3 ms·

it is free market at work. private property rights is the cornerstone of capitalism and free market. if you want land for all, then its no longer capitalism. l

it is free market at work. private property rights is the cornerstone of capitalism and free market. if you want land for all, then its no longer capitalism. land/property ownership is not a right. access to housing for those who cant afford it should be provided by the govt. many countries do this. at least in california, high property values is favoured by the govt because it is a sure source of property taxes. a lot of issues can be sorted if high rise affordable housing can be built outside expensive zipcodes and create a good public transport network.* instead, (here in ca), they are building 'affordable housing' inside the most expensive zipcodes and increasing toll roads and hiking tolls...and not improving public transport systems. looks like this is what the govt wants. *we just wasted money on it.. with no regards for the millions and millions raised in bonds by voters who trusted those whom they elected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

8note 6y ago
US capitalism is based on the government taking land away from people that aren't developing, and giving it to new owners though. That's the argument people give for why it's ok for the US to have taken land from the indigenous peoples at least. I think it's reasonable for the government to seize any property that has only been used for collecting rents within some timespan, and reallocate it to somebody who wants to make actual use of the land
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  An elected government seizing private property is not democratic in any way, sense or form, IMO.
m0llusk 6y ago
That is an incorrect framing of the problem. People do not want land, they want residential units. Strong demand can be handled by building up. Making it possible to build up where land values are high would solve a lot of problems. California high speed rail is a different, specific, and complex system to evaluate. Just to throw out one major issue there is increasing demand for travel between LA and SF but capacity of existing roads, air corridors, railways, and ferries is already approaching fundamental limits. Space for roads is limited so the only other real option is more airports everywhere which might end up being necessary either way.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  People want to own residential units. Ownership is and should be more expensive than occupancy. A residential unit also needs power, sewer, water, schools, fire dept, police dept, parks and recreation, sanitation and other services, transportation, commerce, infrastructure and roads. And staff to run all this. Building up vertically on a x30 multiplier doesn’t mean that city can provide all the services and access resources to service the multiplier effect of said parcel of land. This is why high density cities end up being unaffordable. If high density cities are built up to accommodate more affordable homes and below market value homes, the residents effectively pay negative taxes by benefitting more from the city than they pay in as taxes. The math doesn’t work out. If it did, we would have more townships with high density as well as affordability..and cost of living going down. But in my observation,such things never happen. At least from the data I had collated from Bay Area cities. I would love to be proved wrong. The only way..as I see it..high density home ownership can be feasible is if we have clustered communities between 150-300 households and each of the homes comes with assured employment. It’s closer to ‘company towns’ or military townships.
  - tbirdny 6y ago
    > Building up vertically on a x30 multiplier doesn’t mean that city can provide all the services and access resources to service the multiplier effect of said parcel of land. You're right, all the services are more expensive per square foot of land. But, it's more efficient per person, and per square foot of property, to provide those services in a smaller area. Cities are more expensive because of simple supply and demand: a lot of people want to live there, and there's a limited amount of property.

8note 6y ago

US capitalism is based on the government taking land away from people that aren't developing, and giving it to new owners though. That's the argument people give for why it's ok for the US to have taken land from the indigenous peoples at least. I think it's reasonable for the government to seize any property that has only been used for collecting rents within some timespan, and reallocate it to somebody who wants to make actual use of the land

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
An elected government seizing private property is not democratic in any way, sense or form, IMO.

m0llusk 6y ago

That is an incorrect framing of the problem. People do not want land, they want residential units. Strong demand can be handled by building up. Making it possible to build up where land values are high would solve a lot of problems. California high speed rail is a different, specific, and complex system to evaluate. Just to throw out one major issue there is increasing demand for travel between LA and SF but capacity of existing roads, air corridors, railways, and ferries is already approaching fundamental limits. Space for roads is limited so the only other real option is more airports everywhere which might end up being necessary either way.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
People want to own residential units. Ownership is and should be more expensive than occupancy. A residential unit also needs power, sewer, water, schools, fire dept, police dept, parks and recreation, sanitation and other services, transportation, commerce, infrastructure and roads. And staff to run all this. Building up vertically on a x30 multiplier doesn’t mean that city can provide all the services and access resources to service the multiplier effect of said parcel of land. This is why high density cities end up being unaffordable. If high density cities are built up to accommodate more affordable homes and below market value homes, the residents effectively pay negative taxes by benefitting more from the city than they pay in as taxes. The math doesn’t work out. If it did, we would have more townships with high density as well as affordability..and cost of living going down. But in my observation,such things never happen. At least from the data I had collated from Bay Area cities. I would love to be proved wrong. The only way..as I see it..high density home ownership can be feasible is if we have clustered communities between 150-300 households and each of the homes comes with assured employment. It’s closer to ‘company towns’ or military townships.
- tbirdny 6y ago
  > Building up vertically on a x30 multiplier doesn’t mean that city can provide all the services and access resources to service the multiplier effect of said parcel of land. You're right, all the services are more expensive per square foot of land. But, it's more efficient per person, and per square foot of property, to provide those services in a smaller area. Cities are more expensive because of simple supply and demand: a lot of people want to live there, and there's a limited amount of property.