5 ms·

I would like to table a point about how this will prevent urban sprawl. The maps showing land value peaking in cities should be a good indicator of this but th

I would like to table a point about how this will prevent urban sprawl. The maps showing land value peaking in cities should be a good indicator of this but the opposite conclusion is being formed. If land is expensive, it will be taxed at a considerable amount per year driving people out of these areas or into condos where they can share the costs with those on the floors above and below them. Perhaps there will be two types of development with this Georgism paradigm, high rise and extra urban but at the cost of suburban homes.

aesh2Xa1 5y ago
I’d like to see the same. Your comment got me to think about it for a couple minutes. If another claim about LVT is true – that speculation is defeated and thus prices are driven downwards – then the most valuable land becomes more generally affordable. Because of that, you’ll see _more_ people able to move into cities. Perhaps then the city also grows naturally/securely (rather than sprawls). You’ll still have people that prefer privacy and property, of course. But would a government need to or want to service them with roads and utilities? I think these are some of the “dynamic effects” hinted towards in the article. Anyway, though, the point is that more people can afford to live in the city.
BirdieNZ 5y ago
> at the cost of suburban homes. Suburban homes have a much larger footprint than urban homes, so it would reduce urban sprawl if you have fewer suburban homes and more urban homes.