4 ms·

>>By giving locals the power to enable extra construction, and get a share of the resulting economic benefits >>and get a share of the resulting economic benef

by toss1 4y ago

>>By giving locals the power to enable extra construction, and get a share of the resulting economic benefits >>and get a share of the resulting economic benefits THIS, right there, is the key. Zoning rules of density caps exist to create & maintain a more pleasant environment. People building or purchasing into these areas pay higher costs initially and throughout their residency to maintain the better environment. These include everything from higher purchase cost, higher taxes, higher maintenance costs, higher regulatory costs, and more, and the benefits are worth it to them. ANY proposal to rezone at higher density essentially steals this extra value the existing residents have created over the course of decades (and generally transfers it into the pockets of the developers). Whether it is a medium-density city street with postage-stamp lots, a tight suburb, or an exurb with genuine wildlife habitat, the value of both the existing property and the neighborhood goes down. They get zero benefit, the benefits they've worked and paid to create are destroyed, and the developers extract the value of the land that is now worth more per square foot, building higher-density housing. So, OF COURSE they vote against it at every opportunity. However, this can all turn around if the existing landowners, who have paid for decades to create the value, share in the increase in values. If the property will devalue from 500x to 400x, but the compensation is 120x, then some will still vote against it because of the intangible environmental degradation (trees, wildlife, traffic, noise, etc.), but many will happily vote for it. The developers will still extract absurd amounts of money. That is how you make it work. An actual market mechanism, not expropriating value that homeowners have paid over decades to build with fiat dictates.

