Why the Exurbs Are Poised to Take Off

Interesting read. And particularly interesting in light of the many articles in recent years predicting exactly the opposite, that there would be a migration toward city centers in America and away from this style of living.

"Some cities will continue to grow, but migration out of cities will surge, particularly to exurbs 50 miles or more from a city centers—giving rise to new micro economies where people live, work and play. By 2025, the U.S. exurban population could outstrip the urban center population. This migration already has begun: Six million Americans moved out of city centers in the past decade, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Although some center-city population levels have held steady or even risen, their share of the population has been dropping since 1990, while the exurbs' share has been rising. ...

Bain analysis shows movement to the U.S. exurbs in the next 10 years could match Americans exodus to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s, which reached an annual peak of 8% of the population."

https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/04/19/why-the-exurbs-are-poised-to-take-off-in-the-coming-years/

My wife's family is from the Howell area. Over the past decade many of them have slowly been migrating closer and closer to Detroit or Grand Rapids. The need for [[well paying) jobs is the influence.

It seems the bad news is for the old inner and middle ring burbs. City centers are reviving and sprawl rolls on. Hopefully that will build suburban support for ending sprawl. Build the sprawl wall now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Build the sprawl wall now.

---

And make them pay for it!

Herein lies one major problem with capitalism. It fails to recognize costs and trends that can't be calculated by the market alone. For if we continue to build and occupy such sprawling cities, or 'exurbs', there will be massive ecological costs. Call me a socialist, but the answer to global population expansion and its damage to the environment is to live in high-density and compact cities, while simultaneously reducing the amount of land used for agriculture through advancements in technology [[such as greenhouses, genetic engineering, etc). Other land should be returned back to nature, uninhibited by human activity. This is the only way to continue population growth for the coming centuries, as we simply do not have enough land for everyone in the world to live in low density suburbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

It seems the bad news is for the old inner and middle ring burbs. City centers are reviving and sprawl rolls on. Hopefully that will build suburban support for ending sprawl. Build the sprawl wall now.

---

I very much agree. We need to contain the sprawl. Let the places beyond the sprawl be our preserved forests or wind and solar farms. Land within the sprawl wall will become more valuable. Regional transit will become more feasible.

Next step would be to implement regional services that will save communities lots of money.

How in the world would there be any chance of slowing sprawl when the outer rings continuously have a property tax rate that is 50% to 70% lower than the core and the inner rings?

You can't stop people from voting with their wallet. It's impossible. If they can get more house out of the monthly payment by paying a lower tax rate further out, it will never stop. The wrong tax is flat in Michigan and it has costed us many Billions in failing communities with only more to come until something changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

How in the world would there be any chance of slowing sprawl when the outer rings continuously have a property tax rate that is 50% to 70% lower than the core and the inner rings?

---

I moved from Warren to Rochester Hills. My Warren tax rates were higher, but I paid less in taxes due to the house being worth 1/3 of my house in Rochester Hills.

A few key points... and they all center around the central idea of the new technology allows people to live where they want to.

1) A certain portion of the population is going to be drawn to the density, character, walkability, etc. of the inner city. There is a portion of the population that would prefer to live in that environment above all others, and they are not going to move to some far away exurb because they are able to now.
As for the "data" in the article, take Detroit for example. People are moving into downtown, midtown, etc. and populations are increasing in those areas. However, more people are moving out of the neighborhoods outside that central core. And thus, the central city in sum is losing population, even though the core of Detroit [[like the core of most large cities) is increasing in population.

2) Adding on to point one, the use of "Central City" creates misleading data. The city limits of Detroit [[like any city limit) do not effectively delineate where the core urban area is and is not. As a result, the central city is comprised of both areas that are dense [[or semi-dense) urban neighborhoods, and neighborhoods that are more suburb like [[say outside Grand Blvd). If the article used urban core population figures, the data would have more standing. However what constitutes the urban core is subjective, and probably very difficult if not impossible to get widespread accurate data on.

3) Outside the core urban area, save for a few "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods", the rest of the City of Detroit [[and other large cities as well) function as suburban neighborhoods. The problem is, they are non-desirable suburban neighborhoods.
The home in the suburban portion of the City of Detroit, and other inner ring suburbs, were [[mostly) built cheaply and close together. That combination means the homes don't age well, which means they become less desirable, which means bad schools follow, which means lower income residents move in, which means other problems follow [[mean as it is to say).

This brings me to the overall point, which is people are going to be able to choose where they live. Some are going to chose an urban lifestyle, which means the greater downtown will continue to grow. Others are going to want a suburban lifestyle, and by just about any measure, they are going to choose the "better suburbs" of Novi, Brighton, and Canton over outer-city-Detroit, Dearborn Heights, Melvindale, etc.

I think there has been a great awakening the last 15 years or so on urban design, and what makes for a great urban community. But I think the insight on what makes a great suburban community is not well understood, because most urbanists scoff at the idea of a suburban lifestyle in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paris_of_the_Midwest

analysis shows movement to the U.S. exurbs in the next 10 years could match Americans exodus to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s

---

"Analysis" which purports to predict the future in this way is guesswork and nothing but. There is a certain kind of educated guess possible when you have voluminous data and the trends don't rely on changing demographics; think of weather forecasting - but even that is more guesswork than you might imagine; the "8 day forecast" that the TV stations love to give you is almost nothing beyond a blind guess.

Like the blind men and the elephant, a dozen "analysts" can look at the same data, plug them into computer programs [[because people tend to believe guesses more when computers do them) and come up with a dozen completely different results.

Allow your kindly old Professor an indulgence; I'd like to make a prediction. In the future, the predictions people make today will prove to be entirely garbage, including this one :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atticus

A few key points... and they all center around the central idea of the new technology allows people to live where they want to.

...
3) Outside the core urban area, save for a few "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods", the rest of the City of Detroit [[and other large cities as well) function as suburban neighborhoods. The problem is, they are non-desirable suburban neighborhoods.
The home in the suburban portion of the City of Detroit, and other inner ring suburbs, were [[mostly) built cheaply and close together. That combination means the homes don't age well, which means they become less desirable, which means bad schools follow, which means lower income residents move in, which means other problems follow [[mean as it is to say).

