4 ms·
Is there no way that the government can buy large plots of land around planned stations, build the railroad and then sell back the land?
by taffer 7y ago
Is there no way that the government can buy large plots of land around planned stations, build the railroad and then sell back the land?
- timerol 7y agoThe government can, via eminent domain. This is how private railroads in the US were financed in the 1800s. The companies paid for land at pre-development prices via eminent domain, then built the railroad, then sold the much-improved land at higher prices. Basically, the land appreciation covered the capital costs, and fares only covered the operating costs. Japan and Hong Kong still use this strategy, and the new private railways in the US are attempting to do it as well. (Virgin Trains and Texas Central)
- Kalium 7y agoYes, with the caveat that none of those are fast and this is the kind of thing that can easily lose elections.
- saagarjha 7y agoWouldn't that drive up the prices of the land?
- taffer 7y agoThe only thing that could drive up the land prices is that some landowners try to hold out to demand unreasonably high prices. So what you need is a kind of squeeze-out mechanism like "If 2/3 of the landowners are willing to sell their land for price X, then the remaining 1/3 must sell for the same price".
- com2kid 7y agoThat is happening as well, land owners go to court to delay development, solely to wait for prices to increase. There are places were price to build out transit have skyrocketed because of this exact tactic being used.
- jdavis703 7y agoSure the government could do it. But any city council that tried to do this would likely find themselves voted out. Case in point: it was a tough push to get AB 2923 through the CA legislature. It allowed BART to build dense housing on their own parking lots. Thankfully common sense prevailed. The bill was approved and BART is now using their power to plan for more transit oriented development.
- taffer 7y ago> Sure the government could do it. But any city council that tried to do this would likely find themselves voted out. Who votes them out and with what arguments?
- cgy1 7y agoMostly people who moved into what was a sleepy suburb 30 years ago wanting it to remain a sleepy suburb.
- wbl 7y agoSleepy suburb with Sun headquarters.
- Decade 7y agoThis makes it not just unnatural but an injustice. The sleepy suburb gets the commercial revenue from having a major tech firm, and then most of the workers leave and the residentialists get to keep the revenue for their city services. The service workers who had to drive until they qualified, they go home to more far-flung suburbs with financial problems and poor services. This is segregation by deliberate policy. But it’s starting to fall apart. When there were still nearby orchards to pave to put up parking lots, the new homes were cheaper than they are today, and the rich suburb could still hire workers to provide the services. Now that there’s not enough room for both new single-family homes and parking lots, and they are refusing to allow sufficient multi-family housing, the housing supply is not keeping up with demand and the service workers are increasingly refusing to take the jobs. This is manifesting as chronic short-handedness in the schools, in the police and fire departments, in the transit agencies. By greedily holding onto commercial revenues, these suburbs are destroying their own ability to provide services.
- cagenut 7y agoif you're interested google "transit value capture", its a re-emerging trend in infrastructure finance and development.