4 ms·
And then landowners who were “smart” enough to own land where this ends up going in get to reap all the financial upside, instead of the public which actually i
by llamaimperative 2y ago
And then landowners who were “smart” enough to own land where this ends up going in get to reap all the financial upside, instead of the public which actually invested in that infrastructure.
Just imagine if the public could capture the (financial) upside it produces, then it could apply that money to do the same thing down the road, then do the same thing again down the road further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem?wprov=sfti1# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem?wprov=sft...
- showerst 2y agoA version of this is common now in the US through Tax Increment Financing. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/tax_increment_financing.aspx https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/tax_incre...
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI don’t see how that is a version of what llamaimperative posts. If anything, TIF increases rewards for landowners who do nothing or otherwise underutilize land. Taxing the product of work to make a piece of land beneficial for society is amazingly backwards. The proper direction to go in is marginal land value tax rates, with increasing penalties the longer a spaces remains unused.
- icegreentea2 2y agoIn some countries the transit companies (public or private) also become the landowners of the adjacent areas - this would be the "rail plus property" model. In fact, the rail plus property model allows the rail operate to better capture their added value, so it applies even in "private" scenarios. The most famous example would be Tokyo. The goal shouldn't be for the public to be able to reap direct financial benefits from the induced activity around transit hubs, the goal should be to firstly to incentivize and maintain affordable, high quality, sustainable transit, secondly to provide more and better economic opportunities.
- shipp02 2y agoThis is the case in Hong Kong as well. The subway company is also involved in the malls built on top of them. There are malls and neighborhoods built entirely around the subway station
- delroth 2y agoSame in Switzerland, with the added quirk/bonus that shops in train stations are allowed to open on Sundays, when shops outside of train stations usually can't open due to employment laws. This wasn't originally meant as a way to increase attractiveness of businesses in train stations and other public transit places, rather as a way to make sure that people travelling have services available while on their way. But nowadays it's definitely a big reason for people to come specifically shop in train stations on the weekend.
- RhysU 2y ago> Just imagine if the public could capture the (financial) upside it produces... Like through taxes on the sale of the property or the increased business income it produces? The public will.
- llamaimperative 2y agoNo, taxes on the unimproved value of the land
- RhysU 2y agoProperty taxes include that, generally.
- jeromegv 2y agoThis typically goes to the higher level of government. Not the local one that manage and build that transit system.
- RhysU 2y agoWhy should the transit system butt into the jurisdiction of the traditional government just because transit is built somewhere? As a silly dystopia, imagine that a transit agency could grab revenue as you suggest it might. Then everything becomes a transit land grab.
- Scoundreller 2y ago> Like through taxes on the sale of the property That just encourages corporate ownership of property (unless you mitigate that), but overall I don’t know why we’d disincentivize moving closer to a new workplace or into a smaller home once it will do for you.
- bobthepanda 2y agoIt also disincentivizes speculation, which is just a flurry of repeated transactions.