hackerlight 4y ago
> ANY proposal to rezone at higher density essentially steals this extra value the existing residents have created over the course of decades (and generally transfers it into the pockets of the developers). The complete opposite is closer to the truth. The homeowners resisting rezoning are the ones who are essentially stealing unearned extra value, as per Henry George's analysis. The majority of their home values do not come from the local investments made by fellow homeowners in the same block. The vast majority comes from physical network effects and public expenditure in the city and country at large. Everything from the army, judiciary and police, which protects the very existence of private land titles and therefore their value, to the local public roads and shopping centres and distance to the city heart which make that location desirable, to the public healthcare and overall GDP/prosperity of the country, which makes the country itself desirable. These are all variables and private and public expenditures which they haven't contributed to any more than someone living across the country who would like to move into their neighborhood. They steal this value by making it illegal to create new housing stock, which then causes all that public value to interalize into their private hands. It is classic capitalistic theft via using government as a tool, no different in spirit to crony capitalism, yet done by private individuals with a financial motive instead of by corporations.
- toss1 4y ago
  Nonsense. Setting the criteria at the block level is an absurd strawman argument, guaranteed to yield the intended result. A block of people better mowing their lawns and painting their houses obviousl costs something and does add a bit of value, but almost nothing is purchased at that level. For example, the strong conservation, good services, open space preservation, etc. I cited above are all made at the town level. Town A doesn't invest in those, saves the costs, and Town B does invest and costs more, and creates more value. But because it isn't the block, he puts it on the "public" side of his ledger. That's proof of nothing but George's willingness to paint the picture he and you want. Plus, if you really want to create value on land, you do development. Zoning maximum density REDUCES the value of the properties. I could make enough to retire if I could take down my house and put up a condo unit. But it is 2-acre zoning, and I can't, and it was cheaper to buy. I'm also a heluva lot less concerned once zoning density is high enough that there is effectively no ecosystem, it's just suburban hardscape, so maybe under quarter-acre zoning, it won't have much environmental effect as the flora & fauna are already pretty much gone, so development has much less impact beyond the heat island effect. But I don't know as much about the mix of buying/building/taxes/investment in those or city zones.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > Setting the criteria at the block level is an absurd strawman argument, guaranteed to yield the intended result. It isn't a strawman because altering the argument to a 5-8 miles radius township doesn't change much of substance. The valuations are primarily determined by proximity to city center/coast as well as desirability of the broader city/country, all of which have nothing to do with the township itself. A terrible house in a terrible location in a rich country costs more than a luxurious house in a poor country because that terrible house is free riding off the armed services, medical access, among other stolen global properties. So these are public goods whose fruits are stolen by the untaxed homeowners. A small percentage of variation in the valuation is due to strictly local features such as availability of shopping centers, but again that is private investment that the homeowners themselves had no part in and have no moral right to steal. Here, they are again free riding off other people's activity. If there are indeed things that the local homeowners themselves are doing which improve local valuations, these small contributions are dwarfed in magnitude by the above-mentioned free riding. > once zoning density is high enough that there is effectively no ecosystem, it's just suburban hardscape If you care about the ecosystem, then you should want more zoning density, because suburban sprawl is what destroys ecosystems, not pockets of density which allow for maximum land to be open green space.
cultureswitch 4y ago
Existing owners have paid nothing. They contribute next to nothing to make a neighborhood better. Public services do. They have bought the land years ago for peanuts and spent some resources keeping other people from doing the same. It's basically just pulling the ladder up once you're on top.
- toss1 4y ago
  Wrong. I can tell you specifically as an existing landowner in an area with a very healthy ecological preservation culture and strict conservation regulations, that we pay A LOT more on a continuing basis to maintain this, and it benefits our values a lot less than aggressive construction. First, the "public services" you mention? Yes, we pay more for those, because they are maintained at a high level. Everything from good roads and maintenance, good levels of service, conservation commission with a full-time employees in a tiny town, etc. Those public services cost money, and we are the only ones who foot the bill. (Not complaining, but don't act as if you are free or paid for by the state, county, etc.). On top of that, everything is also more expensive. Merely getting an exception to a rule to change where the front walk comes from the driveway to the front door required a $2000 engineering plan and $350 application fee for board approval (and that was to get a de minimus exception so we didn't need to get a $9000 survey) because a few feet of the stairs was within a 100' wetland buffer zone. We'll also have to take extra steps & costs during the construction to prevent any impact on the wetlands. There are also town taxpayer funds created to purchase open lands for wild area and recreational preservation. Again, all maintained OVER TIME by the town;s residents, and no one else. The original purchase price is meaningless; they are paying to build a better environment the entire time. It has zero to do with "pulling up the ladder", and everything to do with not wanting to do things like putting a 200-unit condo development on top of a steep wetland species harboring endangered species, multiplying traffic on rural roads by a factor of 20+, adding unpaid burdens to local public services, etc.
tptacek 4y ago
In fact, zoning rules and density caps exist, in the US (where they were pioneered) at least, mostly to prevent Black families from moving into municipalities. They proliferated after the 1917 Supreme Court Buchanan case that outlawed outright racial zoning. This is also most of the reason for minimum lot sizes (they worked in tandem with mortgage underwriting restrictions for Black families to make home purchases viable for whites and non-viable for Blacks).

by toss1 4y ago

hackerlight 4y ago

> ANY proposal to rezone at higher density essentially steals this extra value the existing residents have created over the course of decades (and generally transfers it into the pockets of the developers). The complete opposite is closer to the truth. The homeowners resisting rezoning are the ones who are essentially stealing unearned extra value, as per Henry George's analysis. The majority of their home values do not come from the local investments made by fellow homeowners in the same block. The vast majority comes from physical network effects and public expenditure in the city and country at large. Everything from the army, judiciary and police, which protects the very existence of private land titles and therefore their value, to the local public roads and shopping centres and distance to the city heart which make that location desirable, to the public healthcare and overall GDP/prosperity of the country, which makes the country itself desirable. These are all variables and private and public expenditures which they haven't contributed to any more than someone living across the country who would like to move into their neighborhood. They steal this value by making it illegal to create new housing stock, which then causes all that public value to interalize into their private hands. It is classic capitalistic theft via using government as a tool, no different in spirit to crony capitalism, yet done by private individuals with a financial motive instead of by corporations.

