28 
In many cases a city dweller in his flight to the suburbs may build 
his house in the middle of a vacant 1 acre lot. In doing this, he will 
have unwittingly insured greater infrastructure costs for himself if 
the suburban development becomes sufficiently urban to require a 
central sewer system. Wilbur Thompson describes these hidden costs: 
Then, what was gracious living on ex-urban lots becomes suburban sprawl, 
too densely populated to be rural and too sparsely populated to be efficiently 
urban, and property taxes rise to ‘‘confiscatory”’ levels. For example, an assessment 
of $2,000 per acre for a storm drain trunk line comes to a staggering 14 percent of 
the value of a $15,000 home, with laterals and catch basins still to come and 
sanitary sewers to follow.?? 
In addition to the advantages listed above, new communities—if 
Government controlled and ‘subsidized to some extent—hold out the 
prospect of (1) increasing the housing supply for low- and moderate- 
income people while reducing the costs of infrastructure, services, and 
facilities and (2) maximizing the employment potential of low- and 
moderate-income workers. It has been pointed out that new com- 
munities can provide unique opportunities for the construction of 
large quantities of new housing at moderate prices: 
The economies of producing housing on a large scale in a single area reduce 
the cost considerably. The large-staged market will enable builders to organize 
their time and work efficiently : . . and perhaps, of even greater significance, 
are the possibilities of experimenting with new technology in housing production; 
technologies that many large and exceedingly competent corporations have been 
investigating and which they are eager to put into practice. It is also possible that. 
the volume of housing production in new communities could free many existing 
suburban units for purchase by moderate incoeme people.*8 
In addition, new community development may help to solve several 
other problems associated with providing sufficient housing for all 
eroups of people.*? 
First, new sources of investment funds—sources outside the traditional capital 
market—can be tapped. Second, new communities can solve the problems of site 
assembly that so often frustrate housing entrepreneurs in already developed 
areas. Third, they can provide land for housing development at substantially 
lower costs (per acre through large lot acquisition)—and it is sharply rising costs 
of land that has priced many builders out of the market; this is especially true of 
the small builder, the characteristic unit of production in the industry. For new 
communities ean provide a continuing supply of housing sites for smaller entre- 
preneurs at rates far below the $250,000 per acre paid for slum buildings to be 
razed in renewal areas or far out land that has risen in value as much as 2,000 
percent in rapidly expanding urban centers.* * * 40 
Another, and perhaps more important, argument made in favor of 
new community development is that large-scale planned urban growth 
can insure low and moderate income families (especially black families 
which have been confined to the ner city ghetto) a better oppor- 
tunity to secure jobs and to achieve upward economic mobility. 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau only 5 percent of black Ameri- 
cans live in the suburbs. Yet, suburbia is where nearly 80 percent of the 
Nation’s new jobs are. During the 1960’s, industries in increasing 
AS Thompson, ‘‘A Preface to Urban Economics’? (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press), 1968, pp. 
88 Harr, op. cit. The basic difficulties of building industrialized housing (presuming the production tech- 
nology can be mastered) are “making a market”’ for new applications, transporting and stocking standard 
parts and pieces, and restrictive building regulations. 
49 Albert Katz, ““Lower Rent Cost—Net Social Gains Through New Towns,” ‘Land Economics,’’ 1962. 
40 Harr, op. cit., p. 5. 
