Tag Archives: economic crisis

Abundance in DuPage County: 45 mosquito abatement agencies

Posted on by

Illinois is well-known for having many government units. The Chicago Tribune makes this point by talking about fighting mosquitos in DuPage County:

DuPage has 45 separate entities — special districts, townships, municipalities — providing mosquito abatement services, Of those, 36 have signed separate contracts with the same vendor for the bug spray they use to keep the mosquito population down. If they pooled their buying power, no doubt they could get a better deal.

Here’s the worst part: Spraying for skeeters has little lasting impact. The anti-bug mission could be carried out much more cheaply and efficiently under the county Health Department. The citizens of DuPage don’t need any other mosquito abatement agencies, let alone 45.

So why do all these governments cling to this dubious mission? “They’re very protective of their turf,” DuPage County Board Chairman Dan Cronin tells us…

Unfortunately, it’s the same story across the state of Illinois — which has 7,000 school districts, townships, library boards, fire-protection districts and other government units, generally with separate oversight and taxing authority. The Census Bureau says that’s far more than the total in any other state.

This is not a new story in Illinois and across many places in the United States. Americans like having local control over all sorts of things and this can get in the way of regional cooperation. Intriguingly, the argument made in other parts of this editorial is that taxpayers could save money if communities would consolidate some of these separate bodies and have better purchasing power. Is this an argument more likely to be made in tougher economic times?

One thought came to me when reading this: is the presence of more taxing bodies tied to political conservatism? DuPage County is well-known for its political conservatism and presumably, local communities like having this many taxing bodies as it allows people to have more direct input rather than handing off tasks to larger, bureaucratic bodies. Perhaps the political leanings of a community have little impact on this and it is more about a historical legacy (could be something in Illinois that came out of a state/county/township/municipality system) or specific system of government.

Upcoming film about a unconstructed 90,000 square foot mansion

Posted on by

I’ve seen several references to the film The Queen of Versailles which comes out later this summer. Here is what the movie is about:

A Florida real-estate tycoon and his appealing, immensely flawed wife try to build the country’s biggest McMansion in photographer-turned-filmmaker Lauren Greenfield’s documentary, which is stranger than any work of fiction. Surrounded by controversy since well before its Sundance premiere (when subject David Siegel tried to sue the festival), “Queen of Versailles” veers from profound human compassion to domestic horror as Siegel’s wife Jackie wanders through her enormous but trashed home scraping dog crap off the carpets. It’s like a Theodore Dreiser novel for our time, infused with the vivid, vulgar spirit of reality TV. (Opens in theaters July 20; VOD release is likely but has not been announced.)

There is one problem with this: the home at the center of this film is not just a regular American McMansion.

At 90,000 square feet, it will be America’s largest single residence, boasting ten kitchens, a private ice-skating rink, and enough tacky antiques to make Michael Jackson blush. It’s telling that while the couple’s dream house was inspired by the famed palace, it was most directly modeled on a Las Vegas theme-park imitation of French grandeur.

A home that is 90,000 square feet is far beyond a McMansion. There are not many homes in the United States that are 90,000 square feet so it is difficult to argue that this home is mass produced. The home is named “Versailles,” referring not to some builder’s model but rather the well-known French palace. The home may be tacky and not have a lot of architectural merit but this is home is way beyond the size of anything that can be reasonably called a McMansion.

In reading several early reviews of this film, it seems like critics think this film is about more than just the vanity of a few wealthy people: the uncompleted mansion serves as a metaphor for the excesses of the early 2000s.

Chicago region home prices back to April 2000 levels

Posted on by

Data from the S&P/Case-Shiller suggest that Chicago area home prices have returned to levels from early 2000:

Home prices in the Chicago area hit a new post-housing crisis low in March, falling to levels not seen locally since April 2000, according to the widely watched S&P/Case-Shiller home price index, released Tuesday.

With the most recent decline, average  home prices in the Chicago area have fallen 39 percent since they peaked in September 2006, according to the index…

Much of the pricing pressure was on homes that sold for less than $139,182, as the average selling prices for those properties in March fell 3.4 percent from February and were down 9 percent from a year ago and reflects the impact of distressed homes on the market. That puts the pricing environment for lower-priced homes akin to where it was in April 1995…

“We’re beginning to see more stability in the overall numbers,” Blitzer said. “The housing situation in the United States, while certainly not booming, is seeing some stability and possibly some gains going forward. Prices will be the last thing to go up.”

As the article notes, economist Robert Shiller has expressed skepticism that housing prices will rise anytime soon.

