3 ms·

> expect to pay for the inconvenience Why isn't there a flat tax on all development (or the populace even) to cover this? like you said, it's "our past", why s

• unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Errr, because only developers get to privatise the profits from building on the land? I'm always a bit surprised at people expressing incredulity that the state (which definitively controls the right to decide who gets to own land) hands out responsibilities with privileges. There are all sorts of burdens and responsibilities, financially and otherwise, that fall on land owners and developers. This is just one of them. It's unusual but it's not outrageous.
  • Chris2048 5y ago
    > because only developers.. so, why does that matter? What has that got to do with discovered artefacts? Developers would make a profit off the land if nothing was discovered there. Farmers also make profit off the land without any building required. > There are all sorts of.. I'm not sure where you are going with this, I wasn't questioning the role of the state or that it "hands out responsibilities with privileges" - so it's kind of weird that you'd argue in the abstract like this. I'm arguing that there's no privilege for developers - discovered items are national assets and cannot be owned in many places.
• kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > why should only developers foot the bill? Perhaps because they are the ones who would make the profit from what is surely a national asset. It's not as if they create the land that they make a profit from.
  • Chris2048 5y ago
    Then just take/forbid profit that is derived from whatever is discovered; there is no guarantee that it will be greater than preservation cost which is the whole issue.