---

That's an interesting point: the outer portions of the Detroit are really more like the first inner ring of the suburbs. Warrendale and East English Village have a lot more in common with Redford and Harper Woods than they do with downtown. That thinking may shift how we approach revitalizing all of those areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

How in the world would there be any chance of slowing sprawl when the outer rings continuously have a property tax rate that is 50% to 70% lower than the core and the inner rings?

You can't stop people from voting with their wallet. It's impossible. If they can get more house out of the monthly payment by paying a lower tax rate further out, it will never stop. The wrong tax is flat in Michigan and it has costed us many Billions in failing communities with only more to come until something changes.

---

Somebody help me out here. Don't those in the exburbs have to pay property taxes for the same services that the city and inner-ring suburbs pay? Don't their property taxes pay for police and fire protection; schools, parks, roads, and garbage pickup? So how is it that the tax rate in exburbs is 50% to 70% lower than the city and inner-ring suburbs?

Interesting article, although a 'conservative' reading of the data [[not including the 2025 projection or forecast) is that the central city / suburban [[and its subset, exurban) divide is stabilizing.

In order to believe ex-urbanization is going to 'take off' one has to agree with that 2025 projection. I'm not sure demographers are there yet.

there is no doubt about the strength of sub-urbanization and with it ex-urbanization.

If I was going to take a 'wild guess' as to what will drive the next big demographic shift it would be the residential choices of retiring baby boomers.

Do retired baby boomers want big, big houses to keep up? Do they want to be say 25 miles from their children?

As far as those in the labor force, I'm not convinced that we are at the point where someone lives 35 miles from the office and works from home remotely in their pajamas.

As far as central cities [[as census bureau calls them), last I looked at data for major cities e.g., NYC, L.A. S.F. Seattle, Denver, etc. almost all have had linear growth patterns. Sun belt cities even more so, e.g., Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, etc. Cities in the Midwest and mid-Atlantic and northeast are a mixed bag. Some doing well [[e.g., D.C., Boston, etc.) ; others not to much e.g., Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by royce

Somebody help me out here. Don't those in the exburbs have to pay property taxes for the same services that the city and inner-ring suburbs pay? Don't their property taxes pay for police and fire protection; schools, parks, roads, and garbage pickup? So how is it that the tax rate in exburbs is 50% to 70% lower than the city and inner-ring suburbs?

---

1. They have very low legacy costs for employee retirement [[which will change as they age).

2. The requirement for policemen per capita will be quite a bit lower because of a lower crime rate.

3. Low density means fewer firemen and less fire equipment.

4. Tax collection costs and delinquency rates will be much lower.

5. Parkinson's Law hasn't had enough time to affect the size and complexity of their bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atticus

2) Adding on to point one, the use of "Central City" creates misleading data. The city limits of Detroit [[like any city limit) do not effectively delineate where the core urban area is and is not. As a result, the central city is comprised of both areas that are dense [[or semi-dense) urban neighborhoods, and neighborhoods that are more suburb like [[say outside Grand Blvd). If the article used urban core population figures, the data would have more standing. However what constitutes the urban core is subjective, and probably very difficult if not impossible to get widespread accurate data on.

3) Outside the core urban area, save for a few "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods", the rest of the City of Detroit [[and other large cities as well) function as suburban neighborhoods. The problem is, they are non-desirable suburban neighborhoods.
The home in the suburban portion of the City of Detroit, and other inner ring suburbs, were [[mostly) built cheaply and close together. That combination means the homes don't age well, which means they become less desirable, which means bad schools follow, which means lower income residents move in, which means other problems follow [[mean as it is to say).

This brings me to the overall point, which is people are going to be able to choose where they live. Some are going to chose an urban lifestyle, which means the greater downtown will continue to grow. Others are going to want a suburban lifestyle, and by just about any measure, they are going to choose the "better suburbs" of Novi, Brighton, and Canton over outer-city-Detroit, Dearborn Heights, Melvindale, etc.

---

There are/were at least 15 or so of those "mini-downtownesque neighborhoods" [[Think downtown Berkley or downtown Ferndale) in Detroit, not just a few. Most of them are in great disrepair, or half demolished, and two of them, Harper & Van Dyke and Seven Mile & Gratiot, are completely obliterated.

The difference between Canton and Novi, is that even though the neighborhoods of Detroit are semi-suburban, they are still walkable. Where ever you live in the city, you are still less than a 1/2 mile from a commercial street that is lined with [[mostly vacant) storefronts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archfan

That's an interesting point: the outer portions of the Detroit are really more like the first inner ring of the suburbs. Warrendale and East English Village have a lot more in common with Redford and Harper Woods than they do with downtown. That thinking may shift how we approach revitalizing all of those areas.

---

But at the southern edge of East English Village is a strip of East Warren that is an intact stretch of storefronts that go several blocks. It looks very similar to "downtown" Berkley.

Google Maps Streetview of East Warren
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4032...8i6656!6m1!1e1

So the housing has a suburban feel, however if suburbs built in the same way such as Berkley and Ferndale can be very desirable, vibrant walkable communities, then so can neighborhoods like Old Redford, East English Village, Jefferson-Chalmers, Greenfield-Grand River, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterblaster

So the housing has a suburban feel, however if suburbs built in the same way such as Berkley and Ferndale can be very desirable, vibrant walkable communities, then so can neighborhoods like Old Redford, East English Village, Jefferson-Chalmers, Greenfield-Grand River, etc.

---

"Walkability" has several components. You are looking at only the "short distances" component. There is also the "sidewalks in good repair" component and the "personal safety" component.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

1. They have very low legacy costs for employee retirement [[which will change as they age).
...snip...

---

Given the major portion of budgets that are going to pay for your parents employee costs, this may be the single biggest issue to be addressed for the health of our cities.

Collective bargaining between unions and government management doesn't seem to be the right way to ensure good employees nor fair benefits. Some benefit disproportionately to their contributions. And of course we could also fix this by 'accounting' for the future cost today -- but that's politically toxic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Given the major portion of budgets that are going to pay for your parents employee costs, this may be the single biggest issue to be addressed for the health of our cities.

Collective bargaining between unions and government management doesn't seem to be the right way to ensure good employees nor fair benefits. Some benefit disproportionately to their contributions. And of course we could also fix this by 'accounting' for the future cost today -- but that's politically toxic.

