3 ms·
That seems like an incomplete accounting though, as it's looking at net revenue per acre. When in reality, the productivity of an acre (and therefore its tax r
by ethbr0 4y ago
That seems like an incomplete accounting though, as it's looking at net revenue per acre.
When in reality, the productivity of an acre (and therefore its tax revenue) depends on that acre + all its inputs (people, services, etc).
Downtowns (aka central business districts) look wildly productive, but they're fueled by people who live... not there.
From this perspective, it's really more of a call for mixed use development [0], which is able to supply more of its own requirements AND benefit from locality.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI&t=6m53s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI&t=6m53s
- ghaff 4y agoThe City of London is perhaps the most extreme example. I assume its revenues are astonishing. But hardly anyone lives there. It would be absurd to say that the City is subsidizing the rest of London.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoWhy do you think it’s absurd? Clearly the City generates a disproportionately large amount of revenue.