5 ms·

If you wanna go that route, the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place, and any increase in value created

If you wanna go that route, the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place, and any increase in value created due to zoning should have been recuperated via a land tax.

conanbatt 9y ago
> , the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place That's not really true. The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours and you are now trespassing get out. Zoning is a rulebook the state invented, it has to be held accountable to some degree for it. I wouldn't call it reasonable for the state to turn the houses around you into garbage landfills and telling you 'tough luck'
- Ygg2 9y ago
  > The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours Depends on context. A state can decide to nationalize private property.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    And has to compensate you for it.
    - Ygg2 9y ago
      In theory, in practice might be a pittance + we won't send you to jail.
- saosebastiao 9y ago
  The primary reason why some land is more valuable than other land is due to the government. When the government builds roads, pipelines, sewer systems, transit systems, schools, emergency services, etc., land values go up. In our system, the landowner profits from this, not the government. So if the government happens to do something that makes land values go down, why shouldn’t the landowner take the loss too? Privatize profits and socialize losses is an unsustainable modus operandi of government. You get what is on the deed, no more, no less. When you buy land, you assume risks. Just like stocks, there are no guarantees of resale value. The government can’t revoke your ownership (outside of criminal use of property), but the government is free to do any number of things that inevitably alter what some people will pay for it. If you want to counter that risk, go buy some insurance, an easement, or all of the adjacent property. The government doesn’t owe you a dime for allowing property owners to do something with their own property that you or potential buyers of your property happen to not like.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Well, if the state does not compensate me as an owner for damaging things it will do around my property, i will lobby and vote against it and thus nothing will happen. How is that a win.
    - saosebastiao 9y ago
      And that is exactly what has happened here in the western US, right up until the point where it caused housing prices to shoot through the roof, displacing or inflating away the earnings of millions of people who also have the right to vote.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        A buy out is a way out of the problem. Thats precisely the point of compensation, reducing the animosity against it.
        saosebastiao 9y ago
        Privatizing profits and socializing losses always reduces animosity. It’s also a perverse incentive, and should never ever be done.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > In our system, the landowner profits from this, not the government. This however misses one important point. They build it using taxpayers' money. So, if I give you money and tell you "please build me a shed" and then benefit from the shed, of course I keep all the benefits - after all, this shed was built for me with my own money! > The primary reason why some land is more valuable than other land is due to the government. This is probably not true either. The primary reason why some land is valuable, usually, is location, location, location. It can be close to natural things or to things built by people (e.g. a house within 10min drive of Google campus is probably more valuable than a similar one which has 2hr commute to the closest source of employment). Government-built infrastructure is important too, but usually secondary - nobody would build schools or transit systems in place where nobody wants to live, and people rarely move somewhere just because of sewer and transit system.

conanbatt 9y ago

> , the value created or destroyed by a change in laws never belonged to the owner in the first place That's not really true. The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours and you are now trespassing get out. Zoning is a rulebook the state invented, it has to be held accountable to some degree for it. I wouldn't call it reasonable for the state to turn the houses around you into garbage landfills and telling you 'tough luck'

Ygg2 9y ago
> The state can't pass a law saying your house was actually never yours Depends on context. A state can decide to nationalize private property.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  And has to compensate you for it.
  - Ygg2 9y ago
    In theory, in practice might be a pittance + we won't send you to jail.
saosebastiao 9y ago
The primary reason why some land is more valuable than other land is due to the government. When the government builds roads, pipelines, sewer systems, transit systems, schools, emergency services, etc., land values go up. In our system, the landowner profits from this, not the government. So if the government happens to do something that makes land values go down, why shouldn’t the landowner take the loss too? Privatize profits and socialize losses is an unsustainable modus operandi of government. You get what is on the deed, no more, no less. When you buy land, you assume risks. Just like stocks, there are no guarantees of resale value. The government can’t revoke your ownership (outside of criminal use of property), but the government is free to do any number of things that inevitably alter what some people will pay for it. If you want to counter that risk, go buy some insurance, an easement, or all of the adjacent property. The government doesn’t owe you a dime for allowing property owners to do something with their own property that you or potential buyers of your property happen to not like.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Well, if the state does not compensate me as an owner for damaging things it will do around my property, i will lobby and vote against it and thus nothing will happen. How is that a win.
  - saosebastiao 9y ago
    And that is exactly what has happened here in the western US, right up until the point where it caused housing prices to shoot through the roof, displacing or inflating away the earnings of millions of people who also have the right to vote.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      A buy out is a way out of the problem. Thats precisely the point of compensation, reducing the animosity against it.
      - saosebastiao 9y ago
        Privatizing profits and socializing losses always reduces animosity. It’s also a perverse incentive, and should never ever be done.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > In our system, the landowner profits from this, not the government. This however misses one important point. They build it using taxpayers' money. So, if I give you money and tell you "please build me a shed" and then benefit from the shed, of course I keep all the benefits - after all, this shed was built for me with my own money! > The primary reason why some land is more valuable than other land is due to the government. This is probably not true either. The primary reason why some land is valuable, usually, is location, location, location. It can be close to natural things or to things built by people (e.g. a house within 10min drive of Google campus is probably more valuable than a similar one which has 2hr commute to the closest source of employment). Government-built infrastructure is important too, but usually secondary - nobody would build schools or transit systems in place where nobody wants to live, and people rarely move somewhere just because of sewer and transit system.