4 ms·

> One thing major cities could do to stave off cheap, cookie cutter expansionism is to buy up large swaths of land for city or state parks, and also cultivate t

by dpark 5y ago

> One thing major cities could do to stave off cheap, cookie cutter expansionism is to buy up large swaths of land for city or state parks, and also cultivate those parks for high quality outdoor recreation. Such a policy would increase land price pressure I think you underestimate the scale of what you're proposing. You mention 200,000 acres. To buy up enough land to curb suburban development, you'd be looking at buying all the land in at least a 15 mile radius, probably much more (people "happily" commute 15+ miles into every major city), so well north of 700,000 acres. Your 100MM suggestion seems laughable, at $500/acre. Maybe you can get land for that price in the middle of nowhere, but certainly not on livable land within 15 miles of a major city. A quick search indicates farmland costs north of $3000/acre across the US. Maintaining the land would now be a major expense on the city. It would be a political nightmare (yeah, we could fund basic infrastructure, or we could bankrupt ourselves trying to buy every livable plot within an hour's driving distance). And of course then there's the problem that people would be unwilling to sell and eminent domain attempts would likely fail in court. > 40 acres and a mule commutes I have no idea what you mean by this but I would suggest you not. 40 acres and a mule has a very specific context and it's not suburban spawl. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

TheRealDunkirk 5y ago
> Your 100MM suggestion seems laughable, at $500/acre. Shhhhh.... We're fudging numbers to raise capital to monopolize land around an urban center. You just don't get it.
- karmakurtisaani 5y ago
  Just my opinion, but I really hate any message created from the template "Shhhh... I'm making a snarky remark against the guy you replied, not contributing to the discussion constructively." Do better next time.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- fknorangesite 5y ago
  This is a remarkably uncharitable description of a fairly mundane land-use policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Maybe you can get land for that price in the middle of nowhere, but certainly not on livable land within 15 miles of a major city That land gets its value from the city. One can imagine border taxes (tolls, employment taxes, et cetera) funding those land purchases. Initially it will be slow. But as the city buys and razes the writing will be on the wall. If that starts pushing down prices, a prisoner's dilemma will emerge whereby neighbors compete and further drive down prices. In the end there will be holdouts. But they'll be sustaining the infrastructure that supports them, a prospect that only makes sense for the rich and eccentric. This would only work, however, if cities dramatically ease their effective ban on new development. Though that would largely obviate the need for a green ring in the first place.
- dpark 5y ago
  > That land gets its value from the city. Land in the middle of bumblefuck costs more than $500/acre. But this doesn't matter anyway because that high value for land around cities exists presently. An acre of developable land 5 miles outside of Seattle proper is probably worth at least half a million dollars even if there's no infrastructure running there. > One can imagine border taxes (tolls, employment taxes, et cetera) funding those land purchases. One can imagine many things that are unrealistic. Cities cannot tax people outside their incorporated territory so this idea that they'll just tax people to death for living outside the city is unrealistic. They could certainly add tolls, but not at the volume that would be needed for this. And if they tried, the state legislature would doubtless swoop in and make it illegal. e.g., In Washington, road tolls can only be applied to road improvements (indeed only to improvements to the road being tolled). Any city that goes overboard trying to tax outsiders aggressively will just get shut down by the state. > But as the city buys and razes the writing will be on the wall. If that starts pushing down prices... This is pretty ridiculous. If the city starts reducing supply, costs will go up, not down. The purchasing scale needed to achieve this is insane. This would absolutely require many billions to achieve. Even if a city could manage to get their citizens to agree, and the state to allow it, and structure the burden so it falls on outsiders, it would still take decades to fund and execute, and in that time land value would go up due to the squeeze, making this more and more difficult for the city. > Though that would largely obviate the need for a green ring in the first place. This I agree on. City density won't be improved by preventing suburbs but by allowing more density.
ethagknight 5y ago
My reference on the 40 Acres comment is clearly off base and not what I intended, thanks for correcting. I thought it was primarily an American Dream relating to Manifest Destiny, but per the wiki it was a lie presented to African Americans after the American Civil War. I am, however, aware of the scale of what I am proposing. A lot of the land to be controlled ends up being junk land, be it hazardous flood plain or otherwise challenging to develop, but it creates large buffer zones that constrains private development effort. Farmland is relatively expensive land because it has economic output. But that fine, call it $3000/acre. Dont buy high value farmland. Do buy un-farmable floodplain or wetlands. A lot of the land gets donated or conveyed via easement. Bigger cities will have bigger budgets to work with. You dont have to buy all the land, just strategic lands that apply pressure and create value in other forms, namely that a state park is available for all to use, a ranch is available for none. It is not laughable, it is currently being done in many cities. Probably not viable in major cities, if your frame of mind is NYC or SFO, this process will not make as much sense because its too late.
- dpark 5y ago
  > My reference.. No worries. I assumed you must have meant something like that. > I am, however, aware of the scale of what I am proposing… For smaller cities I could see how this might work if it’s done before they really develop. I was thinking in terms of existing large cities, where it seems intractable in part due to the existing sprawl. I can’t imagine how this would play out in Seattle (where I live) because the sprawl is already well outside the control of the city. Even if Seattle wanted to do this, all of the land is under the control of the surrounding towns (Bellevue, Kirkland, Shoreline, etc.) at this point.
- runnerup 5y ago
  > My reference on the 40 Acres comment is clearly off base and not what I intended, thanks for correcting. I thought it was primarily an American Dream relating to Manifest Destiny, but per the wiki it was a lie presented to African Americans after the American Civil War. I had this exact same misconception as well until a few weeks ago. I wonder how common it is! And where it comes from. Also worth noting that UT-Austin has a "40 acres scholarship" as their ultimate tier of endowment, which is a reference to UT-Austin originally receiving 40 acres on which to found their University (from the government as a land grant).

