5 ms·

All those other considerations you mention will play a role, but they will affect the final sale price and hence the undeveloped land value. Developers will be

All those other considerations you mention will play a role, but they will affect the final sale price and hence the undeveloped land value. Developers will be worried about the spread between site acquisition costs (land + development bid cost) and final sale price. Locations with problems will have lower undeveloped land values. In practice this proposal would work best when land owners and communities work together to put together potential sites that meet developers needs. I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. Since the bid will be public there is no way to payoff someone in the planning department to get approval for your development. Of course from my perspective this is a feature not a bug.

schoen 8y ago
> I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. I would think if there were a lot of developers and a lot of parcels, an alternative is that there would be more supply-side competition for housing and then better-quality housing would be more affordable overall. Do you see factors preventing this outcome from being likely?
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Yes once you unblocked the planning process then you would get a lot of building since you would open up a lot of land that right now can’t be developed due to local opposition. It would also lower the barriers to entry for new developers as more would start to look outside their immediate area where they have their corrupt local government connections. The end result is everyone should win - communities get the development that want, landowners get a higher price, and the honest developers can compete with the corrupt. The only losers are the corrupt.

schoen 8y ago

> I think developers will hate this idea because instead of the whole surplus going to them and their corrupt buddies in government, it will have to be shared with the local community. I would think if there were a lot of developers and a lot of parcels, an alternative is that there would be more supply-side competition for housing and then better-quality housing would be more affordable overall. Do you see factors preventing this outcome from being likely?

danieltillett 8y ago
Yes once you unblocked the planning process then you would get a lot of building since you would open up a lot of land that right now can’t be developed due to local opposition. It would also lower the barriers to entry for new developers as more would start to look outside their immediate area where they have their corrupt local government connections. The end result is everyone should win - communities get the development that want, landowners get a higher price, and the honest developers can compete with the corrupt. The only losers are the corrupt.