2 ms·

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

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.

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.