Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make More Land

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#141

Post by wolco »

schoen wrote: post #133
leetcrew wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to lean libertarian on most issues, but I am starting to think it just doesn't make very much sense for people to own land privately. it's one of the only things in the world that is truly scarce (ie, you can't make more plots in the upper east side), and the value of land tends to be based much more on improvements to the surrounding area than improvements to the land itself. also, land ownership seems to lea…

An alternative that some libertarians seem to like is the land value tax, as proposed by Henry George. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax It has the problem that if you think existing property rights in land are legitimate, instituting it looks like a massive expropriation. Also, you can't avoid getting priced out of your home by buying it. It apparently has some pretty large economic efficiency and incenti…

But then the goal is to run down property values so investment stops.

Re: Make More Land

#142

Post by bluGill »

leetcrew wrote: post #115
marvin wrote: post #73

Here's the biggest objection, that would hold true for many expensive areas of the Western world, and any policy that will dramatically increase the supply of real estate: "I own property here, and if we do this, the value of my property will fall. Therefore, we shouldn't do it". This is the real motivation, but bring up some environmental concerns, something about retaining the character of the area, something about…

I tend to lean libertarian on most issues, but I am starting to think it just doesn't make very much sense for people to own land privately. it's one of the only things in the world that is truly scarce (ie, you can't make more plots in the upper east side), and the value of land tends to be based much more on improvements to the surrounding area than improvements to the land itself. also, land ownership seems to lea…

That is what we already have. Land values are the price to change the lease from one person to another.

Re: Make More Land

#143

Post by isostatic »

leetcrew wrote: post #115
marvin wrote: post #73

Here's the biggest objection, that would hold true for many expensive areas of the Western world, and any policy that will dramatically increase the supply of real estate: "I own property here, and if we do this, the value of my property will fall. Therefore, we shouldn't do it". This is the real motivation, but bring up some environmental concerns, something about retaining the character of the area, something about…

I tend to lean libertarian on most issues, but I am starting to think it just doesn't make very much sense for people to own land privately. it's one of the only things in the world that is truly scarce (ie, you can't make more plots in the upper east side), and the value of land tends to be based much more on improvements to the surrounding area than improvements to the land itself. also, land ownership seems to lea…

A land value tax, where you pay for the value of the land. Society builds a new subway stations near you, and land increases 20%, you pay 20% more tax. Society puts a power plant on your doorstep, land drops 40%, and you pay 40% less tax.

What you do with that land is irrelevent - you pay the same whether you have a small house on a 15 story building on it.

Re: Make More Land

#144

Post by beerandt »

eranima wrote: post #99
jackcosgrove wrote: post #97

There are people who dream of terraforming Mars, and there are people who object to filling in the southern end of San Francisco bay. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is some overlap between the two groups.

That's not really a fair comparison.

Isn't it?

When the US surveyed (PLSS) its lands for the express purpose of selling it to citizens and immigrants, they didn't even bother to survey most wetlands, because they were thought to be entirely worthless and of no value. Certainly not anything worth saving or preserving.

It sounds a lot like the attitude people currently have for the existing environment on Mars.

Re: Make More Land

#145

Post by zachguo »

imgabe wrote: post #57
BurningFrog wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously doubt any substantial part of the slowdowns are caused by improved worker safety. Yes there is a correlation between those two trends, but as we all know, that doesn't prove causation. We have enormously better technology today than in the 30s, and should be able to put of a skyscraper in 1/4 of the time. I understand that's more or less what China does.

But sometimes China has things like this happen: https://failedarchitecture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/22...

Hundreds of thousands of highrises were built there, one collapse doesn't mean much.

Re: Make More Land

#146

Post by beerandt »

ummonk wrote: post #69

I was once with a map of areas that, in the absence of dikes, would get flooded by rising sea levels. Outside places in Florida / Louisiana / Southeast Texas, the only major city I saw that would experience significant flooding was Boston. Now I know why. Of course, as the author mentions, dikes work perfectly fine (especially in an area like the Bay Area that isn't prone to hurricanes).

New York is a decent sized town.

Re: Make More Land

#147

Post by bluGill »

pyrale wrote: post #105
thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it would be far more environmentally friendly to build a high rise. Absolutely Right! And, it would decrease pollution and global warming because people's commutes would be much much shorter, as they wouldn't be forced to commute from 80 miles away, like it currently is in the Bay Area.

Food and building material would still need to commute, and the amount of energy it represents probably can't be decreased enough to make dense cities a good thing for climate change.

Food needs to be transported either way. Dense cities are better because the trucks need to make less stops on the delivery end.

Re: Make More Land

#148

Post by war1025 »

isostatic wrote: post #143
leetcrew wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to lean libertarian on most issues, but I am starting to think it just doesn't make very much sense for people to own land privately. it's one of the only things in the world that is truly scarce (ie, you can't make more plots in the upper east side), and the value of land tends to be based much more on improvements to the surrounding area than improvements to the land itself. also, land ownership seems to lea…

A land value tax, where you pay for the value of the land. Society builds a new subway stations near you, and land increases 20%, you pay 20% more tax. Society puts a power plant on your doorstep, land drops 40%, and you pay 40% less tax. What you do with that land is irrelevent - you pay the same whether you have a small house on a 15 story building on it.

Isn't that exactly what property taxes currently are?

Re: Make More Land

#149

Post by beerandt »

eranima wrote: post #103
tengbretson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be no such thing as a marine habitat that is not rare.

That's simply false. There are many different kinds of marine habitats, and as the above comment points out, this one is rare.

The parent comment self-defined it as "where the land naturally meets the sea." That's called the coast. So all coastline is rare and off limits?

If we create a new island, what about that new coastline? Is it worth preserving for the sake of it's "rarity"?

Re: Make More Land

#150

Post by schoen »

wolco wrote: post #141
schoen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative that some libertarians seem to like is the land value tax, as proposed by Henry George. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax It has the problem that if you think existing property rights in land are legitimate, instituting it looks like a massive expropriation. Also, you can't avoid getting priced out of your home by buying it. It apparently has some pretty large economic efficiency and incenti…

But then the goal is to run down property values so investment stops.

Whose goal?
Post reply on HN