3 ms·

I am familiar. Certainly if terms and conditions like this are encoded in deeds then the idea sounds better, but OTOH what we're discussing is eroding protecte

I am familiar. Certainly if terms and conditions like this are encoded in deeds then the idea sounds better, but OTOH what we're discussing is eroding protected status and replacing it with "less protected". After "less protected" is the new "protected", then of course it will just be eroded further. Anyway, we all know that desert shacks will eventually want water and power, which is only going to be available if we slightly expand existing cities/townships. This is not great, because actually curbing relentless profiteering is ultimately a better fix than starting a new wave of it, but it's also not terrible. The bait-and-switch here is that removing protections on public lands is ultimately for companies that are interested in exploitative extraction, not for renters. If public lands are going to be used in that way, then at the very least it should be part of a way to fund basic-income or something. This is the way it works in Alaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund), and whether or not it's effective is a matter for debate, but at least it actually feels like trying to take a step in the right direction.

ty6853 2y ago
What I'm having trouble getting past is the hypocrisy of building my home on sold public lands while telling the youth 'sorry got mine, go fuck yourself, you can't do the same thing that made my land ownership possible.' Perhaps there is a balance to be struck, but if our ancestors said what you're saying today we'd be in extremely dire straits and squashed into a tiny cluster of OG slivers of chartered land.
- photonthug 2y ago
  It's less about "got mine, fuck you" and more about noticing what does or doesn't work out. As you said, practically everything used to be public land, and yet we observe that a burned out meth trailer on .25 acres still costs a quarter million. So.. now you know exactly what happens if you decide to change nothing else and just privatize public lands. This fixes the problem for 1 guy maybe, who gets the dubious pleasure of paying a slightly less outrageous price and then shitting in a bucket for 20 years. Then that guy fucks over the next generation when they sell at the highest possible price that the market will bear and that increasingly desperate buyers can afford. Why do we want to do more of that? What's the plan for growth when the future arrives and there's nothing else to steal from the public?
  - ty6853 2y ago
    >, practically everything used to be public land, and yet we observe that a burned out meth trailer on .25 acres still costs a quarter million The omitted piece here is without discharging public lands .25 of marginal land on slivers of original chartered land would now likely be worth millions with nothing cheaper in sight. We noticed public discharge of lands had worked spectacularly well towards providing more land for homes and for cheaper prices. If we went by your criteria it would be a resounding 'sell it all' unquestionably. >ell at the highest possible price that the market will bear and that increasingly desperate buyers can afford Simple supply/demand dictated higher supply should lower prices all else equal >his fixes the problem for 1 guy maybe 1 guy who improved the land, then dies/sells, this goes on and generations enjoy the compounding fruit of this. And who says I want to change nothing else? The recipe I've found for success in a building a home for under 6 figures has many components 1) Use recently discharged or never developed former public land 2). No building codes or inspections, nor building plans or structural engineering. I took advantage of this to be able to DIY a home for $30k without having to deal with bureaucrats. 3) No licensing for trades. I saved lots by not dealing with unions or tradesmen gatekept by trades rackets. 4). Loose zoning 5). No public services. I built my own roads, with no tax funded road access, private septic, private water and utilities so that property taxes are near 0. Using my recipe people can own homes+land for a couple years of typical full time middle age wages and pay practically no taxes on it

ty6853 2y ago

What I'm having trouble getting past is the hypocrisy of building my home on sold public lands while telling the youth 'sorry got mine, go fuck yourself, you can't do the same thing that made my land ownership possible.' Perhaps there is a balance to be struck, but if our ancestors said what you're saying today we'd be in extremely dire straits and squashed into a tiny cluster of OG slivers of chartered land.

photonthug 2y ago
It's less about "got mine, fuck you" and more about noticing what does or doesn't work out. As you said, practically everything used to be public land, and yet we observe that a burned out meth trailer on .25 acres still costs a quarter million. So.. now you know exactly what happens if you decide to change nothing else and just privatize public lands. This fixes the problem for 1 guy maybe, who gets the dubious pleasure of paying a slightly less outrageous price and then shitting in a bucket for 20 years. Then that guy fucks over the next generation when they sell at the highest possible price that the market will bear and that increasingly desperate buyers can afford. Why do we want to do more of that? What's the plan for growth when the future arrives and there's nothing else to steal from the public?
- ty6853 2y ago
  >, practically everything used to be public land, and yet we observe that a burned out meth trailer on .25 acres still costs a quarter million The omitted piece here is without discharging public lands .25 of marginal land on slivers of original chartered land would now likely be worth millions with nothing cheaper in sight. We noticed public discharge of lands had worked spectacularly well towards providing more land for homes and for cheaper prices. If we went by your criteria it would be a resounding 'sell it all' unquestionably. >ell at the highest possible price that the market will bear and that increasingly desperate buyers can afford Simple supply/demand dictated higher supply should lower prices all else equal >his fixes the problem for 1 guy maybe 1 guy who improved the land, then dies/sells, this goes on and generations enjoy the compounding fruit of this. And who says I want to change nothing else? The recipe I've found for success in a building a home for under 6 figures has many components 1) Use recently discharged or never developed former public land 2). No building codes or inspections, nor building plans or structural engineering. I took advantage of this to be able to DIY a home for $30k without having to deal with bureaucrats. 3) No licensing for trades. I saved lots by not dealing with unions or tradesmen gatekept by trades rackets. 4). Loose zoning 5). No public services. I built my own roads, with no tax funded road access, private septic, private water and utilities so that property taxes are near 0. Using my recipe people can own homes+land for a couple years of typical full time middle age wages and pay practically no taxes on it