3 ms·

This is actually really common with natural resource extraction rights (not just in the US) - use them or lose it. What is a bit surprising is that the same pr

This is actually really common with natural resource extraction rights (not just in the US) - use them or lose it. What is a bit surprising is that the same problems that show up with land use/housing, i.e. someone just sitting on a valuable resource, not using it, and watching prices go up is not considered an issue here. We cannot just allow all resources to be owned by organizations or people with no willingness to use them. So this is not something super simple to solve in the bigger scheme of things.

em-bee 5y ago
well there are places where this is changing. adding a tax for people buying houses as investment instead of living there, etc. so cities are starting to realize that unused housing is a problem and are making moves to do something about it.
wrycoder 5y ago
At least in the Eastern US, this is a problem. While I love and support open spaces and natural habitat, at some point, the trend to buy up property and put it into permanent conservation results in only the wealthy being able to afford the remaining housing amid the beautiful, quiet greenery.
- toast0 5y ago
  If you want to live amid beautiful quiet greenery, what else are you supposed to do? Yes, it costs more money to live there, because it's more desirable and of limited supply. You can't really buy enough homes and lots to form a 10 acre plot and smash all but one of the homes and replant the greenery, or if you could, it's not cost or time effective vs buying a 10 acre plot that's already greenery or if that's not available, buying a small plot surrounded or at least adjacent to a conservation limited plot.
- closeparen 5y ago
  In California they don’t bother to buy it up. They just get public policy implemented so that the owners can’t use it for anything. I would be over the moon if conservation interests were limited to land they owned.
mherdeg 5y ago
> We cannot just allow all resources to be owned by organizations or people with no willingness to use them. Should we allow people to use resources really, really slowly? Like can you buy natural gas wells and instead of capping them (an expensive operation required by regulation when you're done) just extract a tiny amount of gas? The story in https://www.bloomberg.com/features/diversified-energy-natural-gas-wells-methane-leaks-2021/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/diversified-energy-natura... was fascinating because it's not clear that that company has done anything illegal, just found a very profitable niche.
BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
Land Value Tax.

em-bee 5y ago

well there are places where this is changing. adding a tax for people buying houses as investment instead of living there, etc. so cities are starting to realize that unused housing is a problem and are making moves to do something about it.

wrycoder 5y ago

At least in the Eastern US, this is a problem. While I love and support open spaces and natural habitat, at some point, the trend to buy up property and put it into permanent conservation results in only the wealthy being able to afford the remaining housing amid the beautiful, quiet greenery.

toast0 5y ago
If you want to live amid beautiful quiet greenery, what else are you supposed to do? Yes, it costs more money to live there, because it's more desirable and of limited supply. You can't really buy enough homes and lots to form a 10 acre plot and smash all but one of the homes and replant the greenery, or if you could, it's not cost or time effective vs buying a 10 acre plot that's already greenery or if that's not available, buying a small plot surrounded or at least adjacent to a conservation limited plot.
closeparen 5y ago
In California they don’t bother to buy it up. They just get public policy implemented so that the owners can’t use it for anything. I would be over the moon if conservation interests were limited to land they owned.

mherdeg 5y ago

> We cannot just allow all resources to be owned by organizations or people with no willingness to use them. Should we allow people to use resources really, really slowly? Like can you buy natural gas wells and instead of capping them (an expensive operation required by regulation when you're done) just extract a tiny amount of gas? The story in https://www.bloomberg.com/features/diversified-energy-natural-gas-wells-methane-leaks-2021/ https://www.bloomberg.com/features/diversified-energy-natura... was fascinating because it's not clear that that company has done anything illegal, just found a very profitable niche.

BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago

Land Value Tax.