Never quit going uphill

'Never quit in town, never quit going uphill, never quit in the rain. If you are going to quit, it has to be on top of a ridge, with the wind in your face. You never walk away weaker, you walk away stronger' This quote is from the book Just Passin' Thru: A Vintage Store, the Appalachian Trail, and a Caste of Unforgettable Characters by Winton Porter. He bought a store on the Appalachian Trail that serves as the first destination for through hikers coming north from the start in Georgia. One of the people highlighted in the book goes by the trail name Billy Bumblefoot and those are his words of wisdom.

When you're hiking 2000+ miles, carrying everything you need on your back there will obviously be hundreds of moments you'll want to quit. When you've just spent a night or two in town, with running water, real food, air conditioning, its easy to think 'why go back out there?' Struggling up a mountain, being soaked and shivering, those are the times its easy to throw in the towel and give up. The challenge is to wait for those glorious moments, when you've conquered the mountain, when the wind is drying the sweat from your brow, that's when you can decide to quit and be able to walk away with your head up and proud. Its when you've reached the top of your game, the pinnacle, that its okay to quit. Most of us won't through hike the Appalachian Trail but we will be confronted with moments we want to quit. On that last set of dead lifts, the fifth public meeting you know only five people will attend, whatever it is, we all face those times we want to give up.

Think about your life and things you've quit on. Did you quit at the point of greatest challenge or at the point of greatest accomplishment?

Irrational Growth or just Free Market at Work?

I read an article in the New York Times online yesterday and it spurred a lot of thought and a lively discussion with some friends on Facebook. The gist of the story is that despite a 60% decline in home prices, nearly 10,000 new homes sitting vacant, almost 6,000 repossessed just this year, Las Vegas is experiencing a bit of a building boom. New homes are being built and sold despite the oversupply of existing homes. On the surface, it seems completely irrational to continue building despite an oversupply; however, if the homes are selling then who are we to stop it? Also, for those in construction, real estate, etc. this is a very good thing because it means jobs.

That being said there are tremendous public costs created by this overdevelopment. The roads, water and sewer lines, and other utilities that were built to serve those now vacant and dying neighborhoods are going to be maintained by local governments (read TAXPAYERS). The public safety issues of ensuring these vacant homes don't become meth labs, etc. need to be considered as well. Detroit is the extreme example of a community grappling with the very issue of how to manage abandoned neighborhoods. It seems to me Las Vegas is creating this exact scenario for itself by continuing to build in spite of the existing oversupply.

So, some questions that I'd love somebody to answer: First, do the buyers of these homes really believe they are going to see appreciation in their home investment? (see Dutch Tulip Craze as example of irrational buying and oversupply)
Second, how is this financially feasible? How does it pencil out to loan money for this kind of project? I would love for a banker to let me know on this one.
Third, how will local governments respond to increasing costs of service on the infrastructure and public safety serving these dying neighborhoods?
Fourth, what about the families who invested in a home in those now dying neighborhoods? Not everyone is willing to walk away from their home and they are now stuck in virtual ghost towns.
Finally, why does the Federal government subsidize this irrationality with FHA loans, tax credits, etc? Homeownership is not a right, but has been treated as such for generations. This is part of what got us into the mess in the first place by making everyone think they 'deserved' a new home whether they really could afford it or not.

So that's the conflict. This is the free market, suppliers (developers) are responding to demand (homebuyers). This is a good thing in many ways and is creating jobs, etc. However, is the market in this case being way too short sighted? What is the proper government response given that the government (meaning TAXPAYERS) are ultimately going to be responsible for many costs associated with this growth? How do we balance the free market with the inevitable public costs the free market creates? Would 'clawback' provisions, like those used in economic development be appropriate? Developers have to post bonds and if their neighborhood doesn't pan out they have to pay to demolish it or mothball it until demand is there?

If I had the answers to questions like these I'd be sitting on a beach not sitting in a cube writing a blog...