Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (62760)	4/25/2005 3:51:22 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Densities have to be balanced. If you are going to allow the building of high density employment centers, you also have to allow the building of high density residential. Compared with Los Angeles, Munich has lower density employment centers yet similar or slightly higher density residential use. So it should be little surprise that housing is more affordable in Munich. The fact that one half of the city of Munich is used as parks is not relevant to the equation. People whine about "Development Fees" but a major part of the problem are "externalities" which are not included in the Development Fees. This is to say that the "profitability" of the new housing subdivision or office tower development doesn't include the full cost of the additional transportation, and other services which will be needed because those are paid for by someone else. Development fees need to be increased to reflect this. And no, that does not increase the price of the housing or office building. It shifts the cost from the taxpayer to the land owner who wants to develop a more intensive use. The developer pays the land owner less for his land. That's well proven. .