Re: Private urban green space
--- Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... libertarians are sure hostile to the public goods scene, because there the emphasis is on things that *need* to be solved publicly. Public goods means collective goods, used simultaneously by some group. This is a completely different meaning from public as in public sector. Collective goods can be provided by private firms or by government. Solved publicly is ambiguous because it can mean solved by a group or solved by government officials. Fred Foldvary
Re: Private urban green space
On 2004-08-03, Fred Foldvary uttered: Public goods means collective goods, used simultaneously by some group. This is a completely different meaning from public as in public sector. Precisely what I meant. Solved publicly is ambiguous because it can mean solved by a group or solved by government officials. I should have been more explicit, but you evidently get the meaning. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Re: Private urban green space
Why not? So many other people do; it makes me wonder what it is they dislike so much about these communities. Is it political? What many of the people I have talked to tell me they want is a house in a neighborhood where they (or their kids) can walk or ride a bike to at least some of the following: school, parks, coffee shop, bar, a restaurant or two, church, video store, some retail, bakery, etc. It is not just that they like to walk, but that they would like to live where there is a dynamic community that they can be a part of. Does that make them Communists? I don't think so. One of my most conservative, pro-market economist friends endures a long commute to an office in the suburbs because he doesn't want to leave his mixed-use, urban neighborhood (he and his family can walk to all the places I mentioned above and the local YMCA). My sister lives in a newer development where her kids have to be driven everywhere. Even though the elementary school is only a few blocks away, her kids cannot walk because the only access to the school is from a very busy street. It seems to have been built to prevent anyone from walking there. Through my casual empirics, I have discovered a contradiction I wouldn't have expected. Everywhere I have lived (Chicago area, Raleigh-Durham area, Dallas area) I have found that houses in walkable, mixed use neighborhoods are significantly more expensive than similarly sized houses in suburban enclaves, despite smaller lot sizes and higher, at least perceived, crime rates. I have some thoughts about why new development is looking the way it is, but I am not satisfied with any of them. Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/30/04 12:04PM On Jul 30, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Jeffrey Rous wrote: At the same time, none of my friends would ever want to live in one of these enclaves. Why not? So many other people do; it makes me wonder what it is they dislike so much about these communities. Is it political?
Re: Private urban green space
Economists are not hostile to public goods. I guess I did overstate it a bit. Among my more conservative, pro-market economist friends, there is a general suspicion of the public goods argument. I think that mostly, this comes from a distrust of government. Fair enough. Anyway, that is where my comment was coming from. -Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/01/04 05:02PM In a message dated 8/1/04 3:45:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Economists are not hostile to public goods. Still, knowledge of economics tends to make you more receptive to the idea of the invisible hand and the possibilities of private economic organization. Hence, it makes you more libertarian. And libertarians are sure hostile to the public goods scene, because there the emphasis is on things that *need* to be solved publicly. While studying economics might tend to make a person more libertarian than he'd be otherwise, studying economics doesn't necessarily make the person libertarian. The old Keynesians tended to have a fair fondness for government intervention, as summarized by Paul Samuelson's Two cheers, but not three, for markets. A Post-Keynesian instructor of mine back in 1990 told me that Post-Keynesians would say One cheer for markets.
Re: Private urban green space
--- Jeffrey Rous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do think that a lot of times, economists are hostile the the idea of a public good like a park if there is some way to make the good excludable (fenced parks in London, country clubs, etc.). -Jeff Economists are not hostile to public goods. Public goods are facts to which economists apply theory like any phenomenon. There is nothing inherently good or bad about public goods. Fred Foldvary
Re: Private urban green space
On 2004-08-01, Fred Foldvary uttered: Economists are not hostile to public goods. Still, knowledge of economics tends to make you more receptive to the idea of the invisible hand and the possibilities of private economic organization. Hence, it makes you more libertarian. And libertarians are sure hostile to the public goods scene, because there the emphasis is on things that *need* to be solved publicly. Public goods are facts to which economists apply theory like any phenomenon. There is nothing inherently good or bad about public goods. I agree. Public goods are also highly interesting because they perfectly illustrate how hard econ can be. I mean, the simple rationality assumption we often apply to people clearly ceases to apply in case of public goods and all the various private ways people deal with their existence. -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Re: Private urban green space
In a message dated 8/1/04 3:45:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Economists are not hostile to public goods. Still, knowledge of economics tends to make you more receptive to the idea of the invisible hand and the possibilities of private economic organization. Hence, it makes you more libertarian. And libertarians are sure hostile to the public goods scene, because there the emphasis is on things that *need* to be solved publicly. While studying economics might tend to make a person more libertarian than he'd be otherwise, studying economics doesn't necessarily make the person libertarian. The old Keynesians tended to have a fair fondness for government intervention, as summarized by Paul Samuelson's Two cheers, but not three, for markets. A Post-Keynesian instructor of mine back in 1990 told me that Post-Keynesians would say One cheer for markets.