---

Bingo: The politicians incurring huge legacy costs expect to be long gone when the ordure contacts the rotating blades and taxes have to be raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by royce

Somebody help me out here. Don't those in the exburbs have to pay property taxes for the same services that the city and inner-ring suburbs pay? Don't their property taxes pay for police and fire protection; schools, parks, roads, and garbage pickup? So how is it that the tax rate in exburbs is 50% to 70% lower than the city and inner-ring suburbs?

---

I don't know where people get the idea that newer suburbs have low property taxes. Places like Northville, Novi, Rochester, West Bloomfield, Bloomfield, etc. aren't particularly low tax. Birmingham is fairly high tax. They have high property values and generally high-ish tax rates. In Birmingham there are people living in modest bungalows paying 10k in annual taxes.

They aren't as high as places like Detroit, but cities with ridiculously low valuations will always have high rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I don't know where people get the idea that newer suburbs have low property taxes. Places like Northville, Novi, Rochester, West Bloomfield, Bloomfield, etc. aren't particularly low tax. Birmingham is fairly high tax. They have high property values and generally high-ish tax rates. In Birmingham there are people living in modest bungalows paying 10k in annual taxes.

They aren't as high as places like Detroit, but cities with ridiculously low valuations will always have high rates.

---

I have to agreed with this. Southfield and Lathrup Villiage. also has high property taxes.

I realize this is an urban forum.... but since this is relevant to the topic, let's talk about what suburbanites want... and in some cases it is obviously much different than what some in an urban lifestyle value.

In regards to the population who prefers the suburban lifestyle:
#1 Many simply just want a brand new [[freshly built) home. They like this because either 1) they can control exactly how the home is laid out, thus getting their preferred home layout designed specifically for them.. and/or 2) they like the freshness of the new home, and not having to [[likely) worry about replacing the roof, furnace, or other maintenance projects because everything is new.

#2 There are some who prefer the denser "walkable" neighborhoods, but truth be told, most suburbanites want as much land and separation as they can get between their neighbors. They don't want to interact with their neighbors, and they don't want to see, hear, or smell the neighbors either..., so they need as much space between homes to help accomplish this. Yes, I know this goes against so many positives of urban design, but this is what the people want.

You can get #1 and 2 in a Novi, Canton, etc.., but those things are much harder to get in a Redford, Hazel Park, etc.

The final piece is the quality of the home. Look at the homes in NW Detroit. They mostly are all small, cheaply built, and closely spaced, which are the exact things suburbanites don't want. This is why suburbanites will spend more to live in Canton, drive farther, and eat bland chain restaurant food... because the suburban portions of the City of Detroit [[with a few exceptions) is comprised of a residential layout no one wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

"Analysis" which purports to predict the future in this way is guesswork and nothing but. There is a certain kind of educated guess possible when you have voluminous data and the trends don't rely on changing demographics; think of weather forecasting - but even that is more guesswork than you might imagine; the "8 day forecast" that the TV stations love to give you is almost nothing beyond a blind guess.

Like the blind men and the elephant, a dozen "analysts" can look at the same data, plug them into computer programs [[because people tend to believe guesses more when computers do them) and come up with a dozen completely different results.

Allow your kindly old Professor an indulgence; I'd like to make a prediction. In the future, the predictions people make today will prove to be entirely garbage, including this one :)

---

But you see, Professor, if I write "I really don't know what the future will hold," no one will click on my website!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

I don't know where people get the idea that newer suburbs have low property taxes. Places like Northville, Novi, Rochester, West Bloomfield, Bloomfield, etc. aren't particularly low tax. Birmingham is fairly high tax. They have high property values and generally high-ish tax rates. In Birmingham there are people living in modest bungalows paying 10k in annual taxes.

They aren't as high as places like Detroit, but cities with ridiculously low valuations will always have high rates.

---

Recent article in that regard.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...th_michig.html

Some industrialized cities in Michigan have ""given away the tax base"
to the corporations, via incentives, essentially legalized bribes,
while the elderly home owners who lived there 50 years
shouldered a large part of the taxation.
Property taxes are not cheap, because industrial parks exist nearby.

Just exactly what is a micro economy? Is it a 50/50 mix of consumerism and employment based opportunities? Just who are these people? Are they 50% that are working or the 50% no longer in the workforce?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

It seems the bad news is for the old inner and middle ring burbs. City centers are reviving and sprawl rolls on. Hopefully that will build suburban support for ending sprawl. Build the sprawl wall now.

---

Toronto has a sprawl wall around it. Its called the Greenbelt.

The province passed a law, a number of years back, drawing the line beyond which 'urban' boundaries could not grow. Reserving the greenbelt to farms, nature, limited industry [[quarries) and grandfathered uses.

A link to the maps/area here:

http://www.greenbelt.ca/maps

On the whole, it has worked well, and is very popular.

The limitations are that the area isn't so large that developers can't leapfrog it in places. [[and are), as well as those who question the role this is having in Toronto's ever spiraling house prices [[up 33% in the last year).

However, it should be noted, Toronto still has lots of whitebelt [[areas not yet developed, but zoned for literally more than 100,000 acres of single family homes. So I think that's a pretty specious linkage.

On the idea that taxes are inherently lower, the further out you go.

I'm curious as to that.

Once again, not the experience in Toronto.

In our case the concentration of commercial offices in the core [[taxed a higher rate that single family homes), along w/the efficiency that comes from denser development forms, means lower taxes inside Toronto than in most of its suburbs.

To be fair, this wasn't always true, in that more recently built up suburbs for a long time had the benefit that developers had to pay for the roads, sewers, watermains, parks and schools as they built. This left these areas w/lower tax for a time, as they had low maintenance costs with relatively new infrastructure, mostly paid for by the private sector.

However, as these areas mature, the roads come due for repaving etc. The taxes tend to shift over.

***

Ex-urbs and beyond can be different in that they typically have lower levels of services. You may have well water, or take your garbage to the dump, etc.

They also often have much lower levels of fire service.

Which typically results in higher property insurance costs.

People who really want the privacy/link to nature may gravitate to it.

But it tends to simply shift costs from property tax to the market.

Tipping fee at the dump, maintain your own well/septic, higher property insurance, the hassle of long drives to get the kids to school and/or school buses etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Toronto has a sprawl wall around it. Its called the Greenbelt.

