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

151–160 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#151

Post by lostapathy »

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.

Building material "commuting" is a one time thing, not every day for the rest of your life like getting to work.

Re: Make More Land

#152

Post by howard941 »

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.

But isn't it relevant when the use changes the need for public services? Aren't the external effects captured when fair market value is the value against which a millage rate's applied? I'm not seeing what's gained by ignoring the use.

Re: Make More Land

#153

Post by siruncledrew »

darksaints wrote: post #127

How about stop pretending like we don't have enough land in the Bay Area. The entire population of the bay area could live within the borders of San Jose, with room for a million more, if it were built at the density of Paris. Land Use is the problem, not quantity.

Yea, it’s pretty stupid that filling in 50mi^2 of water bodies with soil, retaining all of that land, and then building on top of it is the smarter thing to do than re-developing current land to fit changing needs.

The Bay Area could also just build taller buildings with more living space on land they already have in a denser area.

Also, I like that the article complains about how bad sprawl is, and then their solution is basically create sprawl from new land.

Re: Make More Land

#154

Post by leetcrew »

wolco wrote: post #139
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…

Private ownership pushes the cost of upkeep to the property owner and charges them a yearly fee. I'm not sure society could afford to maintain those properties while cities lose their taxation ability. It also anchors a person to society forces them to partipate.

I'm not suggesting the city becomes a landlord and starts renting out apartments to people.

I'm suggesting the city owns the land, you lease the land for something like twenty or fifty years and do what you want with it. next lessee gets to decide what they want to do with whatever you built there.

Re: Make More Land

#155

Post by leetcrew »

amalcon wrote: post #126
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…

I've heard the argument that this is what property taxes are (usually as means to oppose property taxes). What practical thing would you expect to change, that's different from just raising property taxes?

you don't get to resell the land when you're done with it, so it loses its value as a speculative investment. also the government gets a window whenever the lease ends to decide to do something else with the land (eg, build a train station).

Re: Make More Land

#156

Post by defterGoose »

whiddershins wrote: post #130
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…

So pay out those people! They have a legitimate concern, just not one that should stop anything new from ever happening. Although I think, based on experience and intuition mixed with logic, most nearby property values would actually go up.

>So pay out those people!

If you give a mouse a cookie...

Re: Make More Land

#157

Post by kelnos »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #94

"The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it. The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where far more land is available at far less impact to people" Perform a thought experiment in which human systems are part of nature, not separate from it; that land isn't set aside for nature, but that nature is everywhere. This frame will encourage systematic thinking of the sort that…

Yeah, this was my first objection, and the article addresses it in a way that I find completely misses the point.

I think it's a fantastic idea overall, but not at the expense of wetlands preserves.

Then again, what would actually be a fantastic idea overall would be increasing density in existing areas, but clearly that's politically fraught right now.

Re: Make More Land

#158

Post by [deleted] »

war1025 wrote: post #148
isostatic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Make More Land

#159

Post by leetcrew »

bluGill wrote: post #142
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…

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

you can certainly look at it that way, but the cost to change the lease is way bigger than the "rent". I'm also implying that you shouldn't be taxed on improvements you make to the land (like building a house). you pay for occupancy of the land itself and for any services consumed.

Re: Make More Land

#160

Post by leetcrew »

war1025 wrote: post #148
isostatic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

no? if you renovate your house in a way that increases the value of the structure, you will pay more tax. under LVT, you only pay more tax when the land itself increases in value. that's how the tax gets its name.
Post reply on HN