Re: Private urban green space
today I had a discussion with a friend about urban planing and the necessity of public provision of urban green space (parks etc.). Do you know cases of private provision of urban green space and in that case, how do they make money out of it. Steffen Many residential associations provide green space, as do land trusts and proprietary communities such as Walt Disney World. See my book * Public Goods and Private Communities *, chapters on Arden Village, the Reston Association and Walt Disney World. Fred Foldvary
Re: Private urban green space
Look at almost any condo complex, Disney World, or any private development. Almost all provide some degree of common greenspace mixed in. The large scale private development best known for its green space is Sea Ranch in California. Ben --- Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are approximately 17,000 golf courses in the U.S. On Jul 30, 2004, at 5:50 AM, Hentrich, Steffen wrote: Dear Armchairs, today I had a discussion with a friend about urban planing and the necessity of public provision of urban green space (parks etc.). Do you know cases of private provision of urban green space and in that case, how do they make money out of it. Cheers, Steffen = Dr. Benjamin Powell Department of Economics San Jose State University San Jose, CA 95192-0114 408-924-1371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.sjsu.edu/faculty/powell __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Private urban green space
As a topic, I am more interested local parks and other local greenspace rather than golf courses and Disney World. It seems that to have parks provided by private developers requires the type of sprawling enclave development that many city planners (and most of my homebuying friends) are beginning to rebel against. This is because one developer building 300 houses in a remote enclave can find building a park profitable through higher prices for the houses (remoteness creates excludability). In a more mixed use type development with a grid street sytem and interconnectedness between neighborhoods, the free rider problem becomes an issue and there is little incentive to build parks (unless one developer develops the entire city). So, it people want parks near where they live, is sprawl the only private option? -Jeff Ben Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/30/04 07:54AM Look at almost any condo complex, Disney World, or any private development. Almost all provide some degree of common greenspace mixed in. The large scale private development best known for its green space is Sea Ranch in California. Ben --- Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are approximately 17,000 golf courses in the U.S. On Jul 30, 2004, at 5:50 AM, Hentrich, Steffen wrote: Dear Armchairs, today I had a discussion with a friend about urban planing and the necessity of public provision of urban green space (parks etc.). Do you know cases of private provision of urban green space and in that case, how do they make money out of it. Cheers, Steffen = Dr. Benjamin Powell Department of Economics San Jose State University San Jose, CA 95192-0114 408-924-1371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.sjsu.edu/faculty/powell __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Private urban green space
That's simply not true. Many, if not most, are open to the public. It might be most courses by now... more and more private courses have moved to either a fee system, open to the public, or a combination of being open to the public, but selling memberships that are little more than bulk discounts for avid golfers. In my own area, there are probably five or so purely private clubs that are not open to the public, and 20 or so that are open to the public. On Jul 30, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Mikhail Gambarian wrote: Golf courses are usually closed to general public - they are for members of clubs only and so not much different from private estates.
Re: Private urban green space
You have to pay to use them, but not necessarily to enjoy them. There are positive externalities all over the place. On Jul 30, 2004, at 5:08 PM, Mikhail Gambarian wrote: Anyway, you have to pay for using them. Most public parks and green areas are free to use. If you have to pay for using green area there is no free rider problem (which is probably problem in thes thread) Stephen Miller wrote: That's simply not true. Many, if not most, are open to the public. It might be most courses by now... more and more private courses have moved to either a fee system, open to the public, or a combination of being open to the public, but selling memberships that are little more than bulk discounts for avid golfers. In my own area, there are probably five or so purely private clubs that are not open to the public, and 20 or so that are open to the public. On Jul 30, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Mikhail Gambarian wrote: Golf courses are usually closed to general public - they are for members of clubs only and so not much different from private estates.
