5 ms·

This kind of economic dysfunction is often cited as the reason to switch to a Land Value Tax, which is explained pretty well on Wikipedia[1]. It's also why so

This kind of economic dysfunction is often cited as the reason to switch to a Land Value Tax, which is explained pretty well on Wikipedia[1]. It's also why so many people were interested in SB-50[2], which would have overridden local zoning controls to allow higher density development around transit stops. I think the biggest challenge is the transition. The current system is broken, but we typically look at changes in terms of the desired end-state, and when we look at it that way it's clear that the change will be very disruptive to a lot of people who are benefiting from the status quo. Those are the people who turn out and ensure that the changes cannot go through - even if they might agree that the long-term outcome would be better. Strong Towns has done a good job emphasizing incrementalism in its approach to urban problems[3], but I'd love to see more of a conversation around this in a legal / regulatory context. Are there ways that we can undo the harm of bad regulations and transition to better ones that aren't so disruptive to the people who have built their lives around the current rules? What would those look like? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax 2: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... 3: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/5/incrementalism https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/5/incrementalism

zeveb 7y ago
One way would be to buy people off: figure out the net economic benefit to the city, county or state of changing the rules, and as part of the rule change grant some fraction of those dollars to those who change in the way we want. I can see two bug problems with this, one practical and one political. The practical one is that estimating benefit is a black art — we really can't trust anyone, partisan or non-partisan, to make accurate predictions of future economic benefits (there's a secondary practical sub-problem, which is that such an estimate would be ripe for capture). The political problem is that we'd end up rewarding those who have been benefiting all these years (e.g. all the homeowners with unrealistically low property taxes for the last four decades).
- ergothus 7y ago
  I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU (condos and apartments vs the single family homes that are here now). Plus, the city is widening the main road my house is on (overdue anyway, but will definitely be further needed with the traffic to the rail station). So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city, whichever comes first. It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST uncertainty. * Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far) * Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort? * And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.) When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of "suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty. Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5 years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why someone might push back. I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to move". It's been much more.
  - davidw 7y ago
    As someone very much in the YIMBY camp, I'd love for housing to be kind of 'boring' and 'steady'. I mean, it'd be good if prices in some places (the bay area) dropped a lot, but by and large it'd be nice if they became fairly steady and predictable so that people could move around without playing the 'but what will it be worth tomorrow?' game. Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.
numakerg 7y ago
Would this replace income and capital gains tax as well?
cactus2093 7y ago
Based on polling SB-50 had the support of roughly 2/3 of Californians [0]. If we actually decided things democratically like we pretend to we wouldn’t need to worry so much about strong interests coming out against this. The people benefiting from the status quo have made hundreds of billions of combined dollars over the past decade alone at the expense of everyone else. They’ve built metaphorical walls to keep everyone else out of their cities except themselves. It’s long past time they were stopped from doing that. Who cares if they don’t like the transition? Everyone else doesn’t like the stranglehold they’ve been living under with the status quo. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-transit-poll-crisis-ca-yimby https://www.google.com/amp/s/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2019...

zeveb 7y ago

One way would be to buy people off: figure out the net economic benefit to the city, county or state of changing the rules, and as part of the rule change grant some fraction of those dollars to those who change in the way we want. I can see two bug problems with this, one practical and one political. The practical one is that estimating benefit is a black art — we really can't trust anyone, partisan or non-partisan, to make accurate predictions of future economic benefits (there's a secondary practical sub-problem, which is that such an estimate would be ripe for capture). The political problem is that we'd end up rewarding those who have been benefiting all these years (e.g. all the homeowners with unrealistically low property taxes for the last four decades).

ergothus 7y ago
I'm in Seattle, and my house only a couple of blocks away from a new light-rail transit station that is opening. My neighborhood has been rezoned for MRU (condos and apartments vs the single family homes that are here now). Plus, the city is widening the main road my house is on (overdue anyway, but will definitely be further needed with the traffic to the rail station). So we're either going to be bought by a developer or bought by the city, whichever comes first. It's been an exercise in details for me, because I generally am not a NIMBY-ist and support the sorts of changes that will be moving us from our home. My objections are not to the fact that this will happen...but there's been VAST uncertainty. * Will be forced out? If so, on what terms? (City is currently saying "relocation" rather than "property purchase", but only vague terms so far) * Will a developer offer us enough money to match the way real estate costs have soared in the area? Would this be a nice payout, a basically flat deal, or a net reduction in convenience/comfort? * And the real kicker...When? We've been told more info would be available in 6-24 months for...at least 2 years, probably 3. As it stands now, other than more certainty that staying is not an option, we still don't have any answers, certainly not enough to make plans for. I've let house repairs and maintenance lapse (overdue for a new roof and the electrical system is woefully inadequate. Drainage needs to be improved, and our fence has started to sag. A tree came down and we've just left it.) When reading these sorts of debates I always imagined it was just a matter of "suck it up and accept that you have to have some inconvenience for the greater good". In practice, I didn't realize it would be years of uncertainty. Not knowing where you will live and what your resources will be like has been a real source of stress for my wife and I. Having a house that is creeping into disrepair and not knowing if you will put up with it for a year or 5 years before it is all torn down is a big pain. It puts another light on why someone might push back. I'm still in favor of the greater good - but the cost has not been "I have to move". It's been much more.
- davidw 7y ago
  As someone very much in the YIMBY camp, I'd love for housing to be kind of 'boring' and 'steady'. I mean, it'd be good if prices in some places (the bay area) dropped a lot, but by and large it'd be nice if they became fairly steady and predictable so that people could move around without playing the 'but what will it be worth tomorrow?' game. Hope you get some certainty for your own situation soon.

numakerg 7y ago

Would this replace income and capital gains tax as well?

cactus2093 7y ago

Based on polling SB-50 had the support of roughly 2/3 of Californians [0]. If we actually decided things democratically like we pretend to we wouldn’t need to worry so much about strong interests coming out against this. The people benefiting from the status quo have made hundreds of billions of combined dollars over the past decade alone at the expense of everyone else. They’ve built metaphorical walls to keep everyone else out of their cities except themselves. It’s long past time they were stopped from doing that. Who cares if they don’t like the transition? Everyone else doesn’t like the stranglehold they’ve been living under with the status quo. [0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2019/5/17/18629809/sb-50-housing-transit-poll-crisis-ca-yimby https://www.google.com/amp/s/sf.curbed.com/platform/amp/2019...