The Inane CRI strikes again

Filed in National by on December 18, 2012

In a series of analyses CRI has argued that the New Castle County (NCC) government is facing a serious fiscal crisis. This crisis was precipitated by Adam Sandler’s performance in ‘The Water Boy’ released in 1998. Within just a few years after the release of ‘The Water Boy’ employment in NCC flat-lined and residential building permits nose dived….

Simple cause and effect right? Who could argue with those facts? Substitute “the UDC” for “The Water Boy” above and that is the level of thinking going on at that “think” tank. I mean, they are absolutely ripping off their benefactors.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. mathcheck says:

    Jason, this has to be one of your worst posts yet (and there are quite a few contenders to be sure). You’re parodying what can best be described as an executive summary, and only one sentence of it at that, but if you took the time to study the issue you would understand that the UDC had the exact economic effect any economist (or anyone with a working knowledge of economics) would predict.

    By lowering density, increasing the expenses associated with development (costs which are passed on to consumers), and greatly extending the approval process, in a few short years, the cost of building lots for homes doubled because supply of lots couldn’t keep up with demand. Econ 101 — falling supply and increasing demand leads to much higher prices. That’s what the UDC, unlike any Adam Sandler movie, did. And most people still complain about development in NCC anyway, so it doesn’t seem to have solved anything.

    Worse still, as a result of the UDC, NCC developed a reputation for being unfriendly to new business. Period. Why go to NCC when you weren’t welcome and the process would take years as compared to neighboring states with whom NCC is in competition for new business everyday. It’s no accident that new employers are not flocking to NCC.

    When the real estate bubble finally burst, study after study demonstrates that jurisdictions with expensive and restrictive codes like “the UDC” suffered a greater drop in housing prices than jurisdictions which did not have such restrictive codes. Go read the research.

    Meanwhile, NCC got addicted to transfer taxes caused by the run up in real estate prices and greatly increased the size of government and services offered. The money was flowing in over the transom and it simply got spent.

    Do you doubt the rather depressing statistic that the size of the County budget since 2005 has grown 50% faster than the rate of inflation? Doesn’t it bother you that County property taxes have gone up 54% during the same period and that sewer fees increased 70% during that same period? Those are serious problems, and it’s a shame that the News-Journal doesn’t see fit to call attention to these problems. Hopefully the new administration will begin to address these spending issues and will focus on economic development and making NCC a place that welcomes new business.

    CRI doesn’t always do a good job in making its points, but its points are nevertheless well-taken. Just because you obviously don’t like CRI doesn’t mean they’re not right on this.

  2. cassandra_m says:

    Worse still, as a result of the UDC, NCC developed a reputation for being unfriendly to new business.

    I’d like to see some data on this, thanks.

  3. Jason330 says:

    I put more effort into my post than CRI put into their “study.” I had to look up a bad movie that came out in 1998. They just had to contrive a premise that suited their conclusion while blithely wave off any other possible explanations. You think that is easy for a “think tank” headed by a “Doctor” to accomplish with a straight face? I seriously doubt it.

    Thanks for your comment though.

  4. JConnor says:

    I have been a Broker for 25 years the first 20 in Sussex. I was in a leadership position in the industry for over half of that time. The perception and the Reality of the UDC are 2 differant things. Suffice it to say that a large engine of opposition to the UDC came from my organizations lobbying efforts both in Dover an here in NCC. The reality of the law is that in my view the citizens of NCC benefited from the law and had it not been systematicly gutted it would still be working well. It has been demonstrated time after time in many jurisdictions that controlled logical growth benefits both business and residents. The problems outlined by fact checker are NOT as result of UDC. I would be pleased to engage in a detailed debate on this issue at any time.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Research based opinion + subjective conservative philosophy > logically flawed opinion + subjective neo-liberal philosophy.

    I wrote it so your child like minds could comprehend.

  6. Jason330 says:

    attempt at being comprehensible = Fail

    Thanks for trying.

  7. Metabolism says:

    JConnor are you suggesting you would debate Dr. Stapleford over the merits of the UDC and its impact in NCC? I think that would be a good idea.

  8. JConnor says:

    I would prefer to debate a sane person :), but sure

  9. Metabolism says:

    you should contact him. Do you have his e-mail address or phone number?

  10. JConnor says:

    Hey Metab…. I have no intention of lifting a finger to contact that RWNJ:)

  11. Geezer says:

    “Research based opinion …”

    The trouble with “Dr.” John Stapleford’s “research” is that it’s not research — it’s cherry-picked facts combined with scary-looking statistics and it ignores a certain major event that occurred in 2008, making the rest of it a useless pile of context-free data.

    To assemble meaningful data on the effects of New Castle County’s zoning laws, one would have to establish a meaningful baseline, or series of baselines, against which the NCCo data can be compared. Stapleford never does so, at least not in his work for CRI — which, like Eleanor Craig’s op-eds for the News Journal, wouldn’t pass muster with a group of undergrads, let alone peer-reviewed economics journals.

    This, of course, is par for the conservative “think tank” course. These people aren’t interested in finding solutions — they are interested in pushing a conservative philosophy regardless of the circumstances.

    If you want to push your horseshit philosophy, fine. Just don’t pretend it’s based on “research.”

  12. Jconnor says:

    Pretty much got it there Geez. Debating with Staplebrains is best left to Clint Eastwood;)