NewGeography.com blogs

The former Olympic athlete's village in Vancouver is in the news again, but this time no one is celebrating. The billion dollar plus development, originally built to house athletes then converted to a residential housing development, was primarily financed by a loan from the city of Vancouver. Millennium Development Corp., developer of the project, currently owes the city $731 million. Millennium was scheduled to pay back the first $200 million by August 31st, but came up $8 million short. They managed to find another $5 million by September 20th, but they are still $3 million short. On top of this, they have another $75 million due in January. The city is considering legal action against the developer.

This isn't the first we've heard about financial troubles with the project. The city actually took over the loan from Millennium’s initial lender due to cost overruns. The repayment schedule was considered feasible, given the strength of the Vancouver real estate market. Unfortunately for them, sales have been slow. While 223 units sold during the presale, only 36 units have moved since. This leaves more than half of the units. 454, lingering on the market. The city has actually been forced to take over the 252 units of social housing that were required to be built due to the city's inclusionary zoning laws.

Amidst this turmoil, the city is doing everything it can to ensure that the remaining units are neither sold off cheaply nor rented out, since this would reduce the long run selling price. Their solution is to wait for the market to rebound. Councilor Raymond Louie stated that “the benefit of being the city is that we are lasting and we can stay forever...it's a paper loss for now, but we can wait for the market to recover.” Of course, if this were a wise decision, why are private brokers and developers not doing the same? The answer is simple: the assets are depreciating anyways, so they may as well cut their losses. The problem here seems to be that the sitting government is afraid that it will look bad for them if the sale of the units doesn't cover the full loan amount. By telling the developer to sit on the assets, they can claim that the debt will be repaid when the market recovers (and they are happily retired from council).

The British Columbia government reported that the cost of the Olympics to BC taxpayers was $925 million. The original estimate was $600 million. On top of this, the federal government kicked in $1 billion for security costs. That also doesn't count the $700 million they spent on highway upgrades, $2 billion for a light rail extension, or $885 million for a convention center. Millennium’s financial troubles threaten to add to the losses incurred by taxpayers. Reports claim that the development is worth between $150-200 million less than what they owe the city. On top of that, at least 15 of the pre-sale buyers are trying to back out of their purchases. The bad news for taxpayers just keeps coming.

While the city was forced to back the loan in order to live up to its Olympic commitments, there is a clear lesson here: cities should not be in the housing business. Even though they've managed to keep housing prices artificially high, they can't break even on a housing development that was advertised to the whole world. Either the housing market will overheat again, and the project will become solvent, or the taxpayers will lose a couple hundred million dollars. Potential home owners in Vancouver can't seem to win. The best thing the city can do at this point is admit failure, and allow Millennium to have a fire sale. It won't do much about the cost of living in the city, but at least a few people will pick up bargains. Of course, politicians aren't likely to cut their losses. Better to pass the buck to the next council.

Is it any wonder why California’s economy has been so sluggish during the recession? According to the 2010 Kosmont-Rose Institute Cost of Doing Business Survey, one-third of the nation’s forty most expensive cities are located in California, deterring businesses from setting up shop in the state. The increases in sales, income, and vehicle taxes in 2009 further depressed the business climate and exacerbated the problem of unemployment. Though local governments are trying to cut costs and boost local businesses, they have not been able to reverse the effects of outrageous taxes and fees.

As one would predict, the ten most expensive cities in California in 2010 are located almost exclusively in the Bay Area or Los Angeles Area. Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco round out the Bay Area localities with San Francisco actually making the top ten national rankings as well. Beverly Hills, Culver City, Inglewood, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Santa Monica all represent Los Angeles County while Rancho Santa Margarita fills the final spot. However, none of these cities joined San Francisco on the national list.

There is one thing missing from Kosmont’s national list of most expensive cities: the Great Plains states and Midwest. With the exception of Chicago, there are no cities on the list from the area between Arizona and Ohio. Even in the West, there are only three cities, San Francisco, Portland, and Phoenix, that made the top ten.

Where do we find the least expensive cities? They are in the middle of the country, of course. Five of 2010’s least expensive cities are in Texas, one is in Nevada, and one is in Wyoming. Texas has fared surprisingly well during the recession, as have states like North Dakota. Low business costs and a bustling energy industry have made these states havens for new businesses and job seekers alike.

Companies in California are now packing up and moving north and west to save money. Friendlier and more stimulating business climates in states such as Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado are luring companies like Google, Hilton, and Genentech. As Larry Kosmont, President and CEO of Kosmont Companies, commented, “Just being located in California, cities are at a ‘cost’ disadvantage right out of the gate.” If California wants to keep the companies that bolstered its success during the beginning of the decade, it must reconsider its recent tax hikes and have faith that improving the business climate will stimulate the economic growth that the state sorely needs.

California, now in the midst of a heated debate on high-speed rail, could learn a thing or two from a few small villages in England about consolidating their opposition. Residents from five villages in Oxfordshire created the Villages of Oxfordshire Opposing HS2 (High-Speed Rail 2) action group to voice their concerns about the proposed project.

HS2 would link London and Birmingham by 2025, going through Finmere, Mixbury, Fingford, Fulwell, and Newton Purcell in north Oxfordshire. Not only would the rail line greatly alter the countryside landscape, but it would also create an immense amount of noise pollution. Trains would run through these villages at 250 mph about every three minutes. On top of that, rail authorities are giving out little information to citizens who are growing frustrated.

The Chairman of Villages of Oxfordshire Opposing HS2, Bernie Douglas, wants the group to influence rail authorities to route the line away from the area and raise awareness about the detriments of a high-speed rail line in the countryside. He has certainly succeeded in the latter goal. The group’s meeting in April drew more than 80 people from an area with only 100 homes. However, their efforts for the former cause have been largely in vain. Transport Minister Phillip Hammond and HS2 Ltd, the company behind the project, have not responded to the group's letters.