While there may be a lot of worry about foreclosures (and Illinois ranks poorly here as well), the issue of depressed housing prices might linger even longer. The wealth that people expected to incur through their house has, on average, been reduced to 2000 levels. Another way to interpret the data above is that on average, people who have bought a home since April 2000 can’t expect to make any money on selling their home now. This could limit people’s abilities to move and purchase homes as well as change how they think about homebuying.

 Zillow just put together a new map of the United States based on what % of homeowners are underwater. The map has more people in the red than one might hope:

The real estate information website Zillow has compiled its data from the first quarter of 2012 to build this map, showing just how much negative equity there is among the homes in many counties. Deep red along the west coast, throughout Florida and in the Great Lakes region serve as a harsh reminder of the chronic troubles these areas are still struggling to control…

In the worst hit counties, more than half of the homes are underwater. Clark County, Nevada – home to Las Vegas – is among those in the unfortunate top 1 percent, with 71 percent of homes underwater. For the vast majority of homes here, the amount owed is more than 200 percent of the value. Clayton County, Georgia, part of metro Atlanta, has an astounding 85 percent of its homes underwater.

This article from 24/7 Wall St. breaks Zillow data down even further to name the ten cities with the highest rates of homes with negative equity. Las Vegas, Reno, and Bakersfield are the worst performing cities in the country, with rates above 60 percent.

While the situation is certainly bad in many, many parts of the country, four-fifths of all counties in America have fewer than 35 percent of their homes underwater, according to the map. But it’s still a widespread problem – and one that seems to be growing. More than 31 percent of all homes in the country are underwater, according to these first quarter 2012 numbers from Zillow, a jump from the 28 percent the company noted a year earlier and the 22 percent the year before that.

It could take a long time to reverse these trends.

Economy down, traffic congestion down

Posted on by

A company that tracks traffic congestion suggests that congestion was down in a number of metropolitan areas in 2011 because of the economy:

Of the 100 most populous metro areas, 70 saw declines in traffic congestion while just 30 had increases, says Jim Bak, co-author of the 2011 U.S. Traffic Scorecard for Kirkland, Wash.-based INRIX…

Bak says the data show that the reduction in gridlock on the nation’s roads stems from rising fuel prices, lackluster gains in employment and modest increases in highway capacity because of construction projects completed under the federal stimulus program.

In some cases, the connection between job growth and increased congestion was clear. Cities that outpaced the national average of 1.5% growth in employment experienced some of the biggest increases in traffic congestion: Miami, 2.3% employment growth; Tampa, up 3%; and Houston, up 3.2%.

Cities that had big drops in congestion often were those that saw road construction slow considerably from 2010 to 2011 and those where gasoline prices were well above the national average at the peak in April 2011.

Does this fall into the small category of benefits of the economic crisis of recent years?

I would guess many metropolitan residents would be happy with less congestion but I would also guess they wouldn’t like the tradeoff of fewer jobs and higher gas prices. Of course, there have been discussions for years about how higher gas prices would limit driving. But does higher gas prices necessarily have to align with less growth?

Social profiling of McMansion owners?

Posted on by

The mayor of an Australian town suggests that some residents are profiled because they live in McMansions:

HILLS Mayor Greg Burnett challenged Prime Minister Julia Gillard last week to meet struggling families and businesses from the Hills.

The mayor set the challenge on the Ben Fordham show on 2GB last Wednesday in response to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that Sydney’s north shore was out of touch.

“It’s social profiling and it’s similar to comments made regarding our area when they talk about McMansions and our levels of income,” he said.

“We have the highest proportion of families with mortgages than anywhere in the country and parents working 70 to 80 hours per week.

As I’ve suggested before, there isn’t really an acceptable quick comeback if someone accuses you of living in a McMansion. Such claims tend to put the owner in a defensive position. It is common to hear people make comments about McMansion owners, not only because of their perceived wealth but because of their bad architectural taste, their disinterest in community life (particularly in teardown situations), and how their purchases help feed into large social problems like sprawl and consuming too much.

The most support McMansion owners get tends to come in more wealthy communities with a critical mass of larger and more expensive houses. It is in these places where teardowns are not always seen negatively and property rights are more important in public discourse and regulations. These communities often have zoning that at least allows, if not encourages, the construction of McMansions. But from the outside, these communities can be viewed as exclusive as it requires a decent amount of money to live there and some communities actively work to keep certain housing and people (anything that might harm property values) out.

