tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post9071683998018839296..comments2024-03-11T00:31:41.186-07:00Comments on The Oregon Economics Blog: Confusing Supply with DemandPatrick Emersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242234148546323374noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3471471289744825428.post-58622840624762797262008-03-04T16:53:00.000-08:002008-03-04T16:53:00.000-08:00I wonder why the environmental group bothered with...I wonder why the environmental group bothered with a handful of $2,000,000 houses in the country. It seems like only a tiny fraction of the population can purchase a $2,000,000 house and pay the exorbitant taxes and utilities that go along with such a property.<BR/><BR/>I wonder how the carbon emissions of such a property compare to a cross-country flight on a jet airplane. Could the latter be even worse than heating a 4000 sq ft for 5 months of the year?<BR/><BR/>You're right about the Pigouvian taxes. Clearly, taxes on natural gas and electricity usage could reduce the size of houses. Higher gas taxes could reduce sprawl.<BR/><BR/>As for other ideas, a local government has some direct control over the size and placement of new housing. <BR/><BR/>The most direct control is the System Development Charge (SDC). For example, in Corvallis a new home builder may have to pay a $25,000 SDC to account for the expenses associated with extensions to the water and sewage systems. They tailor the SDC to the house - including the number of faucets, and how far uphill you live from the water source. Bend, OR has had extremely low SDCs, which goes a long way in explaining its overdevelopment. I've heard that Wilsonville has SDCs ranging up to $75,000, however, which has restricted development and raised the prices of homes.<BR/><BR/>Property taxes are another direct means of control. Of course, these are usually subject to voter approval, so maybe there isn't much control there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com