28 ms·

This reminds me of a piece of local history I recently learned in my hometown (Northeast FL). In the late 1800s, a number of slave families traveled down-river

This reminds me of a piece of local history I recently learned in my hometown (Northeast FL). In the late 1800s, a number of slave families traveled down-river from Georgia after being emancipated and homesteaded in my area on the St. Johns River. As property values increased and they started being taxed more heavily on their (mostly waterfront) land, many of these families (whose patriarchs were mostly illiterate and not at all business-savvy) ended up selling to (i.e. getting taken advantage of by) housing developers, basically losing their identity and heritage. The story isn't necessarily a direct parallel, but the pattern reminds me of the "milkshake" scene from the movie There Will Be Blood. People shouldn't have to worry about their basic livelihood and property being stripped away by anything other than perhaps a natural disaster of some kind.

pas 6y ago
> People shouldn't have to worry about their basic livelihood and property being stripped away by anything other than perhaps a natural disaster of some kind. This is a very interesting point. I'm not sure what to think of it. Maybe it needs a bit more complexity. After all the exploitation of disadvantaged minority owners is seen as hopefully almost universally bad, whereas using eminent domain to create a park/hospital/bus-stop/townhouse might be a good thing. Yet tyranny of the majority is also problem. (And of course it's hyperdimensional interlocking turtles in every direction philosophically.) NIMBY-ism that happens in growing cities - so basically in all of them, since urbanization and migration to urban areas, and urban revival is going on - is seen as usually bad. Yet usually the problem is that any new development puts additional burden on the incumbents. (Eg. as population and population density grows there will be more people, more traffic, more big houses blocking out the sun, god forbid even more diversity too.) Which is a very similar in certain aspects. (A community trying to set themselves and their circumstances in stone. And we know people pretty much prefer stability.) Land Value Tax comes up a lot to fight NIMBY-ism, but that's again a kind of tyranny of the majority. (If you have a small plot of land, let's say a garden, or a small grocery store in the middle of the city, LVT would probably force you to sell or develop it.) However, at the same time we see that - for example in California - raising taxes on property is very much frowned upon. Sure, we know they have a very big financial interest in keeping housing prices going up and keeping taxes down. ... So after all this rambling, probably what I'm trying to say is that the right to self-determination is important on many levels, but it naturally implies the conflict between those levels. Individual vs. group interests.

pas 6y ago

> People shouldn't have to worry about their basic livelihood and property being stripped away by anything other than perhaps a natural disaster of some kind. This is a very interesting point. I'm not sure what to think of it. Maybe it needs a bit more complexity. After all the exploitation of disadvantaged minority owners is seen as hopefully almost universally bad, whereas using eminent domain to create a park/hospital/bus-stop/townhouse might be a good thing. Yet tyranny of the majority is also problem. (And of course it's hyperdimensional interlocking turtles in every direction philosophically.) NIMBY-ism that happens in growing cities - so basically in all of them, since urbanization and migration to urban areas, and urban revival is going on - is seen as usually bad. Yet usually the problem is that any new development puts additional burden on the incumbents. (Eg. as population and population density grows there will be more people, more traffic, more big houses blocking out the sun, god forbid even more diversity too.) Which is a very similar in certain aspects. (A community trying to set themselves and their circumstances in stone. And we know people pretty much prefer stability.) Land Value Tax comes up a lot to fight NIMBY-ism, but that's again a kind of tyranny of the majority. (If you have a small plot of land, let's say a garden, or a small grocery store in the middle of the city, LVT would probably force you to sell or develop it.) However, at the same time we see that - for example in California - raising taxes on property is very much frowned upon. Sure, we know they have a very big financial interest in keeping housing prices going up and keeping taxes down. ... So after all this rambling, probably what I'm trying to say is that the right to self-determination is important on many levels, but it naturally implies the conflict between those levels. Individual vs. group interests.