Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Accessing costs


One of the most contentious issues in human dynamics involves the allocation of costs for items that are held "in common".

Many anthropologists believe that "hydraulic" projects like irrigation canals and drainage ditches were the test bed that created workable government institutions.  The Wikipedia article (attached) makes the spurious claim that these institutions were voluntary.

Today's discussion at coffee involved assessments for drains but it could have just as easily applied to roads, bridges, access to cable TV or public transport.  Its broad applicability makes it a dandy topic for blogging.

Starting simple


Imagine a subdivision.  The public road runs at the bottom of this map.  For this first swing at the problem, let's pretend that the road up the center of the subdivision does not exist.

Lot A has access to the public road and gains no advantage from the private drive.  The addition of the private drive does not cause the value of the lot to appreciate.

Lot B cannot run a drive to the public road due to a wetland. The private drive must extend 250 feet to be functional for Lot B.  The addition of the private drive raises the value of Lot B from approximately $5000 to approximately $30,000.  It makes economic sense to build the first 250 feet of the private drive if it can be done for less than $25,000.

Lots C and D have a value of approximately $3000 if the private drive stops 250 feet from the public road.  It needs to extend another 350 feet to be of any value to them.  The value of the lots both go to $20,000 if the drive extends that far.  It makes economic sense to extend the drive another 350 feet if it can be done for less than $34,000 (2X($20,000-$3000)).

Lots E and F, G and H, I and J all require an additional 300 feet and all stand to gain $17,000 in value.

Lots K and L also require an additional 300 feet but stand a net gain $35,000 each.

Allocating costs


One approach is to charge all 12 lot owners the same amount.  This has the advantage of simplicity but the disadvantage of hidden subsidies which leave some owners feeling bruised.
A is happy but C and D feel gouged.
Another approach is to charge based on number of incremental feet connecting each lot creates.
This is another approach.  It is probably economically cleanest to associated incremental costs assessed to incremental benefits accrued due to major capital improvements.
A third approach is to charge each lot proportional the incremental value building the drive created.

There is little conflict if the cost of building the drive is less than $100/foot.  Every lot shows a net gain from building the drive.  There is no conflict if the cost of building the drive is greater than $230/foot because everybody loses and the drive will not be built.  The highest degree of conflict will occur if the cost of building the private drive is in between those two costs.  Incidentally, the cumulative "break-even" point is $128/foot.


There is little conflict if the cost of building the drive is less than $40/foot.  Every lot shows a net gain from building the drive.  There is no conflict if the cost of building the drive is greater than $120/foot because everybody loses and the drive will not be built.  The highest degree of conflict will occur if the cost of building the drive is in between those two costs.
Picture reposted for convenience
It seems to be a common pattern for the lots that are furthest from the public road sell first.  That suggests that the lots closest to the public road are, in some ways, subsidizing the rearmost lots.  One proposal is that the lots closest to the public road bear all of the burdens of the HOA covenants but the benefits are the most diluted due to close proximity to non-HOA houses.

Maintenance


Maintenance is different than major capital improvements.  Activity based accounting principles tells us to associate costs back to the products, events, actors that created those costs.

Applying ABA principles to maintaining the private drive suggests that costs should be apportioned proportionate to the distance from the public road.  Owners of lots L and K drive more feet on the private drive per month and thus trigger more maintenance.

Games that get played


Some developers will sell slightly less than half the lots in a subdivision.  Still having the majority of the votes, they can push through road surface upgrades (like paving) and jack up the prices on the remaining lots.  The developer get the benefit of having previous home owners subsidizing the cost of paving and can reap a disproportionate share of the benefit.

3 comments:

  1. I learned, at my father's knee, to never buy a home on the perimeter of a development, or on a main road. Future expansions of roads often are accompanied by eminent domain takings, and houses on busy highways warrant special measures when little kids are involved. The main road can become a liability instead of an asset.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry I have been gone for so long. I looked over some of the posts you have made while I have been busy. I especially enjoyed the one about the evil corporations and how they are really often the only ones in a position to be able to do anything to help people. The only issue of contention I have is that often corporations get so big that rules made are levied corporate wide, which then are found to be unworkable in other parts of the country, but corporate politics can be too dumb to change.
    Case in point, I work in a mobile home park here in MI. We are trying to sell vacant homes, but corporate just informed us that vacant homes must have all utilities turned off. Now, corporate offices are in warm Texas. They don't understand that it is next to impossible to sell a vacant mobile home in a MI winter with no heat or lights. But since it is a corporate wide policy, there is no fighting it. I have been frustrated by big corporations before, in similar ways.
    I just wanted to also let you know that I have written an article for a website called the Zelman Partisans. It was posted today. They are a kind of spinoff from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or JPFO. I had been lurking there for awhile, commenting, and they were looking for guest writers, so I volunteered. I was amazed to have Claire Wolfe, from the Backwoods Home magazine write to me and ask me to write for them. She worked with me and so I now have my first article online. It's not a big deal, but it is a start. I owe it all to the many people like you who are gracious enough to let me take over from time to time. And so I thank you. And I wish you a great New Year, with safety for your family and blessings from the Lord for everyone in your circle.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Teeth Night Guard is providing personalized fitting and highest quality custom made dental protectors.

    ReplyDelete