3 ms·
>who may be skeptical of centralized policymaking. Oh, we're talking about zoning? >The main thing a LVT creates is constant churn as (retired) people cease t
by xxpor 4y ago
>who may be skeptical of centralized policymaking.
Oh, we're talking about zoning?
>The main thing a LVT creates is constant churn as (retired) people cease to be able to afford to live in their homes, incentivizes being a landlord, and punishes family wealth creation via home ownership (which is a barrier to class mobility)
Yes, this is in fact literally the point.
You can't have a growing population, and then depend on land ownership to generate wealth in perpetuity. There's only so much land. The class mobility point is especially hilarious. Yeah, Joe the Waiter is really going to be able to afford the $1.5 million 2000 sq ft house in Seattle to move his family up the ladder.
- motohagiography 4y agoJoe the Waiter buys a house in a rough neighbourhood with his partner Lance, who works a hospital caregiver job, and together, their relationship becomes a community fixture that makes that neighbourhood a little more desirable for other families, who move in, and leverage their property to send their kid to college, who in turn become engineers and lawyers, etc. Eventually, Lance dies, and Joe lives on his remaining pension in the house they had together, in a neighbourhood they invested their lives in and made it desirable and safe. This hypothetical couple took a risk by moving into an area that was blighted by related naive policymaking the OP was advocating, and a LVT just penalizes them for their rapacious capitalist gentrification of a progressive policy failure.