offsetting costs

A government budgets' numbers may say a lot but they certainly don't say everything. It would be disingenuous to flout a lower budget number when the costs were simply offset onto other parties.

For example, there is a guy in my nabe who was in the process of developing a six-story condo building as of right, in an area thats a mix of homes and apartment buildings. Some of the neighbors complained loudly to the local council member and had the area downzoned within a matter of months. In the interim the developer of course tried as best as he could to get his project vested to protect his interests, and so he engaged in illegal construction practices by racing the clock (working over hours) to beat the new zoning changes. In the end he was able to pour his foundation before the zoning change was made, but at the cost of quality and having to pay through the nose for the labor.

During those frantic months, the neighbors were constantly complaining to the DOB, having inspectors constantly visit and hassle the construction teams all in an effort to stop the project from getting vested. At the end when the developer thought he was vested, the neighborhood alliance complained to the DOB and he ended up having to go before the BSA which is the last authority on zoning and variance grants, and they ruled against the developer saying that his foundation wasn't to the original approved architectural/engineering specifications it was thus incomplete and any project would be subject to the new downzoning, basically making his project financially impossible to complete.

Now get this; he presumingly paid for the land based upon the allowable development rights, the city changes that while he is already underway with approved plans (which can take months to get from the city!), and he went through the trouble of obtaining financing, paying labor, architects, inspectors, permits, etc.

Now here is the best part-- it's been almost two years since the city stalled him by making it impossible for him to develop his project-- now the neighbors are bitching about the vacant construction site! So the city is now ordering this victimized developer to clean up his site, repair the construction fence that vandals have been breaking, and who do you think is being coerced to pick up the tag? The victim of course.

Government budgets never tell you the whole story. It's the same with recycling; make your victims pick up the cost of sorting trash so your budget can be that much lower.

zoning for death

A NY Times editorial published today insinuates that the heady sin of avarice is alive and thriving in the real estate industry, to the detriment of public safety. The article speaks of various regulations that Department of Buildings has tried to implement in the wake of the tragedy at ground zero, among them the widening of and the increase of required staircases.

The main force against such safety precautions is said to be the real estate industry, who are stalwart against the maximization of 'dead weight', space which is neither rentable nor salable, and hence unable to be capitalized.

As usual, what we have here is a few bureaucrats attempting to supplant the will of the people, to try to overrule their desired level of safety, to force them to pay for more safety then what they are willing to voluntarily part for by themselves.

[Monetary] greed, the most maligned, misunderstood characteristic is bandied here as though it simply were a destructive life force of its own. Say what you will of morality in general, but scratch an avowed amoralist, and you should find his instinctual hatred for avarice right there for all to see. I certainly can recognize the presence of greed, but I try to avoid ascribing to it the power of causal explanation.

In this case, it would be far more fruitful to state that the prior intervention of zoning regulation has come at the expense of public safety. Zoning, by arbitrarily and artificially constraining the natural growth of the human habitat has upset the delicate balance of market preferences into favoring space-maximizing strategies at the cost of public safety. It is a safe bet to say that in the absence of such well-intentioned intervention, society will have a better chance at working to obtain an optimal admixture of safety, and pleasant cages than it would otherwise.

Instead of pettily focusing on the motive of greed, it would be more mature (and productive!) to recognize it as an immutable nature of what it means to be human, and to let institutions and relations develop anarchically around that natural formation how they will.

monolithesia

Not too long ago, the NY Daily News ran an article titled 'City neighborhoods losing character to condos, chain stores' bemoaning the fate of losing indigenous mom & pop stores to the faceless, sterile corporate chain stores which often replace them. To it's credit, the article is pretty neutral in that the author simply attributes the wide sweeping change to real estate pressures, and doesn't use the opportunity to clamor for violent resistance (to impose regulations, etc.)

While I can agree with that sentiment on an emotional level, I realize and accept the fact that my preferences are just that, and that it would be immoral to escalate any resistance above a completely bilateral voluntary nature.

It also helps me to understand that the monolithization of our neighborhoods is a direct result of codified violence (zoning laws, licensing, permits) which disrupts the realization of consumers' preferences into a bizarre spectacle of what seemingly is perceived as the 'free market'.

Radley Balko does a wonderful job explaining the process and the unintended consequences that follow.

"...zoning officials and regulators tend to overdo the regulating, then lapse into bureaucratic coma when local businesses try to navigate their way through City Hall. For example, if you want to do something as simple as change the lettering on or repaint the sign outside your business in Old Town, you both have to apply for and pay $50 to obtain a "ladder permit," and apply for and pay $55 for a "building permit." It can take more than two weeks to get the proper permits, even if all you want to do is replace the "e" on your "Ye Olde Sandwich Shoppe" sign.

