4 ms·

How exactly would this proposal require a huge amount of capital to build? Your solution is to effectively steal the rights of the owners of the land (by takin

How exactly would this proposal require a huge amount of capital to build? Your solution is to effectively steal the rights of the owners of the land (by taking away their ability to control density) without compensation and hand a windfall to developers. How do you think we ended up in the current NIMBYism situation?

nwah1 8y ago
Titleholders are merely stewards, at best, and it is they who regularly receive windfalls from the productive activity of surrounding individuals. The public are the real owners of the land.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  You might find the titleholders disagree with this view and they have a rather large amount of power hence why we have developmental gridlock.
joe_the_user 8y ago
How exactly would this proposal require a huge amount of capital to build? With your "reverse auction" approach, the would-be builder has to spend money on both out-bidding others who who'd prefer other uses AND has to spend on the actual cost of building, so two/double costs. Your solution is to effectively steal the rights of the owners of the land. My approach modifies the rights of title holders. It's no more stealing than more other measures (such zoning) because it happens in the bounds of the right. Indeed, I am simply proposing extra-aggressive zoning to encourage density. Moreover, your approach also modifies land-holder rights. I mean, landholder have never had unconditional control of their land, that control has devolved to the state or the sovereign all the way back to medieval times and before.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  I don't think you actually understand how a reverse Dutch auction works. The developers aren't bidding against other developers, developers are saying how much they are willing to pay and communities are bidding against each other to get the development. Yes they will have to share some of their profits with the community, but it is better for everyone than the current approach of fight it out through the courts or paying off some corrupt officials. Your proposal is to take away the rights of the titleholders to achieve the outcome you want (more development in certain locations). While totally non-democratic, this approach is doomed to fail as it is the reason the current development paralysis has occurred. Start taking away the rights of people and surprise, surprise they fight back. Let's instead find an approach where everyone wins.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    I don't think you actually understand how a reverse Dutch auction works. The developers aren't bidding against other developers, developers are saying how much they are willing to pay and communities are bidding against each other to get the development. No, that's exactly what I'm objecting to. The more bidders in an auction, the higher the price, the high the price, the larger the cost of development. This effectively a device to impose an extra tax on people choosing one land use over another. The whole of NIMBY is a (supposed) community of home owners able to stop development. The story told for this safe streets and "community feeling" but the actual aim and result higher home values at the expense of a bizarrely distorted market. Today, "the community", other property owners, toss money into legal devices to stop development using environmental impact other ad-hoc methods to stop one property owner from using their property as they wish. In a lot of ways, this confused scheme is codifying this disaster. What I'd advocate is instead rationalizing the zoning process so the health of an entire region is considered. Have much more definite guidelines about what and where developers can build, remove the million had now infesting development.

nwah1 8y ago

Titleholders are merely stewards, at best, and it is they who regularly receive windfalls from the productive activity of surrounding individuals. The public are the real owners of the land.

danieltillett 8y ago
You might find the titleholders disagree with this view and they have a rather large amount of power hence why we have developmental gridlock.

joe_the_user 8y ago

How exactly would this proposal require a huge amount of capital to build? With your "reverse auction" approach, the would-be builder has to spend money on both out-bidding others who who'd prefer other uses AND has to spend on the actual cost of building, so two/double costs. Your solution is to effectively steal the rights of the owners of the land. My approach modifies the rights of title holders. It's no more stealing than more other measures (such zoning) because it happens in the bounds of the right. Indeed, I am simply proposing extra-aggressive zoning to encourage density. Moreover, your approach also modifies land-holder rights. I mean, landholder have never had unconditional control of their land, that control has devolved to the state or the sovereign all the way back to medieval times and before.

danieltillett 8y ago
I don't think you actually understand how a reverse Dutch auction works. The developers aren't bidding against other developers, developers are saying how much they are willing to pay and communities are bidding against each other to get the development. Yes they will have to share some of their profits with the community, but it is better for everyone than the current approach of fight it out through the courts or paying off some corrupt officials. Your proposal is to take away the rights of the titleholders to achieve the outcome you want (more development in certain locations). While totally non-democratic, this approach is doomed to fail as it is the reason the current development paralysis has occurred. Start taking away the rights of people and surprise, surprise they fight back. Let's instead find an approach where everyone wins.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  I don't think you actually understand how a reverse Dutch auction works. The developers aren't bidding against other developers, developers are saying how much they are willing to pay and communities are bidding against each other to get the development. No, that's exactly what I'm objecting to. The more bidders in an auction, the higher the price, the high the price, the larger the cost of development. This effectively a device to impose an extra tax on people choosing one land use over another. The whole of NIMBY is a (supposed) community of home owners able to stop development. The story told for this safe streets and "community feeling" but the actual aim and result higher home values at the expense of a bizarrely distorted market. Today, "the community", other property owners, toss money into legal devices to stop development using environmental impact other ad-hoc methods to stop one property owner from using their property as they wish. In a lot of ways, this confused scheme is codifying this disaster. What I'd advocate is instead rationalizing the zoning process so the health of an entire region is considered. Have much more definite guidelines about what and where developers can build, remove the million had now infesting development.