Re:Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy
by toss1 on Tuesday June 21, 2022 @04:07PM
(#31828529)
Glad to see that you are active and not merely performative (presuming that you have actually done any of this), and you're welcome.
I completely agree about increasing scrutiny on and taxation of owners for whom it is not their primary residence, e.g., "passive income" rentiers, full-time AirBNB hosts, etc.. These dramatically reduce available housing stock and increase costs (renters pay not only the full costs of the property but also the owner's profits).
That said, you are now squarely in the camp of restricting what people do with property that you do not own - exactly what you didn't like about my position.
This also brings us to the reality of why zoning was created.
It was specifically because people did NOT like the results of no zoning: anyone who owns the land can do whatever the fck they want with it.
This always creates externalities that impose costs on the neighbors, whether pollution, noise, light, safety issues, traffic, blight, or whatever. I watched a town where I lived which had eliminated zoning — with the methods you described — then found that all kinds of problems happen, and then they PUT BACK STRONGER ZONING.
Also look at another contradiction in your position. You say anyone should be able to build whatever the fck they want on their land. What that likely means is many more rental units. This will not substantially improve the lot of the renters, as it will be like the highway building paradox wherein adding more lanes brings more congestion; after a possible brief reduction for new competition, the rents won't decrease.
What you probably want is more actual purchasable housing stock at more reasonable prices, so be careful what you ask for. Just killing zoning will get more of what you don't want.
I also note that you are looking at a different kind of community than mine. I'm in a quasi-rural exurb (literally horses, cows, chickens on our street) with a town meeting and select-person govt, not a town/city council. The residents actually come to town meeting — often a multi-evening or all-day affair — and vote on almost everything, instead of electing town reps that make all the decisions. It is also a very substantial commute to the nearest city and zero public transport - for example, implementing low-income housing would force any owner to own a car, which puts them kind of out of the low-income category. So we may be talking about quite different ends of the issues.
I completely agree about increasing scrutiny on and taxation of owners for whom it is not their primary residence, e.g., "passive income" rentiers, full-time AirBNB hosts, etc.. These dramatically reduce available housing stock and increase costs (renters pay not only the full costs of the property but also the owner's profits).
That said, you are now squarely in the camp of restricting what people do with property that you do not own - exactly what you didn't like about my position.
This also brings us to the reality of why zoning was created.
It was specifically because people did NOT like the results of no zoning: anyone who owns the land can do whatever the fck they want with it.
This always creates externalities that impose costs on the neighbors, whether pollution, noise, light, safety issues, traffic, blight, or whatever. I watched a town where I lived which had eliminated zoning — with the methods you described — then found that all kinds of problems happen, and then they PUT BACK STRONGER ZONING.
Also look at another contradiction in your position. You say anyone should be able to build whatever the fck they want on their land. What that likely means is many more rental units. This will not substantially improve the lot of the renters, as it will be like the highway building paradox wherein adding more lanes brings more congestion; after a possible brief reduction for new competition, the rents won't decrease.
What you probably want is more actual purchasable housing stock at more reasonable prices, so be careful what you ask for. Just killing zoning will get more of what you don't want.
I also note that you are looking at a different kind of community than mine. I'm in a quasi-rural exurb (literally horses, cows, chickens on our street) with a town meeting and select-person govt, not a town/city council. The residents actually come to town meeting — often a multi-evening or all-day affair — and vote on almost everything, instead of electing town reps that make all the decisions. It is also a very substantial commute to the nearest city and zero public transport - for example, implementing low-income housing would force any owner to own a car, which puts them kind of out of the low-income category. So we may be talking about quite different ends of the issues.