3 ms·

> We should not have a scarce natural resource sitting idle or under-utilized. Does it make sense to always optimize for nothing but maximum ROI for each plot

by jjav 5y ago

> We should not have a scarce natural resource sitting idle or under-utilized. Does it make sense to always optimize for nothing but maximum ROI for each plot of land? For example: imagine how many untold billions of extra value and tax revenue could be generated in Manhattan by tearing down Central Park and building it all full of dense housing towers. But would Manhattan be a better place to live as a result?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Does it make sense to always optimize for nothing but maximum ROI for each plot of land? No, but we can have special provisions for public goods like parks. Outside of properties that generate these kinds of public goods, the revenue a property generates is generally a proxy for social good it does. For example, a condo building with 150 residential units and 10 commercial units on the ground floor will do more social good than a parking lot, and that is easily revealed by how much more revenue it generates.
meristohm 5y ago
I think we're significantly undervaluing letting land carry on with low-enough human involvement so as to promote biodiversity and resilience, as has been done in numerous cultures around the world for millenia. Sometimes we get too selfish and exploit resources for short-term gain. We're in a tough spot as a species, borrowing heavily against the wellbeing of future generations (I view the health of the air, water, land, and other life as essential to our wellbeing).
closeparen 5y ago
I would much rather have Central Park, an enormous and high-value piece of public land which is a crown jewel of the community and managed by the government as such, than a partial public-ish interest in "open space" or something on each privately owned lot, which is constantly being negotiated between landowners and a planning commission and ends up "meh," and where you aren't allowed to actually go, just look at. I think this would be an important component of a YIMBY or Georgist future, to have public open space and park resources owned and managed explicitly rather than implied on each parcel.
alar44 5y ago
That's an absurd example. Central Park isn't undeveloped land. It's a freaking historical site and national treasure.
- jjav 5y ago
  Why specifically is it absurd, in the context of what LVT tries to achieve? LVT isn't about whether the land is developed or undeveloped. The idea is to tax it based on its maximally productive usage. So for example if a plot of land has a single house but it could fit an apartment building, it should have an apartment building. Of course Central Park is a treasure! But based on LVT, open fields in the middle of Manhattan is not the maximally productive economic use for that land. Filling it with high rise apartments would yield far more economic value. Clearly I'm not promoting that it would be a good idea. It would be a disaster. But it's a great example of why blindly applying LVT to everything is not a good idea.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    > But based on LVT, open fields in the middle of Manhattan is not the maximally productive economic use for that land. I'm not sure this is true though. Manhattan wouldn't be close to what it is today without central park. It's not very hard to make the claim that central park provides more value than putting up apartment buildings would. Central Park makes that island some of the most expensive land in the world.
    - jjav 5y ago
      > Manhattan wouldn't be close to what it is today without central park. It certainly wouldn't and I wouldn't argue the contrary. But from the perspective of analyzing LTV and its implications, how would that be written into the tax code formula? Surely it'd be possible to take some of the Central Park area and convert to highrises without meaningfully diminishing the benefits of having a Central Park. But how much area would be ok to build to maximize economic value? 1%? 5%? 50%? 80%? Because at the end of the day, a tax law needs rules and formulas to compute the tax, so how do those get defined in a way that preserves open space but pushes for highrise development everywhere else (if that's the goal)?

by jjav 5y ago

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>Does it make sense to always optimize for nothing but maximum ROI for each plot of land? No, but we can have special provisions for public goods like parks. Outside of properties that generate these kinds of public goods, the revenue a property generates is generally a proxy for social good it does. For example, a condo building with 150 residential units and 10 commercial units on the ground floor will do more social good than a parking lot, and that is easily revealed by how much more revenue it generates.

meristohm 5y ago

I think we're significantly undervaluing letting land carry on with low-enough human involvement so as to promote biodiversity and resilience, as has been done in numerous cultures around the world for millenia. Sometimes we get too selfish and exploit resources for short-term gain. We're in a tough spot as a species, borrowing heavily against the wellbeing of future generations (I view the health of the air, water, land, and other life as essential to our wellbeing).

closeparen 5y ago

I would much rather have Central Park, an enormous and high-value piece of public land which is a crown jewel of the community and managed by the government as such, than a partial public-ish interest in "open space" or something on each privately owned lot, which is constantly being negotiated between landowners and a planning commission and ends up "meh," and where you aren't allowed to actually go, just look at. I think this would be an important component of a YIMBY or Georgist future, to have public open space and park resources owned and managed explicitly rather than implied on each parcel.

alar44 5y ago

That's an absurd example. Central Park isn't undeveloped land. It's a freaking historical site and national treasure.

jjav 5y ago
Why specifically is it absurd, in the context of what LVT tries to achieve? LVT isn't about whether the land is developed or undeveloped. The idea is to tax it based on its maximally productive usage. So for example if a plot of land has a single house but it could fit an apartment building, it should have an apartment building. Of course Central Park is a treasure! But based on LVT, open fields in the middle of Manhattan is not the maximally productive economic use for that land. Filling it with high rise apartments would yield far more economic value. Clearly I'm not promoting that it would be a good idea. It would be a disaster. But it's a great example of why blindly applying LVT to everything is not a good idea.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > But based on LVT, open fields in the middle of Manhattan is not the maximally productive economic use for that land. I'm not sure this is true though. Manhattan wouldn't be close to what it is today without central park. It's not very hard to make the claim that central park provides more value than putting up apartment buildings would. Central Park makes that island some of the most expensive land in the world.
  - jjav 5y ago
    > Manhattan wouldn't be close to what it is today without central park. It certainly wouldn't and I wouldn't argue the contrary. But from the perspective of analyzing LTV and its implications, how would that be written into the tax code formula? Surely it'd be possible to take some of the Central Park area and convert to highrises without meaningfully diminishing the benefits of having a Central Park. But how much area would be ok to build to maximize economic value? 1%? 5%? 50%? 80%? Because at the end of the day, a tax law needs rules and formulas to compute the tax, so how do those get defined in a way that preserves open space but pushes for highrise development everywhere else (if that's the goal)?