3 ms·

> Allowing organizations with a lifespan in centuries the ability to buy and hold land without limit at no cost seems like a bad long term economic policy. Why

by lmm 3y ago

> Allowing organizations with a lifespan in centuries the ability to buy and hold land without limit at no cost seems like a bad long term economic policy. Why? If you believe land should be owned at all, an institution with a lifespan in centuries seems more likely to use the land responsibly than one with shorter-term planning. (At the least they should be less likely to e.g. dump a bunch of toxic waste for others to clean up; better, they actually have an incentive to develop it in positive ways)

bobthepanda 3y ago
All that land still gets hooked up to the power grid, local roads, the staff’s children need local schools, etc. and property tax is used to pay for upkeep and services. It is not as if Harvard is running its own sewage treatment and maintains the public roads through campus.
- lmm 3y ago
  The comment I replied to literally started with "Let’s sidestep the legitimate uses of the money for now."
  - tacticalturtle 3y ago
    I was trying to head off a nitpicking discussion over what is and is not a good use of tax payer money. The big idea is that cities do need some money. Locking away large portions of the city’s revenue generating assets (the land) indefinitely is going to reduce options for future city governments. We don’t know what the funding challenges of the future will be. I hope they are small - with minimal tax increases. But I think cities should have some ability to safeguard their future revenue generation.
    - lmm 3y ago
      A government should be the servant of its people, not their master; you're talking like the city naturally owns the land and other entities should have access to it on sufferance, which is backwards - especially in the case of Harvard which is likely older than the city government (and certainly older than city provision of electricity, roads, and schooling as GP was talking about). Blocking people from owning land today in case the city runs out of money in the future is putting the cart thoroughly before the horse.

by lmm 3y ago

bobthepanda 3y ago

All that land still gets hooked up to the power grid, local roads, the staff’s children need local schools, etc. and property tax is used to pay for upkeep and services. It is not as if Harvard is running its own sewage treatment and maintains the public roads through campus.

lmm 3y ago
The comment I replied to literally started with "Let’s sidestep the legitimate uses of the money for now."
- tacticalturtle 3y ago
  I was trying to head off a nitpicking discussion over what is and is not a good use of tax payer money. The big idea is that cities do need some money. Locking away large portions of the city’s revenue generating assets (the land) indefinitely is going to reduce options for future city governments. We don’t know what the funding challenges of the future will be. I hope they are small - with minimal tax increases. But I think cities should have some ability to safeguard their future revenue generation.
  - lmm 3y ago
    A government should be the servant of its people, not their master; you're talking like the city naturally owns the land and other entities should have access to it on sufferance, which is backwards - especially in the case of Harvard which is likely older than the city government (and certainly older than city provision of electricity, roads, and schooling as GP was talking about). Blocking people from owning land today in case the city runs out of money in the future is putting the cart thoroughly before the horse.