4 ms·

If tax policy is not designed with these considerations in mind, then it will incentivize an improper mix and deteriorate the livability of the city. For instan

If tax policy is not designed with these considerations in mind, then it will incentivize an improper mix and deteriorate the livability of the city. For instance, where I live the city core has been abandoned by families because no family-sized units have been built in something like 40 years. So families move out of the cities and then commute which causes all sorts of traffic problems, wastes their time in these commutes, creates more pollution and carbon emissions, and so on.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 4y ago
Why is that necessarily the case? The market has much better information about the demand for 3bdr apartments than cities and counties do. Mostly we have the opposite problem: top-down policy from local governments impedes the construction of 3bdr apartments.
- naasking 4y ago
  It's a mistake to assume that builders are responding to demand. All actors in a market have only partial information. To take my city as an example, the housing market started heating up, so builders started constructing condos and tried to pack as many units into their building as possible, thus improving supply. This created a vibrant urban centre for young people who live on their own in modest apartments and drove up demand among that cohort even further, thus incentivising further construction of those same units, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. But young people aren't the only ones who need to be downtown, as I said, and families were driven out to the suburbs for suitable housing. They have to commute instead, which has caused all sorts of gridlock and the usual problems with urban sprawl. If the right incentives existed for mixed housing, tax incentives included, then this wouldn't happen, and people of all ages could afford to live closer to where they work, thus alleviating many of those issues and creating more livable cities. Here in Canada we already do this in one sense by mixing government housing among more affluent neighbourhoods. This has prevented the formation of ghettos, but this same approach hasn't been applied to create an appropriate mix of housing for all different living arrangements. So given a land value tax incentivises certain kinds of land use, my question is whether it would incentivise using land to make urban centres more livable for all types of people, rather than only certain kinds of people or lifestyles.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The premise of a market is that everybody is acting with partial information, and the market aggregates and allocates over time. I'm no anti-government squish, but there is no evidence, and a lot of countervailing evidence, that local governments can effectively (or even non-harmfully) make policy to influence the housing mix. When it comes to housing construction and tax incentives, what they need to do is (1) set tax incentives to discourage egregious misuse and encourage density, and (2) get out of the way. As someone living in the middle of one of these debates right now, the idea that we need to carefully control the mix of 1bdr apartments vs 3bdr apartments is... risible? The frontline of this issue is SFZ, not what kind of apartments we build.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > I'm no anti-government squish, but there is no evidence, and a lot of countervailing evidence, that local governments can effectively (or even non-harmfully) make policy to influence the housing mix. I disagree. No planning has lead to many ghettos. The planning we've done here has avoided ghettos. I think the data is very clear on that. > When it comes to housing construction and tax incentives, what they need to do is (1) set tax incentives to discourage egregious misuse and encourage density, and (2) get out of the way. Except as I've been saying, if you encourage too much density your cities become unlivable for families, and you encourage urban sprawl and all of it's subsequent problems. > the idea that we need to carefully control the mix of 1bdr apartments vs 3bdr apartments is... risible? Who said anything about "carefully controlling" anything? Certainly not me.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I see no evidence at all that increased density is a livability problem for families, and plenty of --- in fact, overwhelming --- that inadequate density is a bar for access to communities in the first place. So, no, I reject this argument outright.
        frumper 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 4y ago

Why is that necessarily the case? The market has much better information about the demand for 3bdr apartments than cities and counties do. Mostly we have the opposite problem: top-down policy from local governments impedes the construction of 3bdr apartments.

naasking 4y ago
It's a mistake to assume that builders are responding to demand. All actors in a market have only partial information. To take my city as an example, the housing market started heating up, so builders started constructing condos and tried to pack as many units into their building as possible, thus improving supply. This created a vibrant urban centre for young people who live on their own in modest apartments and drove up demand among that cohort even further, thus incentivising further construction of those same units, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. But young people aren't the only ones who need to be downtown, as I said, and families were driven out to the suburbs for suitable housing. They have to commute instead, which has caused all sorts of gridlock and the usual problems with urban sprawl. If the right incentives existed for mixed housing, tax incentives included, then this wouldn't happen, and people of all ages could afford to live closer to where they work, thus alleviating many of those issues and creating more livable cities. Here in Canada we already do this in one sense by mixing government housing among more affluent neighbourhoods. This has prevented the formation of ghettos, but this same approach hasn't been applied to create an appropriate mix of housing for all different living arrangements. So given a land value tax incentivises certain kinds of land use, my question is whether it would incentivise using land to make urban centres more livable for all types of people, rather than only certain kinds of people or lifestyles.
- tptacek 4y ago
  The premise of a market is that everybody is acting with partial information, and the market aggregates and allocates over time. I'm no anti-government squish, but there is no evidence, and a lot of countervailing evidence, that local governments can effectively (or even non-harmfully) make policy to influence the housing mix. When it comes to housing construction and tax incentives, what they need to do is (1) set tax incentives to discourage egregious misuse and encourage density, and (2) get out of the way. As someone living in the middle of one of these debates right now, the idea that we need to carefully control the mix of 1bdr apartments vs 3bdr apartments is... risible? The frontline of this issue is SFZ, not what kind of apartments we build.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > I'm no anti-government squish, but there is no evidence, and a lot of countervailing evidence, that local governments can effectively (or even non-harmfully) make policy to influence the housing mix. I disagree. No planning has lead to many ghettos. The planning we've done here has avoided ghettos. I think the data is very clear on that. > When it comes to housing construction and tax incentives, what they need to do is (1) set tax incentives to discourage egregious misuse and encourage density, and (2) get out of the way. Except as I've been saying, if you encourage too much density your cities become unlivable for families, and you encourage urban sprawl and all of it's subsequent problems. > the idea that we need to carefully control the mix of 1bdr apartments vs 3bdr apartments is... risible? Who said anything about "carefully controlling" anything? Certainly not me.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I see no evidence at all that increased density is a livability problem for families, and plenty of --- in fact, overwhelming --- that inadequate density is a bar for access to communities in the first place. So, no, I reject this argument outright.
      - frumper 4y ago