The province passed a law, a number of years back, drawing the line beyond which 'urban' boundaries could not grow. Reserving the greenbelt to farms, nature, limited industry [[quarries) and grandfathered uses.

A link to the maps/area here:

http://www.greenbelt.ca/maps

On the whole, it has worked well, and is very popular.

---

What are you talking about? The "sprawl wall" has been a disaster.

Toronto has lower median household incomes than Metro Detroit, yet home prices are about 5x higher. People spend $1 million to buy crapboxes in Scarborough that would look low-end even for Warren, MI.

Something like 40% of young adult Torontonians live with their parents, because they're shut out of the market, and elderly residents refuse to sell their homes, because there's nowhere to go.

New home communities are a joke; with McMansions built two inches from one another, so you're living tenement-style, yet out in some isolated farm field.

The Toronto real estate market is basically a catastrophe, and would be the last place to look for sensible regional planning. The whole market is basically govt. collusion with wealthy foreigners using straw buyers to destroy local housing conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

What are you talking about? The "sprawl wall" has been a disaster.

Toronto has lower median household incomes than Metro Detroit, yet home prices are about 5x higher. People spend $1 million to buy crapboxes in Scarborough that would look low-end even for Warren, MI.

Something like 40% of young adult Torontonians live with their parents, because they're shut out of the market, and elderly residents refuse to sell their homes, because there's nowhere to go.

New home communities are a joke; with McMansions built two inches from one another, so you're living tenement-style, yet out in some isolated farm field.

The Toronto real estate market is basically a catastrophe, and would be the last place to look for sensible regional planning. The whole market is basically govt. collusion with wealthy foreigners using straw buyers to destroy local housing conditions.

---

This is why I tend to disrespect your posts. You not only engage in hyperbole, you say things that emphatically aren't true at all and bare no resemblance to the truth.

The median income for the Detroit-Warren-Livonia is around $53,000US [[$72,000 CAD)

The median income for Toronto is $73,000

Yes, housing prices are higher, though its important to make distinctions. Toronto's 'average' price is heavily stilted by single-family, detached homes, near downtown.

While suburban prices are at historic highs, and too high in my opinion, they are, nonetheless not 5x higher than comparable properties in Detroit.

$1,000,000 in Scarborough doesn't go as far as it should.....but crap box? Also, please make the adjustment to USD and note that this is then, a $740,000 property

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...E1R4-Guildwood

Smaller homes, more modest in finish, can still be had for under 600k. [[$456,000 USD)

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/S...-M1J2R4-Woburn

Yes, that's astronomically higher than pockets of inner Detroit, but only about a 2x premium to more desirable suburbs.


****

As noted, in respect of the greenbelt there are still over 100,000 acres worth of land zoned for development, but not yet built on.

That would likely feature about 300,000 homes.

Its impact on realty prices is likely immaterial.

There is speculation in the market to be sure, along w/explosive growth [[adding 120,000 people a year).

That along w/the normal things that happen in bubbles; are driving prices to excess.

Albeit belatedly, the government has begun to take action, including a Foreign buyers tax [[non-resident speculation tax is their euphemism) and a Vacant homes tax is likely coming by 2018 as well.

Supply and demand plays into real estate prices. When the demand for additional new housing increases, other factors being equal, if the supply of new building lots is restrained, housing cost increase. The cause of restraint can be natural like inland coastal mountains or man made like zoning laws. I have driven across about 65 miles of northern California west of Ukiah on tertiary roads where I saw no one. Yet California building lots in any metropolitan area cost a fortune.

I used to be an investor of Apache Corp. which sheltered some of its profit to buy land outside of metropolitan areas in California, plant the land into oranges arranging ahead of time to secure the Sunkist label for maximum profit. The game plan was to get government tax breaks and subsidies for keeping the land in agriculture until the trees would have run their life cycle by which time the metropolitan area would be expected to have expanded up to the orchards. The goal then was to change the zoning from agricultural and vastly increase the value of this land.

I knew a very smart, hard working, farm couple in Wisconsin. They both had environmental degrees from Oberlin College. When I knew them, they were very scientific and successful sheep and hog farmers. A land developer uncle in southern California offered to make them part of his enterprise. He needed them to write environmental impact statements and the like to win zoning changes. I assume they are wealthy now.

I mention all of this to point out that in California, Portland OR, probably Toronto, and other places where government has created an artificial land shortage, huge fortunes are being made. 98% of the population has to work two or three jobs, have fewer children then they wanted, etc. to afford housing while a smaller percentage makes fortunes at their expense.

Related: About 80% of the population growth in the US is caused by immigrants and their children. Given how supply and demand work, immigrants provide most of the demand for additional housing units at the expense of others who compete for the same housing and at the profit of those manipulating government created housing lot shortages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

On the idea that taxes are inherently lower, the further out you go.

I'm curious as to that.

Once again, not the experience in Toronto.

In our case the concentration of commercial offices in the core [[taxed a higher rate that single family homes), along w/the efficiency that comes from denser development forms, means lower taxes inside Toronto than in most of its suburbs.

To be fair, this wasn't always true, in that more recently built up suburbs for a long time had the benefit that developers had to pay for the roads, sewers, watermains, parks and schools as they built. This left these areas w/lower tax for a time, as they had low maintenance costs with relatively new infrastructure, mostly paid for by the private sector.

However, as these areas mature, the roads come due for repaving etc. The taxes tend to shift over.

***

Ex-urbs and beyond can be different in that they typically have lower levels of services. You may have well water, or take your garbage to the dump, etc.

They also often have much lower levels of fire service.

Which typically results in higher property insurance costs.

People who really want the privacy/link to nature may gravitate to it.

But it tends to simply shift costs from property tax to the market.

Tipping fee at the dump, maintain your own well/septic, higher property insurance, the hassle of long drives to get the kids to school and/or school buses etc.

---

I picked what I would call an exurb at random from several that have an owner occupied housing building boom currently going on NOW to illustrate the problem.

Commerce Township is 20 minutes border to border via the M-5 and 696 to the Lodge freeway into Detroit.

Commerce Township has a property tax rate of 30.51 Mills

The City of Detroit property tax rate is 69.88

These are 'Homestead' rates. The disparity is worse for non Homesteaded rates, meaning renters pay even more to rent in Detroit vs. renters in Commerce Township.