However, it might be going too far to suggest that McMansion owners are deserving of pity. After all, these tough economic times mean that there are plenty of people experiencing financial difficulties. These days, McMansions (and there owners) are a favorite whipping boy. See this example from a comment about a Atlanta Journal Constitution story about debt:

It’s because everyone wanted the McMansion ($300K). Then you had to have the Cadallic Escalade (40K)…to impress the neighbors.

And there were numerous housewifes who LOVE to shop and don’t work…

There is not much support for McMansion owners today…

Argument: the rise of the American rental economy

Posted on by

Even though ownership seems engrained in the American psyche, Daniel Gross argues that recent economic troubles are pushing the United States to a rental economy which may just thrive in the years to come:

In the American mind, renting has long symbolized striving—striving, that is, well short of achieving. But as we climb our way out of the Great Recession, it seems something has changed. Americans are getting over the idea of owning the American dream; increasingly, they’re OK with renting it. Homeownership is on the decline, and home rentership is on the rise. But the trend isn’t limited to the housing market. Across the board—for goods ranging from cars to books to clothes—Americans are increasingly acclimating to the idea of giving up the stability of being an owner for the flexibility of being a renter. This may sound like a decline in living standards. But the new realities of our increasingly mobile economy make it more likely that this transition from an Ownership Society to what might be called a Rentership Society, far from being a drag, will unleash a wave of economic efficiency that could fuel the next boom.

While downgrading the place of ownership in the American psyche may sound like a traumatic task, the cold, unsentimental fact about the American dream is that Americans never really owned it in the first place. For the past three decades, especially, consumers haven’t so much bought their quality of life as they’ve borrowed it from banks and credit card companies. And since the Great Recession, Americans have been busy rebuilding their balance sheets and avoiding new financial encumbrances. When American consumers can’t—or won’t—borrow to purchase the goods and services they’ve come to consider part of their standard of living, how does the economy get back on its feet?…

It’s tempting to view the rise of rentership as an economic step backward. Renters can’t build up equity, and they have less control over their living standards than owners. Renting is generally seen as something you do when you’ve failed as a homeowner or are not yet ready to be one. But I’d argue the rise of rentership is a sign of a system adapting—albeit too slowly—to new realities.

The U.S. economy needs the dynamism that renting enables as much as—if not more than—it needs the stability that ownership engenders. In the current economy, there are vast gulfs between the employment pictures in different regions and states, from 12% unemployment in Nevada to 3% unemployment in North Dakota. But a steelworker in Buffalo, or an underemployed construction worker in Las Vegas, can’t easily take his skills to where they are needed in North Dakota or Wyoming if he’s underwater on his mortgage. Economists, in fact, have found that there is frequently a correlation between persistently high local unemployment rates and high levels of homeownership.

An interesting argument.

I wish Gross would explore the implications of this further. Perhaps for the “average” American, renting will make sense  in the future. It has several clear advantages: it doesn’t require one to take on a lot of upfront debt. This is most clear with mortgages: how many people will want to take on that amount of money when conditions can change quickly? (Does this idea about renting have any application for the other popular debt topic these days: college loans?) Second, it allows consumers to pick and choose more. If you are renting with a yearly lease, you have some freedom to adapt to changing circumstances. (There also could be some negative pressures due to rising rents, actions of landlords, etc.) If there is something that Americans like even more than ownership, it is choices. You can also see this trend in media options: we are moving away from a system of ownership to buffet or a la carte models where you can access thousands upon thousands of songs and movies on demand. Third, this seems like a classic American argument: the times are changing and there is money to be made by more quickly seizing on the new realities!

But there could also be some downsides to this. First, someone must still own things like housing units and rights to digital media. Will ownership be consolidated in the hands of a few? What happens if the few want to restrict access to their products? Does a society based more on the renting of housing units inevitably require things like rent control? Second, there is a long cultural history in the United States that ties renting to transience and lack of concern for the local community. For example, many suburban communities have resisted the construction of apartments because the perception is that people who live in apartments don’t contribute long-term to a community in the same way that homeowners do. (Of course, there are other reasons suburbanites resist apartments, including issues of race, class, and property values.) At its most blatant, homeownership was seen as a bulwark against Communism. These cultural biases can be overturned but it won’t necessarily come quickly or easily. Third, are there other aspects of life that would have to change to accommodate a shift to renting? Can widespread renting of homes work in suburbia? Can Zipcar exist in less dense areas? In other words, is this just about renting or about large-scale adjustments to American society based on new realities?

This bears watching. Is this the end of the dream of some of an ownership society?

