5 ms·

We already have some Land Value Tax in many areas, although some of it is inverse to the proposal. By putting a conservation easement on some land, you can pre

by toss1 4y ago

We already have some Land Value Tax in many areas, although some of it is inverse to the proposal. By putting a conservation easement on some land, you can preserve it for wildlife and have a minimal tax. >>So it’s kind of just basically a shorthand for I think, being kind of selfish. valuing your property value, your view, your neighborhood character that you want more than building a neighborhood that is welcome for all people or for more people. To be able to afford and live in. So, unfortunately, nimbyism, it’s like a consequence of, I think incentives. It is not a consequence of incentives, it is a consequence of the fact that when someone moves to a place with a particular quality of life, pays more, and then pays high taxes and high maintenance costs for decades, they themselves have paid for decades to build that quality of life. To say that oh, your neighbor can randomly decide to make a major construction project literally in your backyard and convert a wetlands housing endangered species into a several hundred unit high-density living complex, with years of construction and two orders of magnitude greater traffic on your street forever - yeah, you can expect people to object. (this literally happened to me, and in a matter of weeks we got 10x the largest crowd to show up at a planning board meeting and we gave a presentation to shut it down; not yet permanently, but...) And rightly so - the developer is literally stealing all the value that you and your neighbors and town created over the past few decades, and then profit from the buyers also. Now, if you are talking about areas that are already cities and have such high density that there is effectively no wildlife, then it might be different, but again the value of walkable neighborhoods vs random massive development is not to be overlooked. So, no this proposal is preposterous, aside from being a nonstarter. Young people who might want it are great at making noisy protests and notoriously bad at bothering to vote - the one thing that matters, while older people, and especially those who own property, tend to reliably vote.

InefficientRed 4y ago
But of course destroying wetlands to build your house was entirely reasonable. > So, no this proposal is preposterous, aside from being a nonstarter. Young people who might want it are great at making noisy protests and notoriously bad at bothering to vote - the one thing that matters, while older people, and especially those who own property, tend to reliably vote. In other words, "let them eat cake". The "anyone under 45 doesn't deserve to afford shelter" attitude strikes me as a "fuck around and find out" situation.
- toss1 4y ago
  >>But of course destroying wetlands to build your house was entirely reasonable. * No. I didn't build it, I bought it already built, and no wetlands were damaged, it's 100' away, and thev'e got strict measures in this town. And if you think that a single family home outside the buffer zone has the same impact as 300 units in five buildings built ON the wetlands has the same impact, that's ummm, some next-level ignorance. The strict conservation zoning measures apply to any work - just replacing a porch footing 20 inches inside a zone requires several permits. Planning, work & expense. Everyone here incurs those costs to maintain a standard of living. >>In other words, "let them eat cake" Not even close The point is that destroying value that exists, and value that people have worked significant parts of their lives to create, is a very bad idea. It is a nonstarter because the ppl that worked to create & maintain those standards vote in far greater numbers than the people complaining. Just a relevant fact. (And threating "f around and find out" is great performance but zero votes - in how many elections have you voted?) Accusing the people who own nice properties of being motivated by selfishness and greed is not only offensive to the people whose votes you need, it is also exactly 100% wrong. If they were actually selfish & greedy, they would not be putting in large extra work & expense to maintain standards, they'd be tearing down zoning to build as much as they could on every square foot of their lot to extract maximum value. They are not. I watched a town where I lived vote out zoning for just such considerations. It was driven by developers, but a lot of it was "why should I have to get permission to build a barn or an in-law apt?". The same town voted a few years later to restore even stronger zoning. The FACT of the matter is: while unrestrained development may initially create more units, it actually sucks, badly, for everyone but the fly-by-night developers. Which means that the article's argument is wrong. People are spending sweat and money to actively NOT get the maximum dollar value out of their homes, because building quality of life is more important. If you want to go after the real problems, it is not zoning, any more than it's young people having Netflix subscriptions. A good place to start is with the problem of rental units for "passive income", for running AirBnBs, and housing being purchased by hedge funds and the like. Heavily tax anything that isn't a primary residence, and you'll get a lot of units back on the market fast, and at good prices.
  - ItsMonkk 4y ago

by toss1 4y ago

InefficientRed 4y ago

But of course destroying wetlands to build your house was entirely reasonable. > So, no this proposal is preposterous, aside from being a nonstarter. Young people who might want it are great at making noisy protests and notoriously bad at bothering to vote - the one thing that matters, while older people, and especially those who own property, tend to reliably vote. In other words, "let them eat cake". The "anyone under 45 doesn't deserve to afford shelter" attitude strikes me as a "fuck around and find out" situation.

toss1 4y ago
>>But of course destroying wetlands to build your house was entirely reasonable. * No. I didn't build it, I bought it already built, and no wetlands were damaged, it's 100' away, and thev'e got strict measures in this town. And if you think that a single family home outside the buffer zone has the same impact as 300 units in five buildings built ON the wetlands has the same impact, that's ummm, some next-level ignorance. The strict conservation zoning measures apply to any work - just replacing a porch footing 20 inches inside a zone requires several permits. Planning, work & expense. Everyone here incurs those costs to maintain a standard of living. >>In other words, "let them eat cake" Not even close The point is that destroying value that exists, and value that people have worked significant parts of their lives to create, is a very bad idea. It is a nonstarter because the ppl that worked to create & maintain those standards vote in far greater numbers than the people complaining. Just a relevant fact. (And threating "f around and find out" is great performance but zero votes - in how many elections have you voted?) Accusing the people who own nice properties of being motivated by selfishness and greed is not only offensive to the people whose votes you need, it is also exactly 100% wrong. If they were actually selfish & greedy, they would not be putting in large extra work & expense to maintain standards, they'd be tearing down zoning to build as much as they could on every square foot of their lot to extract maximum value. They are not. I watched a town where I lived vote out zoning for just such considerations. It was driven by developers, but a lot of it was "why should I have to get permission to build a barn or an in-law apt?". The same town voted a few years later to restore even stronger zoning. The FACT of the matter is: while unrestrained development may initially create more units, it actually sucks, badly, for everyone but the fly-by-night developers. Which means that the article's argument is wrong. People are spending sweat and money to actively NOT get the maximum dollar value out of their homes, because building quality of life is more important. If you want to go after the real problems, it is not zoning, any more than it's young people having Netflix subscriptions. A good place to start is with the problem of rental units for "passive income", for running AirBnBs, and housing being purchased by hedge funds and the like. Heavily tax anything that isn't a primary residence, and you'll get a lot of units back on the market fast, and at good prices.
- ItsMonkk 4y ago