Tag: suburbs

High ROI Suburbs

tomkapostasy2 Comments

Many of America’s highest income, politically conservative suburbs have successful pursued high amenity public service strategies.  How is this high spending approach economically and politically justified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model

In 1956, economist Charles Tiebout developed a model of competing suburban governments providing different levels and combinations of services to match the varied preferences of groups.  Subsequent research on suburbs and private real estate communities has confirmed that individuals prefer to choose amenity/payment bundles which match their values.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1v378785j2588j8/

Why would members of this usually tax and government-averse high income group willingly choose to live in a high amenity suburb?

The sociological observation that individuals prefer to belong to groups of like individuals is a partial explanation.  Exclusive communities are more homogeneous.

Brand name communities also provide some luxury goods type value from their exclusive status as high income, wealth and service communities.

High income, wealth, tax and service communities screen out criminal elements and benefit from low service costs to security services, delivering a safe environment.

High service communities provide signaling benefits in a world of imperfect information.  Transferred corporate executives rely upon education and amenity cues in choosing a residence.  Universities rely upon the reputation of school districts in selecting among applicants. 

Most importantly, a high service strategy delivers a great financial return on investment – especially for the initial group of residents.  High service communities proactively pursue strategies to minimize the cost to existing residents.

They invest in all service dimensions to ensure that the community is recognized as “a” or “the” leader in the metropolitan area and region.  Schools, roads, utilities, zoning, parks, transportation, libraries and cultural institutions achieve recognition.

They increase the tax base through annexation, selective density increases and attracting commercial firms.

They pursue “good government” initiatives, outsourcing services, consolidating services, utilizing volunteers and boards, leveraging regional, state and federal funds, employing specialized consulting firms and retaining highly qualified staff that benefit from the community’s growth and financial stability.

They invest in economic development, using Tax Increment Financing districts, user fees, economic development incentives, balanced zoning and negotiation to take advantage of the economic value of their attractive locations.  Retail, office, distribution, services, logistics and light manufacturing firms are welcome in the right zoned areas.

High service communities make capital investments to provide future economic returns.  Schools, parks, roads, libraries, utilities, cultural services, transportation and recreation assets are created through donations, local and regional government actions.

Suburbs compete with other metropolitan suburbs for residents and with other regional centers for commercial investments.  The right investments provide an atmosphere with low taxes, high services and a high quality of life. 

A Midwestern suburb of 75,000 has invested almost $1 billion in the last 20 years in its schools, roads, utilities, library, parks, infrastructure, cultural institutions and economic development incentives.  In essence, each of the existing 25,000 households has made a $40,000 bet on the future.  There has been some political and journalistic opposition.  A typical residence is valued at $250,000.  There are another 3,000 commercial firms with $250,000 property investments, making the total property value $7 billion. 

The community has annexed the unincorporated areas, increased density, attracted new businesses and continued its build-out towards a 120,000 population.  The number and value of commercial enterprises is expected to grow from .75B to $4B in 20 years.  Through zoning measures, growth and increased demand for a singular resource, the average residence will be valued at $400,000, with the existing residences appreciating from $250,000 to $325,000.  The built out residential market value will be $16B, for a total property value of $20B.

The original 25,000 households will gain a real $75,000 on their housing values.  Because of the community’s economic and population growth, their capital investment will be reduced to less than $20,000.  The early residents will clearly benefit from this high service and investment strategy.  The new residents will benefit from the investments and have the opportunity to “vote with their feet” in determining if the services delivered are worth the property values and taxes required.

High income families demand high quality services and are willing to pay for them.  They also require their municipal governments to take all possible steps to increase the cost effectiveness of these services.

Indiana Metro Growth Trends Continue

tomkapostasy3 Comments

Since 1900, a majority of Indiana counties have grown by less than 0.4% per year.  These 47 rural counties have been trapped in a time machine, slowly evolving from 20,000 to 24,000 people per county.  In 1900, they accounted for 38% of the population.  This dropped to 23% in 1950 and 17% in 2010.  These counties account for half of the counties and land, but only one-sixth of the population.  The urbanization of Indiana continues slowly, decade after decade.  The 47 rural counties had a population of 960,000 in 1900 when William McKinley of Ohio was elected president and only 1,120,000 in 2010.

 On the other hand, the urban counties have more than tripled in population (+241%), increasing from 1.6 to 5.3 million.  Indiana has grown by 155%, from 2.5 to 6.4M people.  Fully 96% of this growth has taken place in the 45 urban counties.

 The ten medium-sized cities and their immediate counties increased by two-thirds between 1900 and 1950 and then by one-sixth through 2010.  They accounted for 460,000 people in 1900, increased to 760,000 in 1950 and maintained minor growth to 870,000 in 2010.  Evansville, Anderson, Muncie, Terre Haute, Kokomo, Marion, Richmond, Bedford, New Castle, and Huntington grew from counties with 30-70,000 residents in 1900 to counties with 40-170,000 citizens across the century.

 The five largest cities – Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Gary and South Bend/Elkhart – grew significantly faster.  They increased from about 0.4 million in 1910 to 1.4 million in 1950 to 2.2 million in 2010.  The rapid growth from 1900 to 1950 has since tapered off.  These 5 areas have grown from one-sixth of the state’s population to slightly more than one-third.  

 The greatest changes have taken place in the suburbs.  Fully 28 counties plus Lafayette and Bloomington have benefited from the growth of metropolitan areas.  These 30 counties have grown from a 1900 average population of 23,000 (abut the same as the rural counties) and total of 680,000 to 860,000 in 1950 (up 26%) to 1,950,000 (up a stunning 186%) in 2000 and an even higher level of 2,250,000 in 2010.  The suburban counties have increased from 27% to 35% of the Indiana population.

 Indiana’s population growth is expected to drop back to 6% for the 2010 decade after a 10% increase in 2000, 1% in 1990 and 6% in 1980.  This follows a post-war period where 15% growth per decade was the norm.  This decade continues to show very unequal growth.  The 30 suburban counties show a 14% growth of 305,000 people.  The other 62 counties increased by only 1%, from 4.1 to 4.2 million people.  The 30 suburban counties have 88% of the population growth. 

 Indiana has been blessed to have 6 urban areas that drive significant population growth: Chicago/Gary, South Bend/Elkhart, Ft. Wayne, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Louisville.  The state legislature would be wise to adopt policies that reinforce this century long trend.