Why anyone feels completely comfortable with landlords charging renters more to pay a tax with the only exception being landlords is beyond me. But that is a whole other facet of this problem worthy of its own discussion.

This deck was stacked heavily with special interest in mind many years ago in this state and those interests have been whistling down the other side of the fence very confidently while calamity after calamity strikes this state decade after decade and the fingers are pointing in every other direction.

Note for CV.

Birmingham Michigan has been by far one of the largest benifactors of this system due to the high per capita income of the community. It was effectively written for them and communities like them and even strengthened significantly under the Engler administration in 1994. For a certain poster here that community is sacred ground well worth spreading lies and disinformation to protect its interest at all costs. I have witnessed that behavior many times over years on these boards.

https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/pte...testimator.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

I picked what I would call an exurb at random from several that have an owner occupied housing building boom currently going on NOW to illustrate the problem.

Commerce Township is 20 minutes border to border via the M-5 and 696 to the Lodge freeway into Detroit.

Commerce Township has a property tax rate of 30.51 Mills

The City of Detroit property tax rate is 69.88

These are 'Homestead' rates. The disparity is worse for non Homesteaded rates, meaning renters pay even more to rent in Detroit vs. renters in Commerce Township.

Why anyone feels completely comfortable with landlords charging renters more to pay a tax with the only exception being landlords is beyond me. But that is a whole other facet of this problem worthy of its own discussion.

This deck was stacked heavily with special interest in mind many years ago in this state and those interests have been whistling down the other side of the fence very confidently while calamity after calamity strikes this state decade after decade and the fingers are pointing in every other direction.

Note for CV.

Birmingham Michigan has been by far one of the largest benifactors of this system due to the high per capita income of the community. It was effectively written for them and communities like them and even strengthened significantly under the Engler administration in 1994. For a certain poster here that community is sacred ground well worth spreading lies and disinformation to protect its interest at all costs. I have witnessed that behavior many times over years on these boards.

---

Thanks for the info!

Got me wondering.

So I looked up property tax rates for the Buffalo, NY area [[as I'm familiar w/that area) and noted overwhelming that the suburbs had significantly higher mil. rates than did Buffalo itself.

I also noted the same for the NYC area.

Obviously neither of these are in Michigan.

But it does suggest to me there is nothing inherent in the American context that taxes should be lower the further you go from the City [[at least while service levels are comparable).

Which makes me wonder how much of this phenomena is due to the relatively unique de-population of Detroit proper [[which will naturally exaggerate the tax burden on those who remain)

and/or unique facets of Michigan law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Toronto has a sprawl wall around it. Its called the Greenbelt.

The province passed a law, a number of years back, drawing the line beyond which 'urban' boundaries could not grow. Reserving the greenbelt to farms, nature, limited industry [[quarries) and grandfathered uses.

A link to the maps/area here:

http://www.greenbelt.ca/maps

On the whole, it has worked well, and is very popular.

The limitations are that the area isn't so large that developers can't leapfrog it in places. [[and are), as well as those who question the role this is having in Toronto's ever spiraling house prices [[up 33% in the last year).

However, it should be noted, Toronto still has lots of whitebelt [[areas not yet developed, but zoned for literally more than 100,000 acres of single family homes. So I think that's a pretty specious linkage.

---

I think you are in the business of selling real estate are you not?

Don't you think that a one year 33% raise in home prices is insane?

This wannabe Vancouver style overheat was unleashed again to profit developers. Everybody is out for himself and damn the consequences. The consequences are that builders can profit from selling property at a high premium and also build expensive rentals across your region to a sizable population of not so upwardly mobile renters.

Mind you, it is not a very complicated game. It is the old idea that one squeezes the most out of them that one can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canuck

I think you are in the business of selling real estate are you not?

Don't you think that a one year 33% raise in home prices is insane?

This wannabe Vancouver style overheat was unleashed again to profit developers. Everybody is out for himself and damn the consequences. The consequences are that builders can profit from selling property at a high premium and also build expensive rentals across your region to a sizable population of not so upwardly mobile renters.

Mind you, it is not a very complicated game. It is the old idea that one squeezes the most out of them that one can.

---

Yes, 33% is insane.

No, I am not in real estate, LOL

My point was not that Toronto was not overvalued..... which is rather off topic for the thread....

Rather in correcting a previous poster I was simply chastising his proclivity for utter hyperbole.

He was implying comparable properties, adjusted for currency were different by a factor of five. [[Metro Detroit vs Greater Toronto).

That simply isn't the case, as I noted. Depending on area and home, one could make a case for a factor difference of 2x and at the extremes 3x.

That takes nothing away from Toronto [[and Vancouver) being in a bubble-ish, frothy and over-valued state.

But perhaps, back to the point of the thread which was a more general argument about ex-urbia, its merits and costs and secular trends towards or against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

But perhaps, back to the point of the thread which was a more general argument about ex-urbia, its merits and costs and secular trends towards or against it.

---

OK, if we are going to get back to the point [[and you see how difficult this is), let me throw in my $0.02.

Exurbia exists because it is subsidized. Developers can buy inexpensive farmland and build subdivisions with hundreds or, cumulatively, thousands of houses. Then in response to this, exurban communities, or the counties in which they exist, have to scramble to provide adequate access roads, upgrade water delivery systems and sewage treatment plants, and so on, and at least in states like Michigan [[and this is absolutely fucking insane) cannot put the developers on the hook for any of these exorbitant costs.

That is why there is exurbia and why the trends have been what they have been, and if you want to fix it, you have to somehow inject sanity into the equation. In Michigan, with its idiotic "home rule" constitutional provisions, this has proven impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

Note for CV.

Birmingham Michigan has been by far one of the largest benifactors of this system due to the high per capita income of the community. It was effectively written for them and communities like them and even strengthened significantly under the Engler administration in 1994. For a certain poster here that community is sacred ground well worth spreading lies and disinformation to protect its interest at all costs. I have witnessed that behavior many times over years on these boards.

---

Aw, someone's feelings are hurt. I'm so very offended; LOL.

And talk about Trumpian fakenews; I'm not a particular fan of Birmingham, I just live here [[unlike other posters I don't derive my image and self-worth from a mailing address); I posted nothing that isn't factual, and I have no "interest" in anything but the truth.