While all of this is intended to promote architectural continuity and preserve Old Town's historical charm, like most regulations it tends to promote the opposite of what city planners intended...

I guess the question is, whether one ought to need to have a lawyer on retainer in order to open a business in Old Town. And if Old Town is going to make that a requirement--intentionally or not--what effect is that going to have on the boutiques, art galleries, and antique stores that make up the very atmosphere the regulations are trying to promote?

My hunch is that Old Town's expensive, meticulous zoning laws have made it too difficult for the mom-and-pop places to do business. ...Franchise operators can often tap the resources of the parent company, particularly when it comes to accessing on-staff lawyers with experience navigating through and working with local zoning laws and business regulations.

The same people who gripe about how Wal-Mart is pushing smaller, independent places out of business tend to be the people who support onerous regulatory structures. What they tend not to understand is that regulatory burdens hit the smaller, independent places hardest, because they're the places that have the smallest amount of discretionary cash to hire lawyers or a tighter budget and, therefore, a smaller margin of error when it comes to hassles like delaying an opening because some bureaucrat determined their signage is a couple of inches out of compliance."

extortion license

But master plumber Robert Mengler mentioned another disturbing wrinkle.

"Master plumbers are also allowed to self-certify their work," he wrote. "There are certain licensed plumbers that have made lots of money by renting out their licenses. . . . The chances of this work being inspected is very, very, very low." -Article Link

Obviously the solution to this problem is to remove the need for licensing altogether, that system which erects trade barriers for the sake of protecting the profits of plumbers, electricians and other contractors from excessive competition in a medieval guild-like fashion.

Unfortunately, the NY Daily News takes the irrational populist view that developers are out to destroy neighborhoods, kill little old ladies, and ruin our lives. How pathetic.

we-know-whats-good-for-you

In an affront to individual sensibilities, NYC has now decided to usurp your right to live in an "unlivable" city just as I have thought would eventually happen.

(Heh, that's almost as funny as asking for animals to be treated "humanely".)

"Mr. Washburn, 44, is charged with making sure the parks get the right amount of sun, buildings aren't too bulky, and the skyline stays coherent. He will act as Ms. Burden's eyes for the incredible number of projects now under way in the city"...

"Senator Moynihan believed that good design is not just about aesthetics, but that the look of a city expresses the values of the people who live in it," he said.

Now where exactly do these folks get off dictating the "values" that the city-people want? And in any case, to what relevancy does it matter what some third-party pretends to want for everyone's values?

"It's really the citizen that will be the measure of our success," Mr. Washburn said. "How do you make sure New York doesn't become dull, but has the greatest streetscape with the greatest variety and the greatest texture? To keep everything vibrant and authentic with new projects is really tough. You have to calibrate everything very finely. Every time you change something in the city, you affect another constituency."

Which is exactly why central planners should be kept as far as possible from urban development. I mean just look at Brasilia, or ask yourself why Robert Moses is one of the most despised man in NYC urban development history.

But the sheer amount of haughtiness and conceit is astounding considering all the misplaced faith put into the past anointed guardian saints for urban aesthetics. This should be a fine example to those planners of how aesthetic expectations are valued both ex ante and ex post, thus making the goal of aesthetic perfection for posterity at best a Sisyphean task.

On a positive note, most people who are concerned with urban aesthetics usually prostrate to the altar of the Jane Jacobs goddess and her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Since Jacobs ideas were inspired in part by F.A. Hayek and his aversion to central planned economies, one has hope that they can transcend from the position of merely recognizing the beauty of unplanned, and 'chaotic' order, and to come to the realization that utilizing the violence of the state is the furthest thing from affecting the spontaneous communal life that they so very much desire.

petty potty patrol psychotics

What happens when busybody lawmakers prohibit food establishments from having their sole restroom located behind the counter?

According to The Brooklyn Paper's Gersh Kuntzman [is that even a real name??]:

...But not any more, because Roma ripped out half of its seats rather than fight a law that requires restaurants with more than 19 seats to “provide toilet facilities for the public.”

And “public” means that the crapper can’t be in the food-preparation area because the dirty, filthy public (again, I’m not talking about myself here) is not legally allowed to be in the food-preparation area — except in restaurants with fewer than 20 seats, apparently.

So Roma now has only 16 seats — and the bathroom remains behind the counter. The result? I still have to ask the counterman to let me go into the kitchen to use the can — and now I can never find a seat at my neighborhood pizzeria!

Don't you love the unintended consequences of road paving to hell (i.e., all lawmaking)- it also manages to create hell on the way there too.