3 ms·

> Let's bypass democratic majority rule, The trouble is that it is only a local majority. There are a larger number of people who would like to live in high-de

> Let's bypass democratic majority rule, The trouble is that it is only a local majority. There are a larger number of people who would like to live in high-demand areas, but they can't vote to make that possible because they don't live there. > by taking away something people vote to protect - and not just anything, but their homes -, No-one is suggesting taking away their homes. Just making it more uneconomical to sit on land that has been improved by the state and profit from the ensuing increase in value. I personally would advocate for making these changes to the tax system very slowly, perhaps over the course of 20 years or so. > and consolidating its ownership to fewer rich property moguls and conglomerates They don't necessarily have to be rich. I personally wouldn't ever invest in a property conglomerate - they're far too unprofitable and buffeted by political winds. Software is where the money is at, but if you're on this website you already know that.

coldtea 6y ago
>The trouble is that it is only a local majority. There are a larger number of people who would like to live in high-demand areas, but they can't vote to make that possible because they don't live there. Any majority is a "local majority". Would it be OK for third parties to come into your community / town etc, and decide for you? That would be a nice racket for lobbyists, too: various interests could hire majorities to move from place to place and vote to overturn what those already living there want...
- bovine3dom 6y ago
  Yeah, within reason, more global considerations should be taken into account when making local decisions.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Sure, when the local desicions have outside externalities (e.g. pollution). But this is a case where we're taking about outsiders making it more difficult for locals to hold to their homes, so they (the outsiders) have it easier to live in some place. How is that OK? Ousiders "really" wanting to live to that place is not enough justification (people want lots of things. Many people want a pony too, doesn't mean they will get one or that they deserve one). Plus, those outsiders only want to come live to a place (over other places) because the place has been developed well by the locals. So they like what the locals have toiled and paid to build, and want to make it easier to throw the locals out of their homes, to rent there themselves. Doesn't sit right...
    - bovine3dom 6y ago
      > where we're taking about outsiders making it more difficult for locals to hold to their homes I'm predominantly suggesting making it easier to build new high density housing. The other side is to slow move to taxing estimated land values rather than house prices. This means that you pay for your share of the benefit you get from improvements to the land that you didn't make - a new metro line, for example, or a new supermarket or school. But if you renovate your house you wouldn't pay any more in taxes. > Plus, those outsiders only want to come live to a place (over other places) because the place has been developed well by the locals. Most infrastructure funding comes from central governments (at least in the countries I am aware of) so I don't understand what you mean by this exactly.
    - throwaway34241 6y ago
      You could easily solve the immediate problem by exempting locals' primary residence - CA already has policies like prop 13 after all. More generally, who could reasonably be considered to have a legitimate interest in housing policy? I can think of a few potential groups: 1) People who own homes in the locality 2) Renters 3) People who work in locality but commute 4) (This is the biggest stretch) People left behind by economic geography On economic geography: as the economy evolves over time, the location of jobs changes. As farming is automated, there are less jobs in the rural Midwest. After the steel mills closed, Pittsburgh lost population. As the economy has become more knowledge and technology oriented, more jobs have moved to relatively dense urban areas that can support very liquid job markets and a high degree of labor specialization. Obviously there's a lot of subjective trade-offs here. Personally, I feel there should be a middle ground (on policies around development) between "kick existing residents out of their homes" and "no middle class housing in areas with lots of job growth".

coldtea 6y ago

>The trouble is that it is only a local majority. There are a larger number of people who would like to live in high-demand areas, but they can't vote to make that possible because they don't live there. Any majority is a "local majority". Would it be OK for third parties to come into your community / town etc, and decide for you? That would be a nice racket for lobbyists, too: various interests could hire majorities to move from place to place and vote to overturn what those already living there want...

bovine3dom 6y ago
Yeah, within reason, more global considerations should be taken into account when making local decisions.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Sure, when the local desicions have outside externalities (e.g. pollution). But this is a case where we're taking about outsiders making it more difficult for locals to hold to their homes, so they (the outsiders) have it easier to live in some place. How is that OK? Ousiders "really" wanting to live to that place is not enough justification (people want lots of things. Many people want a pony too, doesn't mean they will get one or that they deserve one). Plus, those outsiders only want to come live to a place (over other places) because the place has been developed well by the locals. So they like what the locals have toiled and paid to build, and want to make it easier to throw the locals out of their homes, to rent there themselves. Doesn't sit right...
  - bovine3dom 6y ago
    > where we're taking about outsiders making it more difficult for locals to hold to their homes I'm predominantly suggesting making it easier to build new high density housing. The other side is to slow move to taxing estimated land values rather than house prices. This means that you pay for your share of the benefit you get from improvements to the land that you didn't make - a new metro line, for example, or a new supermarket or school. But if you renovate your house you wouldn't pay any more in taxes. > Plus, those outsiders only want to come live to a place (over other places) because the place has been developed well by the locals. Most infrastructure funding comes from central governments (at least in the countries I am aware of) so I don't understand what you mean by this exactly.
  - throwaway34241 6y ago
    You could easily solve the immediate problem by exempting locals' primary residence - CA already has policies like prop 13 after all. More generally, who could reasonably be considered to have a legitimate interest in housing policy? I can think of a few potential groups: 1) People who own homes in the locality 2) Renters 3) People who work in locality but commute 4) (This is the biggest stretch) People left behind by economic geography On economic geography: as the economy evolves over time, the location of jobs changes. As farming is automated, there are less jobs in the rural Midwest. After the steel mills closed, Pittsburgh lost population. As the economy has become more knowledge and technology oriented, more jobs have moved to relatively dense urban areas that can support very liquid job markets and a high degree of labor specialization. Obviously there's a lot of subjective trade-offs here. Personally, I feel there should be a middle ground (on policies around development) between "kick existing residents out of their homes" and "no middle class housing in areas with lots of job growth".