There is hope for Oxfordshire, though. A spokesman for the Department of Transport claims that “No final decision will be made on whether to proceed with a high-speed rail line or on its route until any scheme has undergone a full public consultation.” If this is true, it is almost certain that the rail line will not run through Oxfordshire.

Cities on the Peninsula have similarly started to band together to oppose the California Rail Authority, who has decided against using the much preferred trench system to cut costs, but opposition remains scattered throughout many different groups. Lawsuits from a few cities and organizations have driven the authority to reconsider the trench system, but the project seems like it will continue to progress, much to the dismay of many unhappy California residents.

Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton, who are at the forefront of the opposition, need to gather support from other cities on the Peninsula to truly affect the future of high-speed rail in the state. It is easy for the California Rail Authority, backed by Governor Schwarzenegger, to defend its position from a few cities, but a united Peninsula coalition would be a tough obstacle to overcome. Maybe Burlingame, San Mateo, and their neighbors should take a page out of the book of Oxfordshire and use collective action to more effectively voice their concerns.

The Age (Melbourne) headlined a story "CBA Accused of Choosing its Facts." CBA is the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, while UBS is the Swiss investment house. Commonwealth produced a report comparing housing affordability in Australian metropolitan areas to international metropolitan areas (Australian Housing and Mortgages: CBA Mortgage Book Secure). According to The Age:

Investment forums and housing blogs were alive with talk yesterday that an 18-page presentation used by the bank had replaced unfavourable housing affordability figures with data showing housing costs were not out of step with other cities in the world.

One slide compared Australian housing affordability to several cities, citing figures from a combination of the US urban planning research house Demographia and the investment bank UBS.
The slide showed housing in Sydney and Melbourne was more affordable than cities such as San Francisco, New York and Vancouver. But it used UBS data exclusively for the Australian cities, and Demographia data for the overseas cities.

The data were not comparable. Commonwealth relied upon Median Multiple data (median house price divided by median household income) from the 6th Annual Demographia Housing Affordability Survey for international metropolitan areas. However, Commonwealth used a median/average multiple (median house price divided by average household income) calculated by UBS, the Swiss investment house, for Australian metropolitan areas. These are very different indicators.

There would have been nothing wrong with having used the median/average multiple, had it been shown for all metropolitan areas, Australian and international. However, comparing the median/average multiple to the Median Multiple is invalid. Average household incomes are routinely higher than median household incomes and the use of an average income figure inappropriately biases Australian housing affordability relative to international metropolitan areas.

For example, the UBS median/average multiple for Sydney is reported by Commonwealth to be 6.2. Commonwealth finds Sydney to be more affordable than San Francisco's, which it indicates at 7.0. However, the San Francisco figure is the Median Multiple and the comparable figure for Sydney is 9.1, making Sydney less affordable than San Francisco

In fact, had the UBS median/average multiple been used for all metropolitan areas, including the international metropolitan areas, it is likely that the gap between Australian metropolitan areas and international metropolitan areas would be of similar magnitude to that shown in the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.

From time to time, various interests have suggested alternate measures of housing affordability for Australia and then compared or suggested comparison to our Median Multiple data. Of course, that is invalid.

The Age article by Eric Johnston was carried in other Fairfax Media outlets such asThe Sydney Morning Herald and the Brisbane Times, and the subject has been covered by financial blogs.

Note: Author Wendell Cox of Demographia.com and Hugh Pavletich of PerformanceUrbanPlanning.com are co-authors of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.

The Transit Equity Network has just published a study called More Transit - More Jobs in which it suggests switching 50% of highway funding to transit in 20 metropolitan areas to create an additional 180,000 jobs over the next five years. Their basic thesis is that each kajillion in spending can produce more jobs in transit than in highways. We don't comment on that, because, frankly, the purpose of transportation spending is neither to create transit jobs nor highway jobs.

We spend on transit and highways because of benefits that extend beyond any direct employment. And, the extent of those benefits cannot be compared between the two modes. At current rates of spending each billion dollars spent on highways supports about 25 times as much personal mobility as one spent on transit. Beyond that, highway spending supports the movement of more than 1.25 billion ton miles of truck freight, which keeps product prices low and supports our affluent life style. Transit carries 0.0 ton miles of freight. Researchers such as Prud'homme & Chang-Wong and Hartgen & Fields have shown that the type of ubiquitous mobility provided by road systems produce greater economic growth. Moving money out of roads would increase traffic congestion, destroy jobs and increase product prices by slowing down trucks.

Why, on earth, then would anyone make such a dubious proposal? To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the ideology, stupid." As we wrote within the past week, much of transportation spending over the last 25 years has been solidly based in an anti-mobility ideology that has produced virtually nothing in return. Already, transit, which accounts for one percent of national travel and no freight movement, accounts for more than 20% of spending on highways and transit combined. Things would be better if that were raised to 60%?

If the Transit Equity Network were right (which it is not), then why stop at 50% for transit? Why not take all of the transit and highway money and just employ people to dig holes with shovels and then fill them up again. The only costs would be wages, benefits, shovels and administration. We could save money by not buying concrete, rails, fancy trains or palatial administrative buildings. Another advantage is that the holes would require no longer term operating subsidies.

So, we need to do more than dump the ideology. We need also to dump the stupidity. Government does not exist for the purpose of government services and transportation programs do not exist for the good of transportation employees or vendors. Each dollar of infrastructure expenditures should be used to facilitate the greatest economic benefit throughout society as a whole, not just among people employed in transit (or highways for that matter).