Tag Archives: Government

Rights to Development

Posted on by

What the current system of land acquisition wants to do is take this productive land and pour concrete on it. A simple question is: If the most fertile land in the country produces cars and chemicals, what do we eat.

[Source: DNA India] Harini Calamur writing for DNA India rightly identifies the misplaced priorities in land acquisition for development. However, her conclusion is a little misplaced. The question is not whether we should pour concrete on fertile land but rather who gets to decide that we do. She points to the ‘throwaway prices’ that the government acquires these lands and hands them over to large companies, which may be at the core of most of these protests around India rather than the location of these industries.

I believe if the government stepped out of the equation and let these large companies deal directly with the farmers, the animosity toward such development would be far less. Critics may point toward price gouging in terms of land pricing but companies can always point to or head to better deals elsewhere in the state or the nation as a way of negotiation. The government can always step in to provide supporting infrastructure after such deals have been finalized.

In a large country like India, not all fertile land seeks to be paved over and in fact, innovations in agricultural technology may do more in increasingly yields from less land rather than preserving the amount of fertile land (cue anti-Malthus arguments). The amount of land is and has remained finite but the ways to make it more productive (and fertile) have always improved.

Defending the 30-Year Fixed-Rate Mortgage

Posted on by

I am prone to write stinging rebukes to poorly written garbage on the web, but when I call someone out, I will devote the post to building a factual argument as to why they are wrong. I never ask anyone to just take my word for it because I am some kind of expert. Authority comes from the presentation of data in a compelling argument. Mindless rants don’t make authors an authority, it makes them lunatics.

[Source: Irvine Housing Blog] IrvineHunter rips apart The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle’s arguments that the 30-year Fixed-Rate Mortgage is to blame for the housing crisis. That’s what I love about blogs. They refute the so-called ignorant pundits with cold hard facts.

The Kelo v. New London in a new light

Posted on by

Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.

This decision by Pfizer to Leave New London, Connecticut is going to profoundly impact future eminent domain cases and gives a major boost to libertarians. The landmark SC ruling was unique in the sense that it acquired private land that included a built home to hand over to another private party for the “public good”. Without conditions to ensure that Pfizer would indeed add 1,400 jobs to the New London as promised, its decision to leave after just eight years is not surprising. Pfizer’s decision to move away puts paid to New London’s hopes of revitalizing the area around Kelo’s home by building an “urban village” to attract shoppers and tourists. So in effect, is Pfizer really responsible for making the city assume that they would stay forever? But Susette Kelo’s pink house still stands after it was moved across town by preservationist Avner Gregory who bought it for $1.

Low-Income (Potential) Homeowners still neglected

Posted on by

Research by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that since 1995 federal funding for low-income housing assistance has dropped by over 20 percent, both as a share of GDP and non-military discretionary spending. Meanwhile, the number of low-income renters spending more than half of their income on housing costs has increased by over 33 percent since 2000.

In the current housing crisis, low-income homeowners continue to face the brunt.

Governing Land Use in Hazardous Areas with a Patchwork System

Posted on by

Protecting areas subject to natural hazards is often a dilemma between balancing economic and legal uses of land and promoting public safety and protecting the lives of residents. The government’s role in protecting the people from natural hazard must tread the line between safety and not infringing on property rights of land owners. The federal, state, and local government primarily regulates land uses from natural hazards by incorporating disincentives or promoting land use planning. Local governments are often averse to regulating land use planning for hazard mitigation. The perception of disaster unless directly affected in the recent past infuses a sense of complacency. Also focus on other problems on the agenda puts hazard mitigation at a lower priority level. Remedial actions for built up areas can be expensive and difficult to implement due to social and political pressure.

However two factors can directly affect the use of local government’s use of land use planning and development management programs – commitment of local officials and capacity of local governments. These factors can be directly affected by the extent of community resources that public officials are willing to dedicate for mitigation and the influence of the political climate that pushes these issues up in the public consciousness.

The federal government addresses mitigation issues through a range of programs aimed at land use and development in vulnerable areas. Although the federal government prefers the local government to intervene to regulate land use planning, it also uses an overarching controlling role in preserving wetlands and high-risk areas. The federal government primarily uses investment policies to offer incentives in order to put in place remedial measures; for e.g. The National Flood Insurance Act.

The Stafford Act is intended to offer a comprehensive look at mitigation strategies and provide integrated approaches but differing goals in different states and bureaucratic tangles have not made much difference. The federal government however acts in patchwork of programs that target specific areas instead of providing a broad-based approach and strategy. The federal programs have instead shown a stronger preference for protective methods rather than mitigation and preventive approaches that effectively increase the potential for damage. Stronger land use provisions are avoiding in federal mandate and instead rely on the local governments to enforce them, who in turn differ widely in their application of such regulations.

The states on the other hand have developed a variety of programs for vulnerable regions. Although special attention has been paid to environmentally sensitive areas, protection of regions vulnerable to natural hazards such as flooding, earthquake, or hurricanes has been given low priority. The variation in state programs is attributable to various factors that stem from either the economic or political climate of the regions. The state comprehensive planning mandates have provided a sense of direction to the local governments but due to lack of regional cooperation, such mandates lead to limited and sporadic changes. The goal divergence and mistrust among different levels of the governments are also partly to blame for the inconsistencies of different state policies.

Reference: Summary – Chapter 3: Cooperating With Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards With Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities (Natural Hazards and Disasters)