Shiller makes more dire prediction: “we might not see a really major [housing] turnaround in our lifetimes”

Posted on by

I highlighted about a month ago a prediction from economist Robert Shiller that suburban housing values may not recover anytime soon. Shiller made another prediction this past week that is even more dire:

The housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

Shiller, the co-creator of the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller home price index, said a weak labor market, high gas prices and a general sense of unease among consumers was outweighing low mortgage rates and would likely keep a lid on prices for the foreseeable future.

“I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes,” Shiller said.

Shiller is the most pessimistic prognosticator about the housing market I’ve seen. Is this earning him credibility or scorn?

By the way, is there any academic or impartial observer who keeps track of such predictions? I thought about this during the NFL draft: think how many hours and days were wasted coming up with mock drafts that are based on one-seventh of the draft and often have mistakes. What is the same number of hours and days was devoted to trying to predict the outcome of the US housing market in the coming months and years – would the predictions get any better?

Americans optimistic that their home’s value will increase in the next year?

Posted on by

Gallup recently released results of a new poll regarding homeownership and housing values. Here is some of the interesting data:

Americans are much more positive about the direction of housing prices this year than they were last year. They are significantly more likely to expect the average price of houses in their area to increase over the next 12 months than to decrease, 33% vs. 23%. Last year, Americans were about evenly split, 28% to 30%…

Today’s housing price expectations differ sharply from those during the housing price boom. In 2005, 70% of Americans expected house prices in their area to increase, while 5% expected them to decrease. Expectations moderated as prices hit record levels in 2006-2007. Expectations became more negative during the recession and financial crisis. In 2010, price expectations were similar to those anticipated today…

Fifty-three percent of Americans believe their house is worth more today than when they bought it, down significantly from 80% in 2008 and 92% in 2006. It confirms that many Americans are underwater in terms of the value of the home they currently own.

These lowered expectations about their housing values seems to go along with lower homeownership rates, reported at 60% by this Gallup data but the Census said the homeownership rate was 66% in the fourth quarter of 2012. I would guess that the Census has a bigger and better sample than Gallup to assess this.

I wish they had gone on to ask whether homeowners believe their houses should make money in the long run. These lowered expectations come after a period from roughly the early 1990s to middle 2000s where more people viewed their homes as good investments. Even after the economic crisis, I would guess a majority still believe their homes should earn them some money in the long run even if it takes a little longer to get that value.

Argument: “Peak Housing, Peak Fraud, Peak Suburbia, and Peak Property Taxes”

Posted on by

Charles Smith suggests the housing issues in the United States are related to several other concerns and all of this isn’t likely to improve soon.

I don’t know if Smith is correct but why aren’t more people talking about the possible long-term consequences of a depressed housing market? Is this unlikely to happen or are people afraid that this actually might happen?

“More U.S. cities set to enter default danger zone”

Posted on by

A Reuters story suggests more municipalities are having trouble keeping up with their debt:

Bond defaults were $25.355 billion in 2011, or nearly five times the value of defaults in 2010, according to Lehmann. In 2012’s first quarter, defaults totaled $1.245 billion, or more than double the $522 million of last year’s first quarter.

Municipal bankruptcies, such as last November’s landmark, $4.23 billion Chapter 9 filing by Alabama’s Jefferson County mainly because of its excessively expensive sewer system mocked as a Taj Mahal project, have picked up, too.

Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy filings doubled to 13 in 2011 from six in 2010, but still remain rare among the more than 60,000 issuers, with only 49 of the 264 cases since 1980 being towns, cities, villages or counties, according to James Spiotto of Chapman and Cutler LLP. States are ineligible for Chapter 9.

Outsized pension-deficit payments and other liabilities, as well as depressed local economies or failing government projects such as Harrisburg’s trash incinerator, often herald crises, according to Ciccarone.

While much of the focus has been on the national debt and national figures (such as unemployment, jobs created, where to set the tax brackets, etc.), all of this is trickling down to the local level. Since many municipalities and local taxing bodies are heavily dependent on property taxes, a decrease in housing values and a continued sluggish housing market suggests many communities will struggle to find revenue. In other circumstances, local bodies might be able to look to states and the federal government for monetary help but they have their own issues during this economic crisis.

I would love to see experts speculate on where this all will end up in five or ten years. Are we legitimately in danger of a lot of municipal governments defaulting? If so, how will this affect local services? How will residents respond to what will be more fees and taxes even as their services might decrease? Could the wealthier people respond with their feet and move to more financially solvent communities?