4 ms·
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. Lockin
by 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 agoA 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.