5 ms·

> There’s not an acre of open land between San Jose and SF that doesn’t have a building structure on it. Fortunately we have the technology to tear down crappy

> There’s not an acre of open land between San Jose and SF that doesn’t have a building structure on it. Fortunately we have the technology to tear down crappy post-war single family homes and replace them with multi-unit buildings.

tekknik 4y ago
not everybody wants to live in a multi-tenant structure. some of us want miles between us and our neighbors.
- 8note 4y ago
  Taxes should generally handle that to make sure people don't stay in such places where lots of people want to live. If you're wanting that much space between neighbors in a high populations spot, that should be like $1M/y in property taxes
  - tekknik 4y ago
    > should be like $1M/y in property taxes why? because you want to be a dictator and force people to live how you want / like to live?
    - benja810 4y ago
      I believe GP was describing the [Land Value Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax). The idea being that a government invests in the infrastructure that improves the value of the land and because it's _public_ money funding those improvements, the property taxes should reflect the value provided. No one would be forcing people to live a certain way, just forcing them to either pay for the privilege of living in an area that was granted public funding for improved infrastructure, or live somewhere else that received less public investment. As a thought experiment, I find it easiest to understand the arguments for the Land Value Tax if you imagine a local government building a new subway line. Obviously, the existing homes around the new stops would have their property values increased. After all, many commute times were just cut in half! The local government is interested in more people living near those lines, more people == more tax revenue after all. If the local government had a Land Value Tax implemented, the infrastructure improvements they made to the area would automatically be included in the calculation for the taxes owed by the existing homeowners near the new subway stops. $1M/yr may sound insane, and it would be for a single-family home, but because of the new subway line, local developers are lining up to purchase the homes around that line in order to build new higher-density homes. The existing homeowners can either choose to pay the high tax and enjoy their short commute paid for by other taxpayers, or sell at a nice profit to developers. New higher-density homes get built, more taxpayers move in, the city can now build more infrastructure to improve the city!
      - tekknik 4y ago
        But now where did the idea that the land that is privately owned being subsidized by the public? That’s an arbitrary add on that doesn’t reflect any reality in the US. So again, it’s changing the system to match another’s ideals on how people should live.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  Some of us want to live in a castle. Some of us want to live on the moon! Have at it, if you can afford the luxury; just don't expect the rest of us to subsidize your lifestyle.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Rural areas where neighbors are miles apart tend not to be luxurious and in fact are very cheap. You can get 100s if acres of undeveloped land for next to nothing. It’s a very “city” idea that large quantities of land should be expensive. If it’s valuable to you then why not buy now while it’s cheap?

tekknik 4y ago

not everybody wants to live in a multi-tenant structure. some of us want miles between us and our neighbors.

8note 4y ago
Taxes should generally handle that to make sure people don't stay in such places where lots of people want to live. If you're wanting that much space between neighbors in a high populations spot, that should be like $1M/y in property taxes
- tekknik 4y ago
  > should be like $1M/y in property taxes why? because you want to be a dictator and force people to live how you want / like to live?
  - benja810 4y ago
    I believe GP was describing the [Land Value Tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax). The idea being that a government invests in the infrastructure that improves the value of the land and because it's _public_ money funding those improvements, the property taxes should reflect the value provided. No one would be forcing people to live a certain way, just forcing them to either pay for the privilege of living in an area that was granted public funding for improved infrastructure, or live somewhere else that received less public investment. As a thought experiment, I find it easiest to understand the arguments for the Land Value Tax if you imagine a local government building a new subway line. Obviously, the existing homes around the new stops would have their property values increased. After all, many commute times were just cut in half! The local government is interested in more people living near those lines, more people == more tax revenue after all. If the local government had a Land Value Tax implemented, the infrastructure improvements they made to the area would automatically be included in the calculation for the taxes owed by the existing homeowners near the new subway stops. $1M/yr may sound insane, and it would be for a single-family home, but because of the new subway line, local developers are lining up to purchase the homes around that line in order to build new higher-density homes. The existing homeowners can either choose to pay the high tax and enjoy their short commute paid for by other taxpayers, or sell at a nice profit to developers. New higher-density homes get built, more taxpayers move in, the city can now build more infrastructure to improve the city!
    - tekknik 4y ago
      But now where did the idea that the land that is privately owned being subsidized by the public? That’s an arbitrary add on that doesn’t reflect any reality in the US. So again, it’s changing the system to match another’s ideals on how people should live.
marssaxman 4y ago
Some of us want to live in a castle. Some of us want to live on the moon! Have at it, if you can afford the luxury; just don't expect the rest of us to subsidize your lifestyle.
- tekknik 4y ago
  Rural areas where neighbors are miles apart tend not to be luxurious and in fact are very cheap. You can get 100s if acres of undeveloped land for next to nothing. It’s a very “city” idea that large quantities of land should be expensive. If it’s valuable to you then why not buy now while it’s cheap?