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

181–190 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#181

Post by mc32 »

alteria wrote: post #137
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…

I had the same reaction. Every time I visit/fly over places like New York and SF I'm torn. Waterfront properties are beautiful, but then I think back to the dynamic ecosystem and landscape that was there 300-600 years ago and how different it is now. It's just interesting to think about how the land we live on now was like before us. Are we living somewhere that could have been a beautiful national park?

Even pre WWII much of the Bay Area outside the ports was farmland or wilderness (not built-up). So you don’t have to go too far back, well, except for the salt evaporators, those have been around some time.

Re: Make More Land

#182

Post by nickez »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #113
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…

america has 350 million people. california, for example, has 40 million people. netherlands has 17 million people. india has 1300 million people. population density of netherlands is 488 people/km2. population density of india is 416 people/km2. usa is 98 people/km2. we are not netherlands or india. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/ind... : netherlands and india country comparison. https://cou…

Isn't this misleading though? Doesn't the vast majority of Americans live in higher density areas?

Re: Make More Land

#183

Post by taurath »

davidw wrote: post #172
beerandt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you suggest? Houston has its own set of problems.

Houston, like many American cities, massively subsidizes sprawl and an auto-centric (or auto-only) lifestyle. They may not have zoning, but they do have things like parking minimums throughout much of the city. And in their favor, it is a place where many people can afford to live, something that can't be said of places like the San Francisco bay area. Where I lived in Italy, I could walk to: * My kids' schools * A s…

Most towns downtown area, and most major metro areas. The real problem - they were seen for over 50 years by white americans as an undesirable place to live (high amount of minorities, crime), and are just now catching up and moving in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

Its a big part of racial politics in the US - and now as all the current tech workers move back into the cities, there's a problem of gentrification where minorities are being pushed out of their neighborhoods due to cost increases.

Affordable, with a nice walkable downtown, low crime, and access to well paying jobs is the holy grail for almost any town - there are very few that achieve it. Generally as downtown gets nicer it gets less affordable. If we had a good way to actually spread out wealth and jobs, the smaller towns could improve and there would be many desirable local places to live. Until then, people will enclave themselves away in their suburbs. There will also always be those who want to live in more rural, large spaces.

Re: Make More Land

#184

Post by leetcrew »

war1025 wrote: post #178
leetcrew wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My property taxes are a combination of both land value and dwelling value. So property tax is a superset of land value tax (at least here in Iowa). My understanding is that this is all screwed up in California because there are restrictions on how much your taxes can go up each year. So it's not an issue of needing an additional tax, it's just a matter of needing to un-break California's property tax system.

I personally don't know enough econ to know whether LVT is actually a good idea, but intuitively it makes sense to me.

the basic objection to property tax as it currently exists is that it penalizes you for improving your property. at the margin, this creates a perverse incentive to let housing stock degrade or even leave whole lots unused. in general LVT advocates want it to replace traditional property taxes, no be added alongside them. the claim is that, for a target tax revenue, LVT can raise the funds much more efficiently.

as for California, the problem with their tax system is outside the scope of LVT vs traditional property tax. they have land with massive valuations but get relatively little revenue out of it due to extremely low grandfathered rates.

Re: Make More Land

#185

Post by thfuran »

nickez wrote: post #182
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

america has 350 million people. california, for example, has 40 million people. netherlands has 17 million people. india has 1300 million people. population density of netherlands is 488 people/km2. population density of india is 416 people/km2. usa is 98 people/km2. we are not netherlands or india. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/ind... : netherlands and india country comparison. https://cou…

Isn't this misleading though? Doesn't the vast majority of Americans live in higher density areas?

Massachusetts, for example, has a population density of about 340 / sq km

Re: Make More Land

#186

Post by davidw »

taurath wrote: post #183
davidw wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston, like many American cities, massively subsidizes sprawl and an auto-centric (or auto-only) lifestyle. They may not have zoning, but they do have things like parking minimums throughout much of the city. And in their favor, it is a place where many people can afford to live, something that can't be said of places like the San Francisco bay area. Where I lived in Italy, I could walk to: * My kids' schools * A s…

Most towns downtown area, and most major metro areas. The real problem - they were seen for over 50 years by white americans as an undesirable place to live (high amount of minorities, crime), and are just now catching up and moving in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight Its a big part of racial politics in the US - and now as all the current tech workers move back into the cities, there's a problem of g…

Most downtowns were built up before they got zoning laws: that's part of why they tend to be a bit better from that point of view.

Also, where I lived in Italy was a suburban area and it still managed to have all those amenities.

Re: Make More Land

#187

Post by Nitramp »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #113
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…

america has 350 million people. california, for example, has 40 million people. netherlands has 17 million people. india has 1300 million people. population density of netherlands is 488 people/km2. population density of india is 416 people/km2. usa is 98 people/km2. we are not netherlands or india. https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/netherlands/ind... : netherlands and india country comparison. https://cou…

> america functions just fine [...]

I think reasonable people might disagree with that assessment.

Also, as an example the South Bay (Santa Clara County) houses 2'400 ppl/km2. That's cherry picking a bit, but somewhat comparable to the Netherlands' densely populated area (the Randstad @ ~1'600/km2). The US just happens to contain a lot of desert in the middle, but that says little about the metropolitan areas. I don't think anyone suggests Alaska should polder-up or Nevada desperately needs urban mass transit.

Re: Make More Land

#189

Post by beerandt »

hnruss wrote: post #168
beerandt wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>In terms of surface area of the Earth...relatively rare

Using that definition, anything and everything could be justified as rare.

Coastlines are the most dynamic places on Earth. They change, they adapt, they are a constantly shifting equilibrium. Geologically, they are the youngest and most easily replaceable features on Earth. They're not fragile things.

What isn't natural is how static we've tried to keep them.

>If something is rare and good

You're romanticizing things. Coastlines serve an important ecological purpose, and we shouldn't ignore that, but the vast majority isn't irreplaceable.

There's no reason to believe that newly created (ecologically engineered) coast wouldn't be just as, if not more, biologically productive than what is being replaced.

Re: Make More Land

#190

Post by ska »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #90
bwanab wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking out my window at Boston's seaport. It has been under heavy development for over 10 years that continues. It's like a new city within a city. You may find that attitude in some places, but here in America's oldest city, it doesn't appear to exist.

" . . . America's oldest city . . ." Santa Fe, Newport News, Hampton, Albany, and Jersey City would disagree.

San Juan has these beat by a hundred years or so. Saint Augustine is about 50 years younger (so also has these beat) and I think the oldest on continental soil.
Post reply on HN