Bacon's Rebellion

Boomergeddon

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

My posting on Bacon’s Rebellion has been sparse as of late because I am dedicating my spare time to writing a book. As the occasion arises in the future, I plan to post passages from the book or ruminations on related topics with the expectation that readers will set upon them like a pack of hyenas upon a kudu carcasse and rip them to shreds, thereby exposing factual or logical weaknesses.

The book is entitled, “Boomergeddon,” and provisionally sub-titled, “How Runaway Deficits and the Age Wave Will Bankrupt the Federal Government, Devastate the Retirement Safety Net and Impoverish Aging Baby Boomers Unless We Act Now.”

In a nutshell, the idea is to explain to Boomers how runaway deficits are not simply a burden that we’re foisting upon our children and grandchildren. The mounting federal debt will lead to the fiscal collapse of the federal government sometime between 2020 and 2030. For those Boomers who want to know “what’s in it for me?”, a government that can no longer borrow money to fund its programs will be unable to maintain at current levels the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs that retirees are counting on to supplement their meager savings.

Although Peter and Ed are free for now to continue posting on the topics that interest them, I will focus upon subjects that advance the writing of “Boomergeddon.” From time to time, that means I’ll be dipping into traditional, Virginia-centric B.R. subjects, but for the most part the subject matter will be more national in scope. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

14 responses to “Boomergeddon”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Off topic, but yet another giant moves to DC area.

    "Bush said the company (Northrop) is looking for the best tax incentive package in each jurisdiction."

    WAPO.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Invest a good portion of you rmoney over seas, and plan on retiring to Mexico, Costa Rica, Poland, Canada, or UK.

    RH

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I would add Nicaragua to RH's list. It seems that Daniel Ortega, et al have just figured out that attracting Western investment, particularly tourism, will be good for Nica. Consequently, many of the officials supporting what has been called "the land mafia" have been fired.

    Costa Rica is beautiful. As an interesting side note, the constitution of Costa Rica forbids the establishment of an Army. It seems that the last general who took over the country in a coup decided that if there was no Army there would be nobody to put him out of power.

    Mexico is problematic in a number of ways.

    Poland is nice but very cold.

    Canada is no better off than us and the UK is in worse shape.

  4. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Sort of like Y2K? Just kidding.
    Perter Galuszka

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Poland is cold but you can get a lot of Zlotys for a buck.

    Mexico has problems but I suspect they will protect the American enclaves like San Miguel de Allende. I think some places like UK and Germany have already factored in large parts of their boomergeddon, so they may have an upside sooner and be more stable in the meantime.

    If Russia ever gets their legal and accounting systems straghtened out it will have a good economy, but right now Brazil seems to be a growth leader.

    Learn Chinese and Spanish.

    I know people who bought near beach property in Costa Rica and after the price went up they sold out and moved "up the mountain".

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How much of Boomergeddon is going to be the result of Boomer wealth isapeearing amidst a rash of environmental laws and regulation?

    The cost of carbon taxes could easily inflate the cost of everything as much or more than the impending inflation due to excess debt.

    If debt is the cost of things you don't pay for, then our debts for environmental protection may turn out to be huge.

    —————————-

    "Perched 10m above the ground on a wind monitoring tower, [58 year old ]Australian farmer Peter Spencer today begins the 45th day of a hunger strike to protest against land clearing laws.

    Ten years and more than 200 court cases after he began fighting legislation that prevents him from removing trees from Saarahnlee – his property near the New South Wales town of Cooma – he is now refusing to eat or budge until Prime Minister Kevin Rudd agrees to a list of demands.

    Key to these is Spencer's contention that by refusing adequate compensation for laws blocking land clearing, Rudd is forcing farmers to pay the bill for Australia's Kyoto climate change commitments."

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is another Boomer that is about to take a $2 million dollar bath, courtesy of the government.

    —————————–

    "There’s nothing quite like a good property rights brawl. And that’s what we have in Sea Tac Washington. Most people who fly into the Seattle-Tacoma airport probably have no idea they’re landing in a city called Sea Tac. It’s a small municipality which is dominated by fast food restaurants and large parking lots that serve the needs of the region’s air travelers. The Park N’ Fly lot sits right across the street from one of Sea Tac’s runways. The 45 acre parcel was purchased by Doris Cassan and her husband two years ago for $10.6 million. The city of Sea Tac has condemned the lot and is offering the Cassan’s $8.6 million for it. The owners are fighting back.

    City officials have big plans for the piece of land. It happens to sit right next to the last stop of a new light rail line which takes thousands of travelers to the airport each day. Sea Tac leaders want to build a city-run parking structure and then sell the rest of the land to a private developer. The vision is for an entertainment district with hotels, shops and restaurants. Clearly officials want to capitalize on the light rail station and capture some of the fliers money before it hits the friendly skies. But the Cassan’s have hired a lawyer to challenge the eminent domain taking on the grounds that it violates the state constitution which prohibits governments from taking private land for private use."

    —————————-

    If the land was up for sale two years ago, why didn't the city buy it then?

    Clearly the government has reasonably decent plans for the property, but if those plans benefit the itizens of Sea Tac, then why would those same citizens refuse to share the benefits with the property's owners?

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Siding with arguments by Pacific Legal Foundation, the Washington Supreme Court has rejected an activist group’s attempt to impose harsh density restrictions on construction in rural areas of Whatcom County.

