4 ms·

> A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents Zoning usually dictates what's

> A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents Zoning usually dictates what's allowed and is indifferent to tax rates

theluketaylor 4y ago
One of the many reasons exclusionary zoning needs to die in a fire. The urban housing crisis has been allowed to grow for decades, so we're long past any single solution, but I'm increasingly convinced no combination of fixes can succeed while exclusionary zoning still exists. Japanese-style inclusionary zoning splits the difference nicely between making sure people don't live next to loud, potentially dangerous industry and allowing lots of mixed-use, human scale developments of varying density. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
- staringback 4y ago
  US home ownership: 65% Japan home ownership: 61% Yet there is such a housing crisis in the states due to the "zoning" bogeyman
  - dpe82 4y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is? Does development policy not affect the supply and location of housing?
yellowapple 4y ago
Exclusionary zoning exists because of NIMBYism. NIMBYism exists because of the financial incentive to raise land values. That financial incentive exists because of a lack of taxation on land value.
- conductr 4y ago
  Not sure I agree. Or doesn't fit with my experience/city/state. All zoning is exclusionary to my knowledge. That's the entire point. It's not necessary but it exists because it exists. And, it's sticky. It was established most likely when the entire city was raw land and undeveloped; so it served as a plan for development. There was no NIMBY because people were building their BY. Because there was a plan, you could decide where you wanted to build that BY. Once you have developed the land, raised family, lived in a house for decade(s), and the city around you develops and changes. Now, your property maybe better utilized as a multifamily complex or a nuclear reactor, or anything really. But, it's your home and you shouldn't be taxed out of it. Rezoning as a process is may difficult and probably should be. There's a lot of stakeholders/neighbors who are impacted by a change. They should have some say. It just so happens that those people who bought a single family house in a single family neighborhood tend to prefer it to stay that way so they get called NIMBY but it's a completely rational perspective to have if you were in their shoes. Thus, an introduction of this tax only serves to displace the current owners who can not afford the new tax bill and does nothing to change the actual zoning. So the result is, richer people with bigger tax-bill budgets move in and your even further into the NIMBYism trap not even realizing you're in a zoning trap. If you open up the zoning (and perhaps the building restrictions), the best and highest uses can actually prevail.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    A lot of zoning in sane countries is hierarchical which means it doesn't exclude, it gives permission.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > It was established most likely when the entire city was raw land and undeveloped; so it served as a plan for development. There was no NIMBY because people were building their BY. Because there was a plan, you could decide where you wanted to build that BY. That's not really true. Zoning was usually set up later. Often the existing buildings wouldn't be permitted by the zoning rules but were "grandfathered in". (If we made this practice illegal and insisted that you have to demolish anything that doesn't fit the new zoning laws, that might be one way to keep zoning laws sane). Even if the final state of those people's buildings is legal, often the process by which they were built wouldn't be. > Once you have developed the land, raised family, lived in a house for decade(s), and the city around you develops and changes. Now, your property maybe better utilized as a multifamily complex or a nuclear reactor, or anything really. But, it's your home and you shouldn't be taxed out of it. Rezoning as a process is may difficult and probably should be. There's a lot of stakeholders/neighbors who are impacted by a change. They should have some say. It just so happens that those people who bought a single family house in a single family neighborhood tend to prefer it to stay that way so they get called NIMBY but it's a completely rational perspective to have if you were in their shoes. Guess they should've had the foresight to get born earlier? It seems absurdly unfair to say that zoning set up for a population that was half the size should bind the current generation. I get that it's individually rational to want to pull the ladder up behind you, but it's disgusting. (And for the "people shouldn't be forced out of their home" crowd: my generation gets forced out of our homes every 2-3 years because we can't afford to own and have to rent. So I won't shed any tears for boomers getting forced out of their home once in several decades)
- glitchinc 4y ago
  This is not always true. I live in a Resource Conservation zoning area that was established to protect wildlife and vegetation in our region and preserve a large watershed area that is one of the primary sources of potable drinking water for folks that live down in the valley in the suburban and metropolitan areas. I consider my family and I extremely lucky to live in the area that we do, but we are a far cry from NIMBYs.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    That sort of thing doesn't require zoning; it requires public ownership and management. Land is unowned by default.
AmVess 4y ago
There is zoning, and then also the cost of development. Here, the reason why no starter homes are being built is because the cost to develop a subdivision is so high that no one can make a profit selling inexpensive homes.
- dpe82 4y ago
  Where is "here"?

