3 ms·

This is certainly a factor with any investment, because they may only be able to effectively utilize a certain amount of assets. With that being said, I think

by Vraxx 10y ago

This is certainly a factor with any investment, because they may only be able to effectively utilize a certain amount of assets. With that being said, I think that it is a reasonable expectation that investing into the area would inflate the values of the property in that area, which directly translates into increased tax revenue (profit). Obviously too much too quickly and you might run into the aforementioned limit of effective asset utilization, but that isn't what the author was suggesting.

nostromo 10y ago
Increasing the value of land without increasing the incomes of the people who live on that land leads to displacement and gentrification. The goal of a city shouldn't be to increase land values -- it should be to increase the affluence of residents.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  I don't think that displacement alone is a reason to avoid an action necessarily. I say this because while it may not be increasing their income, even if they were displaced they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property). I'd also argue that the status quo of letting the area languish is hardly a better alternative for your stated goal (increasing the affluence of it's residents). It seems to be a dichotomy, but I don't think it's a decision between displace everyone or do nothing and displace nobody. Given the tools that a municipality actually has to increase the affluence of it's residents, I think making their living area nicer probably has the best shot at doing so because it might attract better opportunities than might normally frequent the area. Last thought, what do you think these municipalities should do instead of minor QoL improvements that might modestly increase average property value (as stated in the article)?
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    > they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property) and for displaced renters?

by Vraxx 10y ago

nostromo 10y ago

Increasing the value of land without increasing the incomes of the people who live on that land leads to displacement and gentrification. The goal of a city shouldn't be to increase land values -- it should be to increase the affluence of residents.

Vraxx 10y ago
I don't think that displacement alone is a reason to avoid an action necessarily. I say this because while it may not be increasing their income, even if they were displaced they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property). I'd also argue that the status quo of letting the area languish is hardly a better alternative for your stated goal (increasing the affluence of it's residents). It seems to be a dichotomy, but I don't think it's a decision between displace everyone or do nothing and displace nobody. Given the tools that a municipality actually has to increase the affluence of it's residents, I think making their living area nicer probably has the best shot at doing so because it might attract better opportunities than might normally frequent the area. Last thought, what do you think these municipalities should do instead of minor QoL improvements that might modestly increase average property value (as stated in the article)?
- sqeaky 10y ago
  > they would get more money for being displaced (when selling the property) and for displaced renters?