You’d think our local developers and real estate investors would have learned a thing or two from our ongoing real estate market correction, in which the public en masse has decided not to pay $300,000 for $150,000 houses or to cough up $150,000 for repainted $75,000 houses in marginal neighborhoods. But it seems that some of them are still determined to live in a world of unreality and to keep building houses so far away from jobs and shopping that commuting to and from them will be insanely expensive for anyone silly enough to buy a place that requires a two-car lifestyle. And if that’s not bad enough, the rest of us are expected to pay ever-increasing fuel bills to haul the children of sprawl-area residents to and from school by bus. It’s time to say “no” to more suburban sprawl — or at least to make sure far-out developments pay their own way and that the investors who hope to profit from them post bonds large enough to clean up their mess if and when they go broke and leave empty lots and half-built, decaying houses behind them.

Gas is going to hit $4 per gallon and even $5 per gallon, and may go even higher. The question is no longer whether this will happen, but when. In a world where driving is expensive and likely to get even more costly, houses on spread-out lots, far from the rest of the world, are going to be practical only for telecommuters, retirees, and a few people wealthy enough not to worry about how much it costs them to drive to the airports where they keep their private jets.

We already have plenty of houses on the market that are attractive only to these (scarce) niche buyers, and they aren’t selling. Still, we constantly see plans for more of them, because builders see these houses as the most profitable things they can produce.

As a writer, I’d love to sell all my work to magazines that pay $2 per word and book publishers that pay $250,000 (or more) per book, but these are very limited markets. I’m better off doing lower-profit work (or, as I mostly do these days, working for a decent salary as an editor) than shooting for the moon — which I can and still do, a little, on the side. I have done well as a “bread and butter” writer. I am not complaining. I am just saying that sometimes reality and dreams don’t match — and when they don’t, it’s better to err on the side of reality no matter what business you’re in.

Locally, we’re seeing a lot of builders in North Port and other areas walk away from projects, leaving behind piles of debris and open-to-the-weather uncompleted structures that taxpayers will have to clean up. We’re also seeing big bucks going into schools and roads and other infrastructure for developments that may never be completed, not to mention plenty of other capital improvement projects (like new, larger courthouses and jails) that are only needed because of constant development — and that can’t easily be undone or sold off if the developments that cause their need don’t get built or end up full of uninhabited houses.

It might be practical to build exurban developments as clustered housing, with shopping, schools, religious centers, and transit hubs within walking, biking or golf cart distance of each group of 500+ homes. Use modern factory construction methods to build those homes, and it might be possible to sell them profitably in the $100,000 to $150,000 range that’s all most local working people can afford.

That would be sustainable, “bread and butter” building.

Most of our current semi-clustered “mixed use” exurban developments are a joke because — let’s use Lakewood Ranch as an example — no person working for wages in any of the businesses located on Lakewood Ranch’s Main Street or in any of the Lakewood Ranch business parks can possibly afford to live in Lakewood Ranch.

This means that, instead of cutting commuting times and costs by having a clustered community, Lakewood Ranch creates more car-based commuting for most of the people who work there.

Note that I say “most,” not all. Lakewood Ranch is — no doubt — a marvelously convenient, gas-saving place to live for the doctors, lawyers, and executives who decide to locate businesses there. Whether they should consider the effect their business-location decisions have on their lower-paid employees is a separate discussion, one they will probably have amongst themselves as higher gas prices and a lack of public transportation make exurban business locations less desirable than downtown office space that’s near bus lines and reasonably-priced housing.

Supporting “Infill” Development

This morning I drove by a nice-sized lot (4 acres) the City of Bradenton owns on 14th St. West, about a mile south of downtown. This would be a great place for a midscale mixed-use or residential development. It’s close to a lot of jobs, and there’s all the shopping anyone could need within a few miles, with several convenience stores, cafes, and bars within easy walking distance.

This is the kind of place forward-looking developers should be working on instead of building more homes out in the boonies that are dependent on heavy-duty daily automobile use. Our local governments should give heavy tax and impact fee breaks to developers who build in locations that don’t require new roads or long school bus routes.

Another way our government bodies could encourage sustainable development is to require completion bonds for all new construction to cover the messes left behind by developers who go broke or abandon projects, but to waive all or part of those bond for developments that make use of existing infrastructure and improve existing neighborhoods, with additional waivers for developers who are building homes or business locations in line with current local economic realities, not based on dreams of wealthy out-of-town “pigeons” willing to pay more than any sane local would for their properties.

Even without new tax incentives and penalties, smart developers should be looking more closely at convenient locations than at sprawling developments way out in the boonies simply because, as gas prices keep climbing, future home buyers are likely to prefer living in places where they can get by with little or no daily driving.

Whether our local builders will align their dreams closer to reality is another matter. I suppose at least a few of them will, especially after few more of the less-grounded ones go broke or leave the business.

After all, despite the rapacity of many local real estate investors and the inability of local governments to deal with likely growth in a sane manner, Manatee County is pretty nice place to live, and if we can create more reasonably-priced housing and business units, I think we can still handle a fair amount of smartly-targeted new development without ruining the characteristics that make this a good place to live.

This entry was posted on Friday, November 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm and is filed under Bradenton/local, Business, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.