I have no financial stake in Birmingham's relative health. The only real estate I own isn't even in Birmingham.

And I have no idea what you're babbling about re. Engler and 1994. Maybe you're
talking schools, which have nothing to do with anything, and you would still be wrong?

The vast majority of Birmingham school enrollment is non-Birmingham residents. It's a big district, and the city a small part. Birmingham School taxes have little to do with Birmingham city's high property tax rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Thanks for the info!

Got me wondering.

So I looked up property tax rates for the Buffalo, NY area [[as I'm familiar w/that area) and noted overwhelming that the suburbs had significantly higher mil. rates than did Buffalo itself.

I also noted the same for the NYC area.

Obviously neither of these are in Michigan.

But it does suggest to me there is nothing inherent in the American context that taxes should be lower the further you go from the City [[at least while service levels are comparable).

---

Speaking generally, Michigan low tax jurisdictions have limited-to-no services. They have private residential streets, no trash collection, county police, no city water, etc. They certainly don't have quality libraries, community centers, senior centers, parks, sidewalks and the like.

They have lower tax rates because residents are anti-tax. Those communities tend to be more on the suburban fringe, but there's nothing "unfair" about it, and it doesn't harm the urban core in any way. Hazel Park wouldn't benefit if Milford Twp. suddenly decide to tax itself like a Huntington Woods.

NYC has low residential property taxes because it has the highest commercial property taxes in the U.S., plus a relatively high income tax on the wealthy. The NYC suburbs don't have income taxes and have much lower commercial property taxes, so residents have to pick up the slack. NYC is in a unique situation where they can tax the hell out of commercial property, and it doesn't matter; business needs to be there.

The NYC suburbs have the highest residential property taxes in the U.S. They also have amazing services and top-notch public schools. In nicer communities residents pay tens of thousands in annual taxes. Also public employees make like 2x what they make in MI so taxpayers in the NYC area have to pay up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

OK, if we are going to get back to the point [[and you see how difficult this is), let me throw in my $0.02.

Exurbia exists because it is subsidized. Developers can buy inexpensive farmland and build subdivisions with hundreds or, cumulatively, thousands of houses. Then in response to this, exurban communities, or the counties in which they exist, have to scramble to provide adequate access roads, upgrade water delivery systems and sewage treatment plants, and so on, and at least in states like Michigan [[and this is absolutely fucking insane) cannot put the developers on the hook for any of these exorbitant costs.

That is why there is exurbia and why the trends have been what they have been, and if you want to fix it, you have to somehow inject sanity into the equation. In Michigan, with its idiotic "home rule" constitutional provisions, this has proven impossible.

---

Once again, Professor, I am in your debt for your thoughtful response.

I was unaware that 'development charges' are not a thing in Michigan.

For comparison, the fastest developing [[sprawling) suburb of Toronto is Brampton...

Its residential development charges for a single-family dwelling or semi are

$84,044.29

The full breakdown is here:

http://www.brampton.ca/EN/Business/p...ded-Rates.aspx

If you want 'urban' services in Ontario, you typically have to pay for them. [[towns/cities have some wiggle room in how much they choose to charge)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

Exurbia exists because it is subsidized. Developers can buy inexpensive farmland and build subdivisions with hundreds or, cumulatively, thousands of houses. Then in response to this, exurban communities, or the counties in which they exist, have to scramble to provide adequate access roads, upgrade water delivery systems and sewage treatment plants, and so on, and at least in states like Michigan [[and this is absolutely fucking insane) cannot put the developers on the hook for any of these exorbitant costs.

---

No, this scenario doesn't exist.

New subdivisions in MI cover the cost of everything you mention. They pay special assessments for sewer, water, road. The new residents pay elevated tax rates, far above those of longtime residents in the same community. Their roads are private, their services are covered. And developers pay the bill until they have buyers.

The idea that a new subdivision in Lyon Twp or Oakland Twp somehow harms someone in Madison Heights or Redford is just nonsense. New McMansions have very high tax bills, as they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Once again, Professor, I am in your debt for your thoughtful response.

I was unaware that 'development charges' are not a thing in Michigan.

---

This website is like the Breitbart of urban planning sometimes. An echo chamber of utter nonsense.

Should I post to a million and one articles showing that new developments in MI pay their own assessments, or is it a waste of time? I doubt there's even one McMansion owner or RE industry professional on DYes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

This website is like the Breitbart of urban planning sometimes. An echo chamber of utter nonsense.

Should I post to a million and one articles showing that new developments in MI pay their own assessments, or is it a waste of time? I doubt there's even one McMansion owner or RE industry professional on DYes.

---

If you have information to offer, different from another poster, I would certainly welcome that; just lose the inflammatory rhetoric please.

Your clearly capable of making intelligent, thoughtful posts.

But your predisposition for exaggeration, hyperbole, and snarkyness are rather off-putting.

As is your predilection for assuming you are right w/o supporting evidence.

You needn't offer 40 citations. But one or two credible ones could actually be quite helpful.

*[[I noticed you offer over 1,000,000, funny, on google I can only find 370,000 links w/those words) ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

1. They have very low legacy costs for employee retirement [[which will change as they age).

2. The requirement for policemen per capita will be quite a bit lower because of a lower crime rate.

3. Low density means fewer firemen and less fire equipment.

4. Tax collection costs and delinquency rates will be much lower.

5. Parkinson's Law hasn't had enough time to affect the size and complexity of their bureaucracy.

---

Thx, Hermod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

...snip...
For comparison, the fastest developing [[sprawling) suburb of Toronto is Brampton...

Its residential development charges for a single-family dwelling or semi are

$84,044.29

...snip...

---

CV, it may be worth elaborating on the Canadian idea of Development Cost Charges. Yes, they charge developers for the costs of servicing the lots.

Does this idea not exist at all in the States? Or just not in Michigan?

There are also differences in the way that Canada deals with taxation and municipal debt. I'd like to hear more here. Learning how its done south of Windsor may help us understand that there are other ways.