by dpark 5y ago

TheRealDunkirk 5y ago

> Your 100MM suggestion seems laughable, at $500/acre. Shhhhh.... We're fudging numbers to raise capital to monopolize land around an urban center. You just don't get it.

karmakurtisaani 5y ago
Just my opinion, but I really hate any message created from the template "Shhhh... I'm making a snarky remark against the guy you replied, not contributing to the discussion constructively." Do better next time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fknorangesite 5y ago
This is a remarkably uncharitable description of a fairly mundane land-use policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Maybe you can get land for that price in the middle of nowhere, but certainly not on livable land within 15 miles of a major city That land gets its value from the city. One can imagine border taxes (tolls, employment taxes, et cetera) funding those land purchases. Initially it will be slow. But as the city buys and razes the writing will be on the wall. If that starts pushing down prices, a prisoner's dilemma will emerge whereby neighbors compete and further drive down prices. In the end there will be holdouts. But they'll be sustaining the infrastructure that supports them, a prospect that only makes sense for the rich and eccentric. This would only work, however, if cities dramatically ease their effective ban on new development. Though that would largely obviate the need for a green ring in the first place.

dpark 5y ago
> That land gets its value from the city. Land in the middle of bumblefuck costs more than $500/acre. But this doesn't matter anyway because that high value for land around cities exists presently. An acre of developable land 5 miles outside of Seattle proper is probably worth at least half a million dollars even if there's no infrastructure running there. > One can imagine border taxes (tolls, employment taxes, et cetera) funding those land purchases. One can imagine many things that are unrealistic. Cities cannot tax people outside their incorporated territory so this idea that they'll just tax people to death for living outside the city is unrealistic. They could certainly add tolls, but not at the volume that would be needed for this. And if they tried, the state legislature would doubtless swoop in and make it illegal. e.g., In Washington, road tolls can only be applied to road improvements (indeed only to improvements to the road being tolled). Any city that goes overboard trying to tax outsiders aggressively will just get shut down by the state. > But as the city buys and razes the writing will be on the wall. If that starts pushing down prices... This is pretty ridiculous. If the city starts reducing supply, costs will go up, not down. The purchasing scale needed to achieve this is insane. This would absolutely require many billions to achieve. Even if a city could manage to get their citizens to agree, and the state to allow it, and structure the burden so it falls on outsiders, it would still take decades to fund and execute, and in that time land value would go up due to the squeeze, making this more and more difficult for the city. > Though that would largely obviate the need for a green ring in the first place. This I agree on. City density won't be improved by preventing suburbs but by allowing more density.

ethagknight 5y ago

My reference on the 40 Acres comment is clearly off base and not what I intended, thanks for correcting. I thought it was primarily an American Dream relating to Manifest Destiny, but per the wiki it was a lie presented to African Americans after the American Civil War. I am, however, aware of the scale of what I am proposing. A lot of the land to be controlled ends up being junk land, be it hazardous flood plain or otherwise challenging to develop, but it creates large buffer zones that constrains private development effort. Farmland is relatively expensive land because it has economic output. But that fine, call it $3000/acre. Dont buy high value farmland. Do buy un-farmable floodplain or wetlands. A lot of the land gets donated or conveyed via easement. Bigger cities will have bigger budgets to work with. You dont have to buy all the land, just strategic lands that apply pressure and create value in other forms, namely that a state park is available for all to use, a ranch is available for none. It is not laughable, it is currently being done in many cities. Probably not viable in major cities, if your frame of mind is NYC or SFO, this process will not make as much sense because its too late.

dpark 5y ago
> My reference.. No worries. I assumed you must have meant something like that. > I am, however, aware of the scale of what I am proposing… For smaller cities I could see how this might work if it’s done before they really develop. I was thinking in terms of existing large cities, where it seems intractable in part due to the existing sprawl. I can’t imagine how this would play out in Seattle (where I live) because the sprawl is already well outside the control of the city. Even if Seattle wanted to do this, all of the land is under the control of the surrounding towns (Bellevue, Kirkland, Shoreline, etc.) at this point.
runnerup 5y ago
> My reference on the 40 Acres comment is clearly off base and not what I intended, thanks for correcting. I thought it was primarily an American Dream relating to Manifest Destiny, but per the wiki it was a lie presented to African Americans after the American Civil War. I had this exact same misconception as well until a few weeks ago. I wonder how common it is! And where it comes from. Also worth noting that UT-Austin has a "40 acres scholarship" as their ultimate tier of endowment, which is a reference to UT-Austin originally receiving 40 acres on which to found their University (from the government as a land grant).