5 ms·

> The governing body needs to capture the increase in those land values. No. The governing body needs to not burn taxpayer funds like it's candy. Justifying

> The governing body needs to capture the increase in those land values. No. The governing body needs to not burn taxpayer funds like it's candy. Justifying the grotesque over-spending and timelines of these projects by saying "we'll come up with a way to charge you more money in taxes to make-up the difference is the root of all problems with so many projects. Why is it that the first reaction isn't to say do not spend my money that way! EDIT: Interesting to see how this is misunderstood. Let's see if I can make it simpler to understand. 1- There is nothing wrong with demanding that government use our money efficiently. This should not be controversial at all. Would you pay 4x or 10x for someone to build you home or sell you a car? Why not? Why can't we demand the same fairness from government? 2- Do not give more drugs to a drug addict. You are not going to improve the cost-effectiveness of government projects by giving them ore taxes. First make them more efficient. Then we can talk about using the savings for other projects. 3- No. Our (people) reason for existing isn't to pay taxes. Taxes should be the minimum required to do the business we require, not a cent more. That's the problem. Nobody is interested in holding government accountable for the way they conduct business.

birdyrooster 4y ago
It is necessary to cede some of your autonomy for cooperation. Cooperation is required for projects that benefit your environment which may serve other people. You have to cede some of your autonomy to serve other people. Anything less is a fantasy and it will hurt you.
rnk 4y ago
How do you pay for infrastructure without taxing someone? Mass transit has other goods than the immediate user.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Bonds against future revenue.
  - pas 4y ago
    isn't that what governments already do? they issue bonds then collect taxes for the coupon payments (debt service). raising money this way results in very small risk premiums (so low interest rates) if every project would have to do it separately it'd probably cost even more. and to solve the obvious problem of efficiency a prediction market could be used to decide what to fund with the "cheap" money.
nrb 4y ago
Isn’t it both that we should be more efficient AND contribution should be made locally for local improvements? I think value capture addresses this somewhat in the sense that if these projects are funded more locally, more attention would be paid to costs and timeline as opposed to the relatively distant federal money for which nobody feels a responsibility.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Governments are not businesses - they should not be thinking about "capturing value." Ideally, projects like this are handled at the minimum level of government: your city's transit system is your city's responsibility, funded through local taxes. This aligns interests the best. In practice, federal bureaucrats all over the world have figured out how to insert themselves into these kinds of local projects, which causes all sorts of conflict of interest problems, and divorces the person spending the money from the person funding the project (both the people who should be funding it and the people who are) and the person getting value from it.
larsiusprime 4y ago
Fun fact -- if we were to tax non-produced assets like land -- which nobody made, and the value of which is created by its neighbors and surrounding community rather than its owner -- then we could LOWER taxes on things like income and sales. So we could make transit pay for itself by taxing land values, instead of bankrupting the city with unaffordable boondoggles through bond initiatives and income and sales taxes, all of which are drags on the economy in one way or another.
- ejb999 4y ago
  I don't know where you live, but I have never lived any place (all in the USA) that doesn't tax land already. I for one enjoy having open spaces that are not developed - raising taxes on vacant land so high, and thus, force the owners to sell to someone who will develop it seems like a really bad idea. Trees and open space provide a lot of value to everyone - those that live nearby, even if they don't own it, and to everyone that likes to breath fresh air.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s not about undeveloped land. It’s about low value assets that take up a lot of space such as surface level parking lots or single level big box stores. The more of that stuff you condense into the same space the less traffic you have because everything is closer together and the more viable mass transit becomes. Not everything needs to be a mega city, but sprawl has massive externalities.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      Who gets to determine what that low value is? Where do they get the numbers from?
      - Retric 4y ago
        The market determines what’s low value, more specifically peoples willingness to pay land taxes determines what’s low value. Suppose the annual tax is 100,000$/acre, a warehouse may or may not be worth it depending on how profitable owning it was. Similarly, a billionaire could decide spending 2 million every year for their 20 acre property is reasonable or a waste of money. Where such scheme’s fail is really the implementation. Few local governments could stick with such a system rather than carving out exclusions.

birdyrooster 4y ago

It is necessary to cede some of your autonomy for cooperation. Cooperation is required for projects that benefit your environment which may serve other people. You have to cede some of your autonomy to serve other people. Anything less is a fantasy and it will hurt you.

rnk 4y ago

How do you pay for infrastructure without taxing someone? Mass transit has other goods than the immediate user.

ROTMetro 4y ago
Bonds against future revenue.
- pas 4y ago
  isn't that what governments already do? they issue bonds then collect taxes for the coupon payments (debt service). raising money this way results in very small risk premiums (so low interest rates) if every project would have to do it separately it'd probably cost even more. and to solve the obvious problem of efficiency a prediction market could be used to decide what to fund with the "cheap" money.

nrb 4y ago

Isn’t it both that we should be more efficient AND contribution should be made locally for local improvements? I think value capture addresses this somewhat in the sense that if these projects are funded more locally, more attention would be paid to costs and timeline as opposed to the relatively distant federal money for which nobody feels a responsibility.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Governments are not businesses - they should not be thinking about "capturing value." Ideally, projects like this are handled at the minimum level of government: your city's transit system is your city's responsibility, funded through local taxes. This aligns interests the best. In practice, federal bureaucrats all over the world have figured out how to insert themselves into these kinds of local projects, which causes all sorts of conflict of interest problems, and divorces the person spending the money from the person funding the project (both the people who should be funding it and the people who are) and the person getting value from it.

larsiusprime 4y ago

Fun fact -- if we were to tax non-produced assets like land -- which nobody made, and the value of which is created by its neighbors and surrounding community rather than its owner -- then we could LOWER taxes on things like income and sales. So we could make transit pay for itself by taxing land values, instead of bankrupting the city with unaffordable boondoggles through bond initiatives and income and sales taxes, all of which are drags on the economy in one way or another.

ejb999 4y ago
I don't know where you live, but I have never lived any place (all in the USA) that doesn't tax land already. I for one enjoy having open spaces that are not developed - raising taxes on vacant land so high, and thus, force the owners to sell to someone who will develop it seems like a really bad idea. Trees and open space provide a lot of value to everyone - those that live nearby, even if they don't own it, and to everyone that likes to breath fresh air.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s not about undeveloped land. It’s about low value assets that take up a lot of space such as surface level parking lots or single level big box stores. The more of that stuff you condense into the same space the less traffic you have because everything is closer together and the more viable mass transit becomes. Not everything needs to be a mega city, but sprawl has massive externalities.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    Who gets to determine what that low value is? Where do they get the numbers from?
    - Retric 4y ago
      The market determines what’s low value, more specifically peoples willingness to pay land taxes determines what’s low value. Suppose the annual tax is 100,000$/acre, a warehouse may or may not be worth it depending on how profitable owning it was. Similarly, a billionaire could decide spending 2 million every year for their 20 acre property is reasonable or a waste of money. Where such scheme’s fail is really the implementation. Few local governments could stick with such a system rather than carving out exclusions.