I believe that in the US, communities typically rely on future tax revenues [[and then issue bonds if they need to for financing current infrastructure improvements.) Where in Canada, I don't think they like to rely as much on debt, and prefer to charge the developers up front. This, of course, would negatively affect affordability. I think the affordability crusade is folly, but if you believe in it, charging current developers cash only hurts new construction by increasing costs. If you want more homes to be built... which Canada clearly needs in T-Town and V-Town to be sure, then perhaps they should pay the developers to build, rather than turning them into cash registers to collect money from purchasers.

I'm not well-informed here, so please correct my poor understanding and weak knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

CV, it may be worth elaborating on the Canadian idea of Development Cost Charges. Yes, they charge developers for the costs of servicing the lots.

Does this idea not exist at all in the States? Or just not in Michigan?

There are also differences in the way that Canada deals with taxation and municipal debt. I'd like to hear more here. Learning how its done south of Windsor may help us understand that there are other ways.

I believe that in the US, communities typically rely on future tax revenues [[and then issue bonds if they need to for financing current infrastructure improvements.) Where in Canada, I don't think they like to rely as much on debt, and prefer to charge the developers up front. This, of course, would negatively affect affordability. I think the affordability crusade is folly, but if you believe in it, charging current developers cash only hurts new construction by increasing costs. If you want more homes to be built... which Canada clearly needs in T-Town and V-Town to be sure, then perhaps they should pay the developers to build, rather than turning them into cash registers to collect money from purchasers.

I'm not well-informed here, so please correct my poor understanding and weak knowledge.

---

My knowledge is mostly limited to Ontario. In Canada, overall, however, cities [[municipalities) are considered 'creatures of the province' so they exist, and have rules which apply them at the discretion of each province.

In respect of Ontario, municipalities are expressly permitted to have development charges, some have provincial formulas, while others are set as limits that a City/Region may charge up to.

In respect of municipal debt, the province imposes that:

a) municipalities may NOT borrow for operating costs, only for capital
b) municipalities may not accrue debt where this will result in a service cost greater than 25% of their operating budget.

Toronto has its own guideline, of 15% [[self-imposed)

***

In terms of charges, those you could see in the link I provided were:

City level charges
Region level charges [[hard and soft services
Education Charges [[building new schools)
GO Transit [[regional transit)

That doesn't include agency fees as best I can tell [[Conservation Authority)

Nor does it include legislative compliance. [[ie. a development typically has to set aside land area for a park, that's not a development charge, but is a requirement. If the developer were unable to comply, then they would be assessed a cash-in-lieu charge. This typically occurs w/small sites [[condos or a few townhomes where the % of land allocated would not be functional). Cash-in-lieu is typically assessed at the market-value of the land that would have been provided.

****

The general premise here is that local government does not subsidize development and passes through its costs to developers.

Though Cities can and do wave/rebate fees for non-profit developments or those that may be highly prized [[think a large factory).

****

Charges here have been the way of things for a long time, so its difficult to draw a direct correlation to affordability. Though they have risen faster than inflation during the boom years. In part this is legitimate cost recovery due to higher real estate and construction costs, but its also 'easy money' for cities during a 'boom'.

****

I can't speak to how these things are done elsewhere at any length, though a cursory examination shows similar charges in Vancouver, though somewhat lower and calculated per sq ft.

In California the comparable item is called 'development impact fees'. I wasn't able to gain a clear picture in a few minutes of clicking on how high these are typically.

Thought I'd offer an actual application for a new subdivision in one of Toronto's northern suburbs [[Vaughan).

Note the #of conditions starting at page 25 of the report, running almost to the end [[page 59)

http://www.vaughan.ca/council/minute...W0307_17_4.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, this scenario doesn't exist.

New subdivisions in MI cover the cost of everything you mention. They pay special assessments for sewer, water, road. The new residents pay elevated tax rates, far above those of longtime residents in the same community. Their roads are private, their services are covered. And developers pay the bill until they have buyers.

The idea that a new subdivision in Lyon Twp or Oakland Twp somehow harms someone in Madison Heights or Redford is just nonsense. New McMansions have very high tax bills, as they should.

---

You are correct in that the developers pay the direct costs that you list. You are
wrong in the sense that the government then has to pick up the indirect costs of the new subdivisions to include paving/expansion of the roads feeding the subdivision roads due to the increased traffic, expanding the capacity of the sewer and water systems to meet the increased capacity, and expanding the schools to take in the increased number of students. Here in Florida, the developer can be hit in his zoning application with "impact fees" which partially offset these costs. These fees are then spliced into the cost of the homes in the new subdivision.

Several of you are all partially correct.

In the state of Michigan, most developments are done with the development paying for all improvements surrounding it. If new curb cuts, sewer, traffic lights, etc., are needed, they are paid for by the developer in four ways:

1. Cash out of the developer's pocket [[preferred by the developers, because their contractors are cheaper, generally);
2. A special assessment district [[SAD) that is paid upon unit sale. In this scenario, the municipality completes the improvements, and is repaid upon the sale of the unit [[basically, short-term financing for the builder);
3. SADs that are paid over time by the homeowner [[effectively a tax); or
4. Straight impact fees or tap fees. If you want to attach to our sewer line, and you need x" pipe, pay us $y.

There is certainly no "regional subsidy" that developments in suburban and exurban areas pay.

One of the main differences, it appears, is that Ontario allows such regional taxation, whereas the Michigan Constitution generally does not. I would love to hear more about how our friends to the south/north do things.

On taxation generally, I think the 1994 refers to Proposal A and the Headlee Amendment, both quite misunderstood. They both refer to opposite multiplicands of the taxation math problem:

Proposal A says that the value of your property, once assessed and until an "uncapping" event occurs [[most frequently, a sale or construction), cannot increase for purposes of taxation at a rate greater than inflation. So what happens in locations where people have owned homes for a long time is that half of the equation is very small, sometimes a small fraction of the home's true worth.

The relevant part of the Headlee Amendment [[which is actually from 1978) to this discussion says that municipalities cannot increase the total amount collected from taxes without a vote of the people. So let's say a city passes a 1 mill [[$1/$1000 taxable value) tax, and the total tax base is $1,000,000 in taxable value. If the value of properties rise, the amount of the millage is "rolled back" to the amount collected in the first year. The idea was that assessors were, at the direction of cities, increasing assessments wildly when they needed more tax revenue.

