4 ms·

That's pretty hostile against conservationists that own property to save habitats rather than churn a profit. This will inevitably lead to this land winding up

That's pretty hostile against conservationists that own property to save habitats rather than churn a profit. This will inevitably lead to this land winding up in the hands of a capitalist that will destroy it in order to make money on it.

metacritic12 4y ago
Let the people through governments declare property as parks or preserves. This "conversationalist" approach is what NIMBYs hide behind. We can't build in Las Vegas because of a tortoise species. We can't go beyond N levels due to "conserving" the history of a district. Let the public (ideally across a broad area like a state or country) decide what areas need to be conserved for habitats. Don't let private land trusts / conservationlists be the mask that NIMBYs hide behind.
kec 4y ago
If something is truly valuable to protect it should be done by the government (who can simply nope out of LVT for the plot) rather than some random jerk (or who's kids) that might change their mind.
- shswkna 4y ago
  Your argument doesn’t hold up. A government can change its mind and priorities too. The diversity of right holders (private, government etc) over land ensures some good prevails through various political, social or economic circumstances.
  - kec 4y ago
    Well, it's held up for ~150 years in the form of our national parks just fine. That aside, the point here is that if something is being held for the common good, it should be held in common. "The Government" isn't a perfect check or steward, but there's actual accountably there, something which does not exist at all in the case of private ownership.
- hanniabu 4y ago
  The same government that undoes protections so resources on the land can be mined? You must have a very utopian vision of government that doesn't align with reality.
bee_rider 4y ago
Hard to say how it would all shake out. I believe one of the benefits of a land value tax is that it incentivizes maximizing utility:space and denser living as a result. Put a skyscraper in the place of a McMansion and you've got a whole lot of people sharing that land tax burden. So, fundamentally it should result in more wild spaces. Of course, it would be a change from the existing setup, resulting in a different layout, so some ecosystems might be damaged and "replaced" by worse ones. One would hope that, if a big change like this were to occur, it would be paired with some support to protect existing habitats.
oneoff786 4y ago
Tiny use case, easily solved with a tax credit.

metacritic12 4y ago

Let the people through governments declare property as parks or preserves. This "conversationalist" approach is what NIMBYs hide behind. We can't build in Las Vegas because of a tortoise species. We can't go beyond N levels due to "conserving" the history of a district. Let the public (ideally across a broad area like a state or country) decide what areas need to be conserved for habitats. Don't let private land trusts / conservationlists be the mask that NIMBYs hide behind.

kec 4y ago

If something is truly valuable to protect it should be done by the government (who can simply nope out of LVT for the plot) rather than some random jerk (or who's kids) that might change their mind.

shswkna 4y ago
Your argument doesn’t hold up. A government can change its mind and priorities too. The diversity of right holders (private, government etc) over land ensures some good prevails through various political, social or economic circumstances.
- kec 4y ago
  Well, it's held up for ~150 years in the form of our national parks just fine. That aside, the point here is that if something is being held for the common good, it should be held in common. "The Government" isn't a perfect check or steward, but there's actual accountably there, something which does not exist at all in the case of private ownership.
hanniabu 4y ago
The same government that undoes protections so resources on the land can be mined? You must have a very utopian vision of government that doesn't align with reality.

bee_rider 4y ago

Hard to say how it would all shake out. I believe one of the benefits of a land value tax is that it incentivizes maximizing utility:space and denser living as a result. Put a skyscraper in the place of a McMansion and you've got a whole lot of people sharing that land tax burden. So, fundamentally it should result in more wild spaces. Of course, it would be a change from the existing setup, resulting in a different layout, so some ecosystems might be damaged and "replaced" by worse ones. One would hope that, if a big change like this were to occur, it would be paired with some support to protect existing habitats.

oneoff786 4y ago

Tiny use case, easily solved with a tax credit.