toss1 4y ago
Nonsense. Setting the criteria at the block level is an absurd strawman argument, guaranteed to yield the intended result. A block of people better mowing their lawns and painting their houses obviousl costs something and does add a bit of value, but almost nothing is purchased at that level. For example, the strong conservation, good services, open space preservation, etc. I cited above are all made at the town level. Town A doesn't invest in those, saves the costs, and Town B does invest and costs more, and creates more value. But because it isn't the block, he puts it on the "public" side of his ledger. That's proof of nothing but George's willingness to paint the picture he and you want. Plus, if you really want to create value on land, you do development. Zoning maximum density REDUCES the value of the properties. I could make enough to retire if I could take down my house and put up a condo unit. But it is 2-acre zoning, and I can't, and it was cheaper to buy. I'm also a heluva lot less concerned once zoning density is high enough that there is effectively no ecosystem, it's just suburban hardscape, so maybe under quarter-acre zoning, it won't have much environmental effect as the flora & fauna are already pretty much gone, so development has much less impact beyond the heat island effect. But I don't know as much about the mix of buying/building/taxes/investment in those or city zones.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > Setting the criteria at the block level is an absurd strawman argument, guaranteed to yield the intended result. It isn't a strawman because altering the argument to a 5-8 miles radius township doesn't change much of substance. The valuations are primarily determined by proximity to city center/coast as well as desirability of the broader city/country, all of which have nothing to do with the township itself. A terrible house in a terrible location in a rich country costs more than a luxurious house in a poor country because that terrible house is free riding off the armed services, medical access, among other stolen global properties. So these are public goods whose fruits are stolen by the untaxed homeowners. A small percentage of variation in the valuation is due to strictly local features such as availability of shopping centers, but again that is private investment that the homeowners themselves had no part in and have no moral right to steal. Here, they are again free riding off other people's activity. If there are indeed things that the local homeowners themselves are doing which improve local valuations, these small contributions are dwarfed in magnitude by the above-mentioned free riding. > once zoning density is high enough that there is effectively no ecosystem, it's just suburban hardscape If you care about the ecosystem, then you should want more zoning density, because suburban sprawl is what destroys ecosystems, not pockets of density which allow for maximum land to be open green space.

cultureswitch 4y ago

Existing owners have paid nothing. They contribute next to nothing to make a neighborhood better. Public services do. They have bought the land years ago for peanuts and spent some resources keeping other people from doing the same. It's basically just pulling the ladder up once you're on top.

toss1 4y ago
Wrong. I can tell you specifically as an existing landowner in an area with a very healthy ecological preservation culture and strict conservation regulations, that we pay A LOT more on a continuing basis to maintain this, and it benefits our values a lot less than aggressive construction. First, the "public services" you mention? Yes, we pay more for those, because they are maintained at a high level. Everything from good roads and maintenance, good levels of service, conservation commission with a full-time employees in a tiny town, etc. Those public services cost money, and we are the only ones who foot the bill. (Not complaining, but don't act as if you are free or paid for by the state, county, etc.). On top of that, everything is also more expensive. Merely getting an exception to a rule to change where the front walk comes from the driveway to the front door required a $2000 engineering plan and $350 application fee for board approval (and that was to get a de minimus exception so we didn't need to get a $9000 survey) because a few feet of the stairs was within a 100' wetland buffer zone. We'll also have to take extra steps & costs during the construction to prevent any impact on the wetlands. There are also town taxpayer funds created to purchase open lands for wild area and recreational preservation. Again, all maintained OVER TIME by the town;s residents, and no one else. The original purchase price is meaningless; they are paying to build a better environment the entire time. It has zero to do with "pulling up the ladder", and everything to do with not wanting to do things like putting a 200-unit condo development on top of a steep wetland species harboring endangered species, multiplying traffic on rural roads by a factor of 20+, adding unpaid burdens to local public services, etc.

tptacek 4y ago

In fact, zoning rules and density caps exist, in the US (where they were pioneered) at least, mostly to prevent Black families from moving into municipalities. They proliferated after the 1917 Supreme Court Buchanan case that outlawed outright racial zoning. This is also most of the reason for minimum lot sizes (they worked in tandem with mortgage underwriting restrictions for Black families to make home purchases viable for whites and non-viable for Blacks).