4 ms·

I think you're missing a larger point: why should people be forced to move? There's no natural law that says people should be ceaselessly pushed around by marke

I think you're missing a larger point: why should people be forced to move? There's no natural law that says people should be ceaselessly pushed around by market forces.

Negitivefrags 6y ago
If you define natural laws as the things that happen when you remove actual laws, then I would say people being forced to move would be exactly what happens.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  Yes, if you define natural laws this way, people being forced to move by roving bands of gun toting warlords would be exactly what happens. Or maybe "forced to move" isn't quite strong enough to describe it. Seems like this way of defining natural laws is a bit silly.
gameman144 6y ago
One could just as easily say that you're missing the opposite point: why should policy prevent new people from moving in? In either scenario, policy will disadvantage one group and advantage another. Any policies that aim to give stability to long-term tenants is liable to disadvantage new and shorter-term tenants. There's no natural law dictating that people should be forced to move out, but there's also no natural law dictating that newcomers should be forced away.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I agree, but I don't think the literal lord of a property should be able to force people to migrate by demanding higher tribute. There should be a rational humane process that isn't driven by simple greed.
  - mjevans 6y ago
    As a suggestion for a process... Pick a duration upon which to re-evaluate the value of property. Distribute this roughly evenly over all the property everywhere so that it isn't all at once. When a property's up for evaluation, offer it for 'sale' via a distributed dutch auction as part of a block with similar properties in the same jurisdiction (roughly, zipcodes, or maybe divided up should work). The block is bid on as a whole, with up to 25% (rounded up) of any of it excluded from the bids (high or low) and with any 'inspection noted defects' (post sale) deducted from the transfer price of the property. Price for a given unit would be proportional to the previously evaluated (by market sale or bid) price of the property among the whole group. Any units not receiving sufficient bidding coverage to provide a fair price should be re-tried with the aim towards the median value of the next group of properties in that area. The resulting offer is then forwarded to the residents as proof of their new property value and the basis for all taxes upon it. The resident has an option to accept that value anytime within 8 months, for a specified date of no more than 6 months from when they've accepted the offer.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Why are we randomly forcing residents to leave? Why don't we just take the available housing stock and divide it between old and new residents in a rational manner? Should an individual or family be kicked to the curb just because someone has a preference for living somewhere? What if they could prove a necessity? There's a lot to be said for knowing that once you pick a place to live you can depend on it being there as long as you need it and can develop a community, take risks in other areas of life, etc.
      - mjevans 6y ago
        They don't have to accept the deals, they'd have the __option__ and I'm trying to make it easier for them to take the highest bidding option so that someone knows they have the best deal. The highest bid from among bids in their area. This is to ensure a __fair evaluation__ of a property's value on a real market, rather than some random assessor's opinion.
      - 6y ago
- asdff 6y ago
  Policy should instead favor constructing supply to fit new people moving in while not displacing current tenants. Extending commutes from ten minute bus rides to three hour car journeys in the name of hyperlocal market forces is neither good for the economy or the planet.
- blub 6y ago
  Insiders almost always have more rights than outsiders. Berlin has more than enough people living there, they don't need the outsiders and its within their rights to discourage them from moving in. But this isn't even doing that as they're very welcoming, they merely want to protect the people already living there.
perryizgr8 6y ago
> why should people be forced to move? I am not privy to all the complications involved in this scheme, but how would anybody be forced to move?

I think you're missing a larger point: why should people be forced to move? There's no natural law that says people should be ceaselessly pushed around by market forces.

Negitivefrags 6y ago

If you define natural laws as the things that happen when you remove actual laws, then I would say people being forced to move would be exactly what happens.

cool_dude85 6y ago
Yes, if you define natural laws this way, people being forced to move by roving bands of gun toting warlords would be exactly what happens. Or maybe "forced to move" isn't quite strong enough to describe it. Seems like this way of defining natural laws is a bit silly.

gameman144 6y ago

One could just as easily say that you're missing the opposite point: why should policy prevent new people from moving in? In either scenario, policy will disadvantage one group and advantage another. Any policies that aim to give stability to long-term tenants is liable to disadvantage new and shorter-term tenants. There's no natural law dictating that people should be forced to move out, but there's also no natural law dictating that newcomers should be forced away.

tehjoker 6y ago
I agree, but I don't think the literal lord of a property should be able to force people to migrate by demanding higher tribute. There should be a rational humane process that isn't driven by simple greed.
- mjevans 6y ago
  As a suggestion for a process... Pick a duration upon which to re-evaluate the value of property. Distribute this roughly evenly over all the property everywhere so that it isn't all at once. When a property's up for evaluation, offer it for 'sale' via a distributed dutch auction as part of a block with similar properties in the same jurisdiction (roughly, zipcodes, or maybe divided up should work). The block is bid on as a whole, with up to 25% (rounded up) of any of it excluded from the bids (high or low) and with any 'inspection noted defects' (post sale) deducted from the transfer price of the property. Price for a given unit would be proportional to the previously evaluated (by market sale or bid) price of the property among the whole group. Any units not receiving sufficient bidding coverage to provide a fair price should be re-tried with the aim towards the median value of the next group of properties in that area. The resulting offer is then forwarded to the residents as proof of their new property value and the basis for all taxes upon it. The resident has an option to accept that value anytime within 8 months, for a specified date of no more than 6 months from when they've accepted the offer.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Why are we randomly forcing residents to leave? Why don't we just take the available housing stock and divide it between old and new residents in a rational manner? Should an individual or family be kicked to the curb just because someone has a preference for living somewhere? What if they could prove a necessity? There's a lot to be said for knowing that once you pick a place to live you can depend on it being there as long as you need it and can develop a community, take risks in other areas of life, etc.
    - mjevans 6y ago
      They don't have to accept the deals, they'd have the __option__ and I'm trying to make it easier for them to take the highest bidding option so that someone knows they have the best deal. The highest bid from among bids in their area. This is to ensure a __fair evaluation__ of a property's value on a real market, rather than some random assessor's opinion.
    - 6y ago
asdff 6y ago
Policy should instead favor constructing supply to fit new people moving in while not displacing current tenants. Extending commutes from ten minute bus rides to three hour car journeys in the name of hyperlocal market forces is neither good for the economy or the planet.
blub 6y ago
Insiders almost always have more rights than outsiders. Berlin has more than enough people living there, they don't need the outsiders and its within their rights to discourage them from moving in. But this isn't even doing that as they're very welcoming, they merely want to protect the people already living there.

perryizgr8 6y ago

> why should people be forced to move? I am not privy to all the complications involved in this scheme, but how would anybody be forced to move?