    The case involved a legal initiative by an activist group that attempts to restrict use of private property. The group had petitioned a state growth board to force Whatcom County to adopt a uniform, low density limit – no more than one dwelling per five acres – in the county’s rural areas. Not only would this density limit have severely restricted new development by private property owners, it could have made already-existing uses of land, including resort and recreational developments, "noncompliant," because they are already built to a higher density than the activist group wanted. The case is Gold Star Resorts, Inc. v. Futurewise."

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray, the state of Washington permits local governments to levy development impact fees to cover the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development. Revised Code of Washington, secs. 82.02.050 – .100 and other statutes.

    That changes the tenor of the debate substantially. Witness the Route 28 commercial landowners footing the bill for 75% of the road improvements for Route 28 in exchange for more density versus the Tysons landowners who have yet to put a dime on the table, despite seeking density increases that will require billions of dollars in transportation improvements alone.

    I mentioned the 75% contribution factor to a friend of mine who has built and operates commercial real estate in the Reston area. He gave me "hell," saying that the Tysons crowd should be forced to pay 100% of those costs. Otherwise, he is forced to subsidize his competitors.

    TMT

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    TMT:

    I don't see the connection between your comments and the reported court case.

    The activists in question would not care if the impact fees were 500%. they not only don't want development they want existing development made non-compliant so that they can eventually un-do it.

    The proposed (and denied) five acre restriction would have been the camels nose under the tent: after four or five more downzonings they would have gotten around to fifty acre minimum lot sizes.

    I'll say it again, I have no propblem with requiring additional payments in exchange for additional density, but that logic REQUIRES that the reverse be also true: when existing density is removed, then it must be paid for.

    Why is this activist group attempting to (further) restrict the use of private property? They must think there is some benefit to the public (or themselves) to be had.

    That means they are taking (part of) someones property and the value thereof for public use, and the constitution requires that such actions be paid for.

    We have used various legal and environmental strategies to weasel our way around that basic (and reasonable) requirement, to the point whee we often look the other way while we are raping our neighbors.

    And we convince ourselves this is OK because we are providing a public benefit.

    Not only is it not OK, but it is a really stupid strategy for environmentalists to employ. It is going to make them a lot of enemies. It makes their own private property less secure. And not least of all it makes the property rights for all the property they think they have already protected less secure.

    Boomers largest source of wealth may be the real estate they own. So here you are ready to sell out and retire, when the government comes and takes your property – and pays you far less than it is worth.

    Thomas Jefferson's View was that government shold not be allowed to take property under any circumsatances unless the owner voluntarilyparted with it. he got that view from wathcing the wretched results that obtained from the ususal European practice of that time: government takings, at will, and NO compensation.

    The activists in question could care less about impact fees: what they want is to not collect them by avoiding/preventing the impacts in the first place.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray,

    I agree that when the government takes private property, as the courts have defined "taking," there needs to be compensation. For example, it appears that, to accommodate the get-rich scheme of the Tysons landowners, some portions of private lots will need to be taken for expansion of the Dulles Toll Road. Those takings must be compensated.

    With a single exception of which I am aware, there has never been any density taken away in Fairfax County. With respect to Tysons Corner, Jim Zook, head of county planning and zoning, has told the landowners that no one will lose any existing development rights. The county will correct any downzoning that can be shown to have occurred.

    We are talking only about upzoning, which will generate huge capital needs for infrastructure. Those who benefit from the upzoning should pay most of the costs for the public facilities that are needed to support the increased density. That is the only point I am making. Put the costs of density on the backs of those who benefit from density. No more; no less.

    TMT

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oil, like all commodities, has been rising, pushed higher by increased demand and a weak U.S. dollar.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "…there has never been any density taken away in Fairfax County."

    Not true. If I tried to build my present house today, under todays rules, I would not be allowed to build it.

    Anyone who owned a lot similar to mine would have had density taken away from them.

    All we are arguing about, then is how courts have defined takings. I argue that the core issue is unambiguous according to the Constitution: If the government takes (any) property for public use, then it must be compensated.

    The courts have interpreted this as "Only if the government takes ALL of you property for public use, must you be compensated."

    Those who stand to gain from this have gamed the system by redefining what is property, and by redifining what is public use. Incrementally they have taken more and more and more rights until finally the courts and landowners are saying eneough already.

    On the one hand the courts have defined property as a bundle of sticks, on the other hand they have defined as taking sa having occurred only if someone takes the whole bundle of sticks. This is illogical and inconsistent. If you takeone of my sticks,then you have taken my property and I should be compensated.

    This is a reasonable and sensible safeguard that prevents government from actually wasting money by taking property it does not need, simply because it can get it for free.

    RH

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Those who benefit from the upzoning should pay most of the costs for the public facilities that are needed to support the increased density."

    And the only point I'm making is that if we accept that argument we must also accept the reverse of that argument. Those who benefit fromm downzoning and other forms of regulatory taking should pay the costs. Put another way, those who absorb the costs should be compensated.

    I'll go even further and say that although you may not see it, or agree that it exists, you will probably get SOME financial benefit out of what happens at Tysons. We can disagree about how much that is or when it will occur, but you should expect to pay (proprtionately) for th ebenefits you get, just as you expect the landowners at Tysons to pay (substantially) for the benfits they get.

    I would point (again) to the long term difference in individual wealth and individual income which exists today in Loudoun Vs Fauquier counties, whereas 30 years ago they were virtually identical.

    The difference being growth and development. Arguably, everyone in Loudoun has benefited, even if to differing degrees. So why should the costs accrue ONLY to those doing the developing?

    RH

    RH

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT