3 ms·
>Perhaps a large tax on new developments that is redistributed out to nearby property owners? Surely if this would work, developers would already be bribing NI
by aninhumer 10y ago
>Perhaps a large tax on new developments that is redistributed out to nearby property owners?
Surely if this would work, developers would already be bribing NIMBYs directly? If they can't profit after the bribe, then they can't profit after the tax either.
- smallnamespace 10y agoThere's significant friction in trying to bribe people out directly (e.g. did you bribe the right people, and did you pay them the right amount?). Every single transaction needs to be separately negotiated, and the developer, unlike the state, doesn't have access to all the existing value of the people they're negotiating with. The point of codifying this sort of payout is so that approval would happen automatically -- i.e. the law says the developer gets green lighted as long as they pay. Basically the 'negotiation' between developers and the community happens only once, during the legislative debate.
- jessaustin 10y agoIt is a fact about legislatures that this sort of negotiation would take place again every year. Places with not enough housing would want lower rates, big developers would want the scheme to be restructured so that only their accountants and lawyers could figure it out, schools (and eventually numerous other public services) would want a piece of the action, etc. And NIMBYs would still protest new development. I upvoted you because you do identify a real challenge with bribery; but this solution won't solve that problem.
- smallnamespace 10y agoI agree - certainly not convinced that this particular idea is a workable solution, but any eventual fix will definitely look like bribery just because of the political dynamics here.