>That is because in the case of a goog share you arent telling someone else what they can do with their share. The same way with the proposed city stock shares

>That is because in the case of a goog share you arent telling someone else what they can do with their share. The same way with the proposed city stock shares - nobody is going to tell you what you can do with it. >Instead, SFH are being allowed to have more options for what to do with their property. no. It is a rich&powerful well-connected developer who is getting zoning changes and only to his properties (similar to the situation when only the major shareholder would get additional stock/dividend issued for free) at the cost to all the other residents and property owners. Privatization of profits with socialization of costs - the main reason for the NIMBY. >In fact giving more options for property actually increases the value of that property. Nobody is giving more options. Uniform re-zoning never practically happens. It is always a targeted action for the benefit of specific powerful developer who has already at least got an option on those targeted properties. At least the common stock schema i propose would allow to spread some of those gains toward all the others who also bear the costs, ie. the whole city.