It may be possible to create an extremely dense, high population, productive charter city with an enormous investment of capital, but it would be far easier to simply remove the restraints that hold back our existing cities.
If you want older people/property owning seniors on fixed incomes to move out, pay them. It’s as simple as that.
The truth is that most cannot pay. The value of the dollar they earn is imaginary. The whole system from Wall Street to wages to taxes is a Ponzi scheme.
Land has value. Water or access to water has value. Inherent value. Everything else is value-added. So you have to pay more for a resource that is fixed or shrinking while population increases.
It’s very simple. Buy it off people. OR. It’s far cheaper to add value upon affordable land and water. To not build on something available and abundant and to not ADD value to it is a poverty of creativity and intelligence. To want to evict older citizens or punitively tax them to displace them to take their land and water is not only lazy but also immoral.
No one is calling for Grandma to be evicted. Property taxes for residents could be allowed to accumulate unpaid until sale or transfer of a property.
So if accumulated property tax will remain unpaid, how does any of it help keep people ‘off the streets and no in squalor’?
What is the Big Plan?
If people are going to be taxed after their death, is it like a death tax? Forced charity?
Theft by proxy? This is literally thuggery. The current youth population and the government are working hand in hand as fellow thugs. And engaging in elder financial abuse.
However, there is a solution. One can impose hefty inheritance taxes. One can impose higher tax bracket for foreign owned properties. I would like to see that rather than citizens turning against citizens of their own country.
Further..has any of the YIMBYs sat in city council meetings and looked at city and county budgets. Or the state budget? There is a LOT of money. There are a lot of infrastructure improvements to be made that will make life better for everyone. And yet Sacramento does nothing.
None of the young non home owning YIMBY professionals ever question that. Perhaps because they have been indoctrinated in public school and taught fake economics. They have literally been hand fed to believe that nanny state is the best and higher taxes will solve everything. Perhaps it is this lack of financial literacy and responsibility that is causing them to be the handmaidens of the govt bureaucracy to act as thugs against middle class senior citizens.
Over crowded schools, inefficient DMVs, pot holes on roads, congested freeways, tolls on every stretch of freeways leading to Silicon Valley..Bart is a joke. Homeless on streets after billions spent. And more density on top of this inefficiency?
The value of the house is not in $ but the number of man hours that go into it. Maybe tax the kids and grandkids who get tax free and tax saving inheritances. Property tax is as valorem. There is no value added to a home until it’s sold at the new higher price.
Property taxes are a way for the government to make sure that you never truly own your home 100%. They are not a means for young professionals to avail free public education for their own kids. It’s double dipping since they already availed free education paid for by the very same seniors who paid by taxes to support public schools and build city infrastructure.
I am sorry to know that those who want their kids to be in nice neighbourhoods cant afford to pay rent or pay for private schools, but that’s no reason to promote elder abuse by way of punitive property tax increases to displace them from their homes to build more.
A satellite community of multiple such youthful communities is a win-win for all. That’s what real estate companies do, but they profit enormously from it with little value. They are building on top of existing infrastructure and not passing the monetary benefits of it and pocketing it for their purposes.
I am not being flippant because I have spent a few years on such a model. A community of 6000 can be supported in 600 acres that will actually not only be self sustaining but can also be income producing if you add farms and value added businesses for those who don’t wish full time jobs. There are monetary and communal benefits. There will be less reliance on govt and less wastage of resources.
120 is a good number because it would satisfy the Dunbar number limits. It shouldn’t be difficult to have a nice proportion of ageing, young and middle aged populations for diversity.
It’s just a modern tech supported version of eco villages and ..dare I say..cults. But they fail because they never take the necessary survival factor of monetary stability and most eschew technology. These don’t have to and will be better supported.