in Vermont? I grew up there and return almost every year to visit family. Nice place to visit, glad I grew up there, but I wouldn't want to live there again.

No. What's wrong with it?

Pointedstick wrote:But again, we shouldn't confuse correlation with causation. New York City isn't a crime-infested pit because it's high-density; it's because a persistent criminal underclass lives there, along with a police force that's kneecapped by stupid liberal PC policies, and a population that accepts crime as a consequence of their lifestyle instead of something that is totally unacceptable.

Elaborate on this more. What lifestyle produces crime as a consequence?

Wrong word. How about "drawback."

MachineGhost wrote:

flyingpylon wrote:Have you actually spent any time in Vermont? I grew up there and return almost every year to visit family. Nice place to visit, glad I grew up there, but I wouldn't want to live there again.

No. What's wrong with it?

My son and his wife lived in Brattleboro for several years. There are three seasons: short summer, long winter, and mud.

And, a lot of nice people if you prefer flaming liberals.

And, if you prefer a lot of car seat time to find a nice restaurant, sports events, etc.

And, there is yet more mud, and gloom, and dirty snow. And mud. And more mud, and dirty snow - unless you live at a ski resort, then there is just snow.

... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote:

dualstow wrote:I really appreciate PS's thoughts on this. I used to visit your town, PS, in the 70s and 80s. Needless to say, it was a lot smaller back then.

You sure been around! So where do you live now? You don't have to be specific. I don't believe in stalking.

Northeast US. I've never lived where PS lives, but my father's family is from there so we used to visit every few years.

ADDED:

When you live that close to the neighbors, its really not that much different than living in attached homes, apartments or condos. You can't be who you really are because of the public etiquette pressure

I grew up in a house with a very large yard, and now I have zero privacy outside in my postage stamp back garden. But, even where I grew up, neighbors and passersby could see me mowing the lawn, playing in the railroad tie fort or using the basketball hoop. I don't think it's that different except that we had a fenced-in backyard. Also, we could yell without being heard. I'm far less likely to yell in my current home, and I think of that as a good thing.

The plus is that I actually feel safer having so many eyes on my house. I have a burglar alarm, too, but these watchful neighbors (who are not busybodies, btw) are a bonus.

MachineGhost wrote:

flyingpylon wrote:Have you actually spent any time in Vermont? I grew up there and return almost every year to visit family. Nice place to visit, glad I grew up there, but I wouldn't want to live there again.

No. What's wrong with it?

Briefly...

- Way (way) too far left.
- You mentioned multiculturism... VT may not have it, but it doesn't mean they don't desire/welcome it.
- Some areas are getting inundated with welfare/service seekers.
- Congestion... plenty of that in some areas because roads don't get built or sized appropriately.
- Relatively expensive housing and cost of living (not NYC or CA expensive, but still).
- Simply not enough general economic activity to go around.
- Huge heroin problems.
- Cold. Snowy. Rainy. Muddy.

As a young person trying to get a career started in the very early 90's, I knew I needed to get out. The people that seem to do well there are middle-aged professionals that have established themselves elsewhere, made (or inherited) some money, and can afford the lifestyle pictured in Vermont Life magazine.

If you are a person who desires and is financially able to live well out in the boonies while ignoring the mainstream/rat race, you might enjoy it. Vermont can be stunningly beautiful and summer in particular can be absolutely glorious. There is no shortage of cute artisanal products to enjoy. People are friendly and they do quaint things like get together for Town Meeting Day each year. Some people really do love it.

But the other stuff would drive me crazy. For example, they passed single-payer healthcare but then later realized there was no way they could afford it. They recently passed GMO labeling laws and are now surprised to see food distributors cutting thousands of items from their inventory. Stuff like that all the time.

Mountaineer wrote:There are three seasons: short summer, long winter, and mud.

We always used to say there were two seasons... Winter and two months of poor sledding!

If your goals really are low population, low density, white... you can get that throughout Appalachia, too. Especially if your feeble Californian constitution can't handle winter.

Kriegsspiel wrote:Especially if your feeble Californian constitution can't handle winter.

hahahaha!

Kriegsspiel wrote:If your goals really are low population, low density, white... you can get that throughout Appalachia, too. Especially if your feeble Californian constitution can't handle winter.

That's an idea! Exactly what areas does Appalachia include?

My constitution loathes California hot weather, so anything cooler is a plus in my book. And four real seasons would be nice also instead of a 9-month long insufferable oven (it's going to hit 105F tomorrow).

The Pacific Northwest was my first choice but forget it now (see The Really Big One topic). The entire Deep South/Southeast is out of the question due to the humidity (and bugs and reptiles). I have a few "alternative" lifestyle possibilities to research instead of another boring vanilla, cookie cutter, master planned, suburban subdivision "community" (hah!), but I doubt they will hold up upon closer inspection.



Maybe I'll move to NYC and kick Reub's ass.

If you look at these maps, you can get an idea of the places I meant:

Their climate is similar to Maine/Vermont, but slightly warmer (more southernly mountains):


Mean July dew point


You can see that once you get to the east side of the mountains you are in a pocket of nicer weather. For example, Boone, NC (3,333 ft elevation), and Montpelier, VT (600 ft) both have July avg highs of 78, but Boone has warmer winters (avg January high of 41 vs 26, and low of 20 vs 7). Blacksburg, VA (2,080 ft). Areas of eastern WV have a marine west coast climate.

Population densities:




This is where black people live (I assumed by multicultural you meant black people?)


It's harder to figure out congestion, but a quick look at the statistics for Boone vs Vermont shows that people around Boone drive 21% less than those in Vermont. This would have been a cool map to look at, but it's not up.

MG, you're an optimizer, so it might be hard to accept that there is no perfect place that will meet all your needs. Most of the objectively really nice places are so crowded that they're very expensive. The mountain states and the northeast get freezing cold; the south is unbearable outside in the summer; the midwest has both; Colorado and the pacific northwest are culturally turning into a little Californias; anywhere with a lot of black people and/or latinos is going to have racial tensions; the intermountain west states are largely economically depressed and dependent on the federal government, etc.

It's an efficient market. Not a lot of abritrage opportunities left. You just gotta decide which things you can live with. It's gonna require stretching on your budget, being more open-minded about who you live around, accepting more limited employment opportunities, or dealing with weather that isn't as much to your liking.

There's also the potential for "summering" in one place and "wintering" in another. Surely more expensive than just picking one, of course. But you could do things like spend 183 days in a non-income-tax state and avoid state income tax altogether. If this is for retirement that may not matter of course.

Or you could exploit hyper-localized weather. For example near Tuscon there's a lovely little village up on Mount Lemmon. Nice and cool in the summer.