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

161–170 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#161

Post by leetcrew »

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…

LVT was part of the inspiration for this idea.

> Also, you can't avoid getting priced out of your home by buying it.

this is part of what I was getting at in the "land is one of the only truly scarce things" bit. I don't think the expectation that you should be able to afford to live on a specific piece of land forever is reasonable.

Re: Make More Land

#162

Post by thewarrior »

nostromo wrote: post #111
dr_dshiv wrote: post #81

America has an attitude problem. It thinks it is already developed. Like, there is nothing left to do. That is the single biggest difference between the America of today and the America of the last century. The Netherlands feels more like India, in that everything is under a state of continual improvement all the time. The Netherlands is fantastically futuristic, though, and super nice (much more developed than most…

The Netherlands is futuristic? Now I'm wondering if there's another Netherlands somewhere I haven't yet visited. I love the Netherlands in part because it feels like it was frozen in time in the 1800s.

Disclaimer : I have only seen SF and NY in the US.

Netherlands is one of the best countries I've been to. Its squeaky clean throughout with excellent infrastructure. Most of the roads, public transport systems look spanking new and are not overloaded. Its also quite green. The long distance trains are also pretty fantastic compared to the ones you might find in the UK or US. Amsterdam is one of the most liberal cities in the world with a good startup eco system. It definitely is one of the best countries in the world. The USA honestly feels like a downgrade compared to it.

Re: Make More Land

#163

Post by gfodor »

jschwartzi wrote: post #138
twic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where i cringed hardest. Wetlands are, as you say, disproportionately valuable in ecological terms. Not just for wildlife, but for nutrient recycling. Wetlands are mostly found around bays and estuaries. Now, where are major cities found? That's right, around bays and estuaries! Because that's where you can build ports and lowest bridging points, and those are fundamental drivers of the development of cities.…

Me too. I stopped reading the article after that "who cares, the birds can just move somewhere else" kind of thinking. It's supremely ironic that the author copped this attitude about land use in the Bay Area, of all places.

I mean, you either accept the plan or not. The author clearly accepts the plan. Instead of writing reams of text about how much they care about the birds, they state clearly that's one negative characteristic of the plan: the birds are fucked. You may disagree, but you have to commend the honestly and lack of trying to weasel out of it as we've come to expect.

And frankly, the behavior of stopping reading of a proposal when you get to a point of disagreement is the root cause for why people have to do such weaseling: otherwise, people who do that would just stop listening or leave the room. So what we get are leaders who are forced to come up with ornate, wishy-washy language to lead people to the end of the argument so they can, maybe, digest the whole thing at the end.

Re: Make More Land

#164

Post by Eugeleo »

This is mostly tangential, but the (I pressume) owner of the site, Eliezer Yudkowski, is the author of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, which is a great book about rationality, cognitive biases and the scientific method as applied in day to day life. It’s free to read on the web and has a podcast version as well!

I’m not affiliated in any way, just a big fan of the book.

Re: Make More Land

#165

Post by twic »

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.

Okay, so what if we abandon the idea of making first stages reusable, and just make sure they all splash down in the south-east bay, until it's sufficiently filled up to build on? I mean, worst case, you hit Fremont, right?

Re: Make More Land

#166

Post by [deleted] »

leetcrew wrote: post #160
war1025 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Make More Land

#167

Post by viburnum »

nostromo wrote: post #111
dr_dshiv wrote: post #81

America has an attitude problem. It thinks it is already developed. Like, there is nothing left to do. That is the single biggest difference between the America of today and the America of the last century. The Netherlands feels more like India, in that everything is under a state of continual improvement all the time. The Netherlands is fantastically futuristic, though, and super nice (much more developed than most…

The Netherlands is futuristic? Now I'm wondering if there's another Netherlands somewhere I haven't yet visited. I love the Netherlands in part because it feels like it was frozen in time in the 1800s.

I’ve read that every street in the Netherlands is completely rebuilt every thirty years.

One good thing about density is you need a lot less infrastructure. America way too much infrastructure and its poor state of repair shows it.

Re: Make More Land

#168

Post by hnruss »

beerandt wrote: post #149
eranima wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

I'm referring to coastlines, estuaries, river deltas, wetlands, etc. In terms of surface area of the Earth, it seems easy to make the argument that those places are relatively rare.

Development of this land hasn't been off-limits historically, although many of these places in the U.S. are now (rightfully) preserved. Certain types of development are more detrimental to ecosystems than other types.

If something is rare and good, it should probably be preserved, regardless of how natural it is. In this case, we're talking about natural landscapes and living beings that cannot be re-created once they are gone.

Re: Make More Land

#169

Post by darth_avocado »

How about instead of trying to create land, use the land we already have in a less wasteful manner? Most of the bay area is horizontal and refuses to build vertical. And most of bay area also refuses to participate in public transit reform. Just those two items can fix most of the problems with a much less economical and ecological cost.

Re: Make More Land

#170

Post by amalcon »

leetcrew wrote: post #155
amalcon wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I guess it depends on the term of the lease. You do get to sub-lease the land when you're done with it. The terms could even include an up-front cash payment that looks not dissimilar to a sale. This creates some value as a speculative investment, depending on how long the lease is going to last.
Post reply on HN