> A land value tax would incentivize residential landowners to build more units which provides more supply and would lower rents Zoning usually dictates what's allowed and is indifferent to tax rates

theluketaylor 4y ago

One of the many reasons exclusionary zoning needs to die in a fire. The urban housing crisis has been allowed to grow for decades, so we're long past any single solution, but I'm increasingly convinced no combination of fixes can succeed while exclusionary zoning still exists. Japanese-style inclusionary zoning splits the difference nicely between making sure people don't live next to loud, potentially dangerous industry and allowing lots of mixed-use, human scale developments of varying density. http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

staringback 4y ago
US home ownership: 65% Japan home ownership: 61% Yet there is such a housing crisis in the states due to the "zoning" bogeyman
- dpe82 4y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is? Does development policy not affect the supply and location of housing?

yellowapple 4y ago

Exclusionary zoning exists because of NIMBYism. NIMBYism exists because of the financial incentive to raise land values. That financial incentive exists because of a lack of taxation on land value.

conductr 4y ago
Not sure I agree. Or doesn't fit with my experience/city/state. All zoning is exclusionary to my knowledge. That's the entire point. It's not necessary but it exists because it exists. And, it's sticky. It was established most likely when the entire city was raw land and undeveloped; so it served as a plan for development. There was no NIMBY because people were building their BY. Because there was a plan, you could decide where you wanted to build that BY. Once you have developed the land, raised family, lived in a house for decade(s), and the city around you develops and changes. Now, your property maybe better utilized as a multifamily complex or a nuclear reactor, or anything really. But, it's your home and you shouldn't be taxed out of it. Rezoning as a process is may difficult and probably should be. There's a lot of stakeholders/neighbors who are impacted by a change. They should have some say. It just so happens that those people who bought a single family house in a single family neighborhood tend to prefer it to stay that way so they get called NIMBY but it's a completely rational perspective to have if you were in their shoes. Thus, an introduction of this tax only serves to displace the current owners who can not afford the new tax bill and does nothing to change the actual zoning. So the result is, richer people with bigger tax-bill budgets move in and your even further into the NIMBYism trap not even realizing you're in a zoning trap. If you open up the zoning (and perhaps the building restrictions), the best and highest uses can actually prevail.
- imtringued 4y ago
  A lot of zoning in sane countries is hierarchical which means it doesn't exclude, it gives permission.
- lmm 4y ago
  > It was established most likely when the entire city was raw land and undeveloped; so it served as a plan for development. There was no NIMBY because people were building their BY. Because there was a plan, you could decide where you wanted to build that BY. That's not really true. Zoning was usually set up later. Often the existing buildings wouldn't be permitted by the zoning rules but were "grandfathered in". (If we made this practice illegal and insisted that you have to demolish anything that doesn't fit the new zoning laws, that might be one way to keep zoning laws sane). Even if the final state of those people's buildings is legal, often the process by which they were built wouldn't be. > Once you have developed the land, raised family, lived in a house for decade(s), and the city around you develops and changes. Now, your property maybe better utilized as a multifamily complex or a nuclear reactor, or anything really. But, it's your home and you shouldn't be taxed out of it. Rezoning as a process is may difficult and probably should be. There's a lot of stakeholders/neighbors who are impacted by a change. They should have some say. It just so happens that those people who bought a single family house in a single family neighborhood tend to prefer it to stay that way so they get called NIMBY but it's a completely rational perspective to have if you were in their shoes. Guess they should've had the foresight to get born earlier? It seems absurdly unfair to say that zoning set up for a population that was half the size should bind the current generation. I get that it's individually rational to want to pull the ladder up behind you, but it's disgusting. (And for the "people shouldn't be forced out of their home" crowd: my generation gets forced out of our homes every 2-3 years because we can't afford to own and have to rent. So I won't shed any tears for boomers getting forced out of their home once in several decades)
glitchinc 4y ago
This is not always true. I live in a Resource Conservation zoning area that was established to protect wildlife and vegetation in our region and preserve a large watershed area that is one of the primary sources of potable drinking water for folks that live down in the valley in the suburban and metropolitan areas. I consider my family and I extremely lucky to live in the area that we do, but we are a far cry from NIMBYs.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  That sort of thing doesn't require zoning; it requires public ownership and management. Land is unowned by default.

AmVess 4y ago

There is zoning, and then also the cost of development. Here, the reason why no starter homes are being built is because the cost to develop a subdivision is so high that no one can make a profit selling inexpensive homes.

dpe82 4y ago
Where is "here"?