5 ms·

The housing shortage is the result of under-building over the past fifteen years, exacerbated by labor shortages in the construction industry and trades. On the

The housing shortage is the result of under-building over the past fifteen years, exacerbated by labor shortages in the construction industry and trades. On the land side of the equation, the problem is zoning not bad tax incentives. LVTs could move the housing supply needle in some locales but if you want to increase the supply of housing there are bigger dragons to slay.

J_Shelby_J 3y ago
Under building is caused by NIMBYISM which exists without opposition because we don't value and tax land fairly. Stop letting low tax paying SFHing leech off the system, and we will be incentivized to build more.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Lvt would just make nimbyism worse, it doesn't punish it. Up zoning and public infrastructure increases property value. The best way to keep your land value tax low is to ensure that zoning restricts its use and Light Rail never gets built.
  - ItsMonkk 3y ago
    Under the existing system you are incentivized for your own land to be zoned as highly as possible while your neighbors land is restricted as possible to keep supply low. Since everyone votes against you and you vote against everyone, zoning is low just about everywhere. Under a land value tax this flips, and the majority vote would go to up-zoning.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      No, I think it is the opposite. The more options available for your land and that of your neighbors, the higher your land is valued. This means you want the maximum restrictions to keep the value low, for both you and your neighbors.
      - eru 3y ago
        If the land of Joe's neighbours has no restrictions at all, it will be valuable. But if Joe's land has a weird zoning that says 'can only be used by Joe' that land would be nearly worthless on the market, but good for Joe. Less extreme, if you have a neighbourhood with plots that allow unlimited building and a few plots that only allow single family homes, the latter would be a lot cheaper.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Exactly what I am saying.
      - ItsMonkk 3y ago
        And what is your take on when Minneapolis voted to allow multi-family units[0] and rents dropped[1] relative to other cities? Shouldn't those new units have brought higher land values, and with it higher rents? [0]: https://archive.ph/7oCO6 https://archive.ph/7oCO6 [1]: https://archive.ph/lO8xY https://archive.ph/lO8xY
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        rents =/= land value. you can put a duplex or quad-plex on a parcel and have much lower rent, but higher parcel land value. If you are a homeowner who wants lower land value tax, you should fight tooth and nail to prevent higher density zoning,
        eru 3y ago
        You would want higher density zoning in all the other neighbourhoods across town, I guess?

J_Shelby_J 3y ago

Under building is caused by NIMBYISM which exists without opposition because we don't value and tax land fairly. Stop letting low tax paying SFHing leech off the system, and we will be incentivized to build more.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Lvt would just make nimbyism worse, it doesn't punish it. Up zoning and public infrastructure increases property value. The best way to keep your land value tax low is to ensure that zoning restricts its use and Light Rail never gets built.
- ItsMonkk 3y ago
  Under the existing system you are incentivized for your own land to be zoned as highly as possible while your neighbors land is restricted as possible to keep supply low. Since everyone votes against you and you vote against everyone, zoning is low just about everywhere. Under a land value tax this flips, and the majority vote would go to up-zoning.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    No, I think it is the opposite. The more options available for your land and that of your neighbors, the higher your land is valued. This means you want the maximum restrictions to keep the value low, for both you and your neighbors.
    - eru 3y ago
      If the land of Joe's neighbours has no restrictions at all, it will be valuable. But if Joe's land has a weird zoning that says 'can only be used by Joe' that land would be nearly worthless on the market, but good for Joe. Less extreme, if you have a neighbourhood with plots that allow unlimited building and a few plots that only allow single family homes, the latter would be a lot cheaper.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Exactly what I am saying.
    - ItsMonkk 3y ago
      And what is your take on when Minneapolis voted to allow multi-family units[0] and rents dropped[1] relative to other cities? Shouldn't those new units have brought higher land values, and with it higher rents? [0]: https://archive.ph/7oCO6 https://archive.ph/7oCO6 [1]: https://archive.ph/lO8xY https://archive.ph/lO8xY
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        rents =/= land value. you can put a duplex or quad-plex on a parcel and have much lower rent, but higher parcel land value. If you are a homeowner who wants lower land value tax, you should fight tooth and nail to prevent higher density zoning,
        eru 3y ago
        You would want higher density zoning in all the other neighbourhoods across town, I guess?