3 ms·

Protected view is an oversimplification. As in, whilst the law names, and officially only ensures protected views, the actual effects of that law go a little fu

Protected view is an oversimplification. As in, whilst the law names, and officially only ensures protected views, the actual effects of that law go a little further than that and I bet plenty in the law making profession are aware of this, but feel that the law as is is sufficient. Specifically: The protected view law reduces crowding. Without it, the # of folks living per square kilometer in London would be higher than it is right now, and that would mean London needs to expand all sorts of services (medical, public transport, heck, even the # of butchers and the like), needs to deal with more concentrated pollution, and in general just needs to 'run better' just to keep up the same standard. And that is not a stupid goal. Yes, it clashes with affordable rent. I have no solutions, just pointing out that the idea 'hey, affordable rent is way more important than protected views, so, duh, get rid of that law!' is probably a bit shortsighted.

avar 8y ago
It is a stupid way to achieve the goal because if you're legitimately trying to mitigate other specific things you could tax for those things. E.g. for one example you mentioned allow new development, but set trash disposal fees at some absurd amount. It also assumes a zero-sum economy. Once you have more population density you have more of a tax base to pay for all those things, and some fixed costs go down as density goes up. The claim that public transit of all things is going to get worse with higher density is, frankly, ridiculous. If it really persists as a problem you can use the extra money from the new tax base to bring in urban planners from Tokyo. > I have no solutions[...] I have one to address NIMBY-ism everywhere: We say sure, you can have "protected views" or whatever, but then you need to pay market value for those things. We'll see how long that lasts when people need to pay out of pocket for the opportunity cost of not constructing a skyscraper just to occasionally enjoy the view, as opposed to incumbents getting to vote for "free" and getting the direct benefit of their property values rising.

avar 8y ago

It is a stupid way to achieve the goal because if you're legitimately trying to mitigate other specific things you could tax for those things. E.g. for one example you mentioned allow new development, but set trash disposal fees at some absurd amount. It also assumes a zero-sum economy. Once you have more population density you have more of a tax base to pay for all those things, and some fixed costs go down as density goes up. The claim that public transit of all things is going to get worse with higher density is, frankly, ridiculous. If it really persists as a problem you can use the extra money from the new tax base to bring in urban planners from Tokyo. > I have no solutions[...] I have one to address NIMBY-ism everywhere: We say sure, you can have "protected views" or whatever, but then you need to pay market value for those things. We'll see how long that lasts when people need to pay out of pocket for the opportunity cost of not constructing a skyscraper just to occasionally enjoy the view, as opposed to incumbents getting to vote for "free" and getting the direct benefit of their property values rising.