These are two structures that as far as I know are unique to Michigan. As a result, you can have a 60 mill rate on an old house and a 30 mill rate on a new home, both with the same current value, and both are paying the same tax rate. From a buyer's perspective, comparing rates is important, because the value will be uncapped when you buy. That can be as much as double the tax bill for a home in Detroit compared to a home in the suburbs. If there are those who think that isn't an issue for home development in Detroit, you're entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

There is certainly no "regional subsidy" that developments in suburban and exurban areas pay.

One of the main differences, it appears, is that Ontario allows such regional taxation, whereas the Michigan Constitution generally does not. I would love to hear more about how our friends to the south/north do things.

---

I included in posts above links to the list of developments charges, as well as a fairly typical suburban development application.

Is there something else you would like to know about municipal taxation here?

I'm not quite sure what your looking for; but I'm happy to share any info.

This just seems very unlikely to me. Affluent buyers, and those who are poised to become affluent, are definitely trending back towards the urban cores in big American cities. The demographic that seem to be trending towards ex-urbs are the working class. Looking out in over a decade or two, I think that the working class is more likely to follow affluent populations than the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Recent article in that regard.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...th_michig.html

---

Thanks for this link.

It's not hard to tell which communities already have big financial problems or are going to in the near future by this data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

I included in posts above links to the list of developments charges, as well as a fairly typical suburban development application.

Is there something else you would like to know about municipal taxation here?

I'm not quite sure what your looking for; but I'm happy to share any info.

---

Where does the approval for a local development project lie: the municipality, some regional group [[akin to our counties) or the provincial government? And the developments charges are promulgated from what level of government?

Thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy

Where does the approval for a local development project lie: the municipality, some regional group [[akin to our counties) or the provincial government? And the developments charges are promulgated from what level of government?

Thanks in advance.

---

Ok, so this could get a bit complex.

As a starting point, local and/or lower-tier, or single-tier municipalities have responsibility for planning approval.

For background. In the north [[less developed, more wilderness, almost all municipalities are single-tier, no county, just one level of local gov't.

In the south, most of Ontario operates with 2-tier local gov't. A smaller town/village borough [[a series usually) which control local planning, local parks, local garbage pick up and libraries usually. While being in some way connected to an upper-tier than maintains major roads, transit, regional planning, usually any landfills are done at this level along w/emergency and social services.

There are notable exceptions as the City of Toronto is one-tier as are Hamilton, Ottawa and London.

***

Now, that said.

The province has control of the Planning Act.

As well as the Places to Grow Act and the Building Code

All municipal gov't in Ontario are beholden to follow the first and last of those; while the middle one applies mostly to the Greater Golden Horseshoe area [[east of Toronto, west to Niagara Falls, north to Barrie, south-west to Guelph/Kitchener.

This act requires higher density new development in designated growth nodes while setting aside areas as 'greenbelt'

***

Each municipality approves its own official plan, generally every 25-30 years, identifying future growth areas, future road and transit priorities and so on.

These plans are subject to provincial approval.

But the province then mostly butts out of local business thereafter.

Though, notably, someone unhappy w/how their development application was treated by a city/town can appeal that ruling to the provincial Ontario Municipal Board.

****

The province has a law dictating what items may and may not be charged for as development charges and dictates formulae for most; along with caps.

It does not however require a city/town to levy such a charge or set any minimum.

So cost-recovery on new developments varies widely between 45%-65% most of the time.

Citys/Towns can also waive charges for desired developments [[affordable housing, big employment factory etc.)

****

Relevant act for development charges is described here:

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10253

****

The general gist is that in most cases the final decision [[subject to appeal) is at the most local level; but it must be legally consistent w/policies approved by any higher level [[upper-tier city/region and/or province)

There may also be other agencies w/varying degrees of say.

So, for instance, I notice a lot of talk on the forum about drainage.

While sewer are municipal; floodplains, natural areas, watersheds are regulated in Ontario by local conservation authorities.

They won't be consulted on a typical site.

However, if your site falls within a regulated floodplain they have legal authority in so far as it concerns their issues. So, for instance they may require you cede the portion of property w/in the floodplain to them, or they may require various measures to ensure slope stability and proper drainage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, this scenario doesn't exist.

New subdivisions in MI cover the cost of everything you mention. They pay special assessments for sewer, water, road. The new residents pay elevated tax rates, far above those of longtime residents in the same community. Their roads are private, their services are covered. And developers pay the bill until they have buyers.

The idea that a new subdivision in Lyon Twp or Oakland Twp somehow harms someone in Madison Heights or Redford is just nonsense. New McMansions have very high tax bills, as they should.

---

Let's see what Bham's examples show us.

Lyon Township property tax rate is 27.95 Mills

Oakland Township property tax rate is 24.99 Mills

Detroits property tax rate is 69.82 Mills

Making sure that the wealth of new home owners went exactly where they wanted it, in new housing plus all the new capital investment in new construction that will bring jobs into communities inside those new buildings is fixed so the suburbs will get it all first, second and third with Detroit and communities like it intentionally being placed last. The system was set up that way, then left in place, and is still in full force today.

https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/pte...TEstimator.asp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Yes, 33% is insane.

No, I am not in real estate, LOL

My point was not that Toronto was not overvalued..... which is rather off topic for the thread....

Rather in correcting a previous poster I was simply chastising his proclivity for utter hyperbole.

He was implying comparable properties, adjusted for currency were different by a factor of five. [[Metro Detroit vs Greater Toronto).

That simply isn't the case, as I noted. Depending on area and home, one could make a case for a factor difference of 2x and at the extremes 3x.

That takes nothing away from Toronto [[and Vancouver) being in a bubble-ish, frothy and over-valued state.

But perhaps, back to the point of the thread which was a more general argument about ex-urbia, its merits and costs and secular trends towards or against it.

---

Just one of many articles on the reaaons for overvaluation in Van and T.O. of late. Incidentally, no amount of government measures can bring down property values since these are perceived as sacrosanct. The latest increases due to abnormal market conditions are punishing potential first time buyers but greasing owners, speculators and lenders. Good times ahead.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/ne...ate=2017-05-08

Interesting article.

My take is that for expensive cities, the boomlet has been downtown. For less expensive cities, it has been exurban.

Hard to make a general statement when back to downtown, center city is flourishing in some metro areas but the opposite in others.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ng-out-of-room