6 ms·
Of course what they should do to fund it is what they figured out in Hong Kong or Singapore decades ago. Have government requisition land around stations and re
by twelvechairs 2y ago
Of course what they should do to fund it is what they figured out in Hong Kong or Singapore decades ago. Have government requisition land around stations and redevelop it as high density towers and profit on the sales.
- givemeethekeys 2y agoWouldn't they have to confiscate the land first?
- throwup238 2y agoCaltrans would buy it the land this case. They've got a pretty significant real estate portfolio that they've acquired for a variety of projects over the decades. One random house I think they still own is Julia Child's childhood home in Pasadena.
- givemeethekeys 2y agoI imagine the price of land thats going to be rezoned into residential would be much higher than land thats marked for transportation.
- twelvechairs 2y agoIf you dont want government to compulsorily purchase land first, you can also do "value capture" which is in essence saying "anything developed to the new planning controls needs to pay money based on the difference between old and new controls". The economics is quite simple for developers to cost in but it needs to be there early, not imposed after all the developers have bought land without factoring it in.
- nothercastle 2y agoIt’s better and more transparent if done early but later is better than never
- twelvechairs 2y agoLater just doesnt work as developers wont be able to make a profit so they wont build. Most of the 'profit' (plus or minus some risk premium depending on site/location/timeframe purchased/etc.) will have already gone to whoever sold their land to the developer so government will find it impossible to extract in the same way
- lmm 2y agoAll long-distance transport construction requires "confiscating" land. Somehow it's completely routine to take huge swathes of land for freeway widening, but build one little train line and everyone loses their minds.
- travoc 2y agoWhy is "confiscating" in quotes? Is that not exactly what eminent domain takings are?
- llamaimperative 2y agoYou generally don’t get paid ~market rate for confiscations.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoThe constitution says the government cant confiscate anything without due process, so not sure why thats relevant.
- llamaimperative 2y agoEminent domain is considered due process
- HDThoreaun 2y agoEminent domain requires paying market rate
- llamaimperative 2y agoWhich… was my first point.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
- aqme28 2y agoI’m all for eminent domain when it comes to providing infrastructure, but I feel icky about it being used just to hopefully profit. Reminds me too much of Kelo v. New London
- llamaimperative 2y ago“Profit” is a misnomer. It’s to allow the taxpayers to recoup the costs of the project they funded. Who profits normally from such public investment is typically an extremely small set of landowners who happen (coincidentally or not) to be near those public investments. Which of those actually seems more fair?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoHow about the taxpayers recoup the cost through the value they receive from the project? It seems like this is just a way for the average taxpayer avoid paying for the asset they want. Major social projects should be selected based on the value they provide to the public at large, and paid for by the public at large. There are other types of public-private collaboration available if the goal is to benefit a niche group.
- hughesjj 2y agoHow is spending millions, if not billions, avoiding paying for the asset we want? Investments cost capital. The point of investing is to make things better that they are today. It's essentially impossible to exactly 'break even' on your returns, given uncertainty in the variables we know and the unknown unknowns in the variables we don't. Society is not a zero sum game. Everyone benefits here. I don't see the problem. 'california' is not a niche group of Californians -- it is the group.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think you misunderstand my point. Im saying the tax payers should pay for the project, because everyone benefits. They shouldnt try to foist the cost on some niche group, as suggested above. We already have a tax system which captures a portion of benefits from the social endeavor to each person. Arguments that specific landowners stand to benefit more, and therefore should pay for the train instead of taxpayers is faulty. It is faulty because it ignores the benefits of a train to the general population, and it ignores that those with disproportionate benefit will pay more taxes.
- bhl 2y agoDoes Caltrans have any history of developing profitable mixed used properties around new stations, like with the MTR Corporation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation
- ttymck 2y agoDid MTR have a history of developing profitable mixed use properties around stations before they started developing profitable mixed use properties around stations?