Redfin Economist says land value tax will fix the economy

Estonia has an LVT of 0.1—2.5%.

https://www.emta.ee/en/private-client/taxes-and-payment/othe...

It ain't a matter of recognizability. It's a matter of function and action - and in both of those senses, a drug cartel is a state.

> not all fiefdoms were states

All landed fiefdoms entailed a monopoly on violence over their geographic territories a.k.a. land, be it directly (by raising their own armies) or indirectly (by relying on a superior lord to whom they swore fealty). All such fiefdoms were either states outright or parts of larger states. You're literally the first person I've encountered who claims otherwise - and I've met a lot of people with very diverse perspectives on European medieval history.

> Well you dropped the due process provision I put in there.

Because it's irrelevant. That the State has constrained its own powers to revoke land deeds does not change the rather basic fact that private ownership of land is fundamentally derived from and dependent upon the state and its monopoly on violence.

You still haven't answered my question: in the absence of the state, who enforces your piece of paper claiming some portion of land to be yours? By what obligation do I have to respect it?

> there isn’t a step where the State steps in and says “I approve this transfer”.

There are actually many such steps. At the bare minimum, the local courthouse usually needs to sign and notarize the new deed. There's also typically a rather hefty stack of documents for (among other things) various state and local requirements.

> Maybe it was originally a State grant, but the State forfeited it’s rights with the transfer.

No, the State pinky-promised that it wouldn't revoke the privilege of land "ownership" except under certain conditions. Laws can and do change.

Assuming all things where equal the lower population density one might be assessed at a higher LTV because it’s next to a higher population density and the higher population density one would be assessed lower because it’s next to a low population density one.

But the actual effect depends on many factors, being next to poor people generally lowers property values etc.

>>government to simply give all land owners money equal to the value of their land That is already in place - it's called eminent domain, and a SCOTUS case decided that it CAN be used for private development and not only for public works like roads. So, yes, govt could literally do a forced purchase of entire neighborhoods, and they would be required to pay current values, and then rebuild it at whatever density they want.

The other thing that could actually reduce complaints is to actually compensate the owners for loss of value. E.g., if single-family tracts have a value of $100 due to quality of living (wildlife, low traffic, open spaces, etc), and someone wants to put up massive apartment units in the middle, eliminating wildlife habitat, increasing traffic and consuming the open space, that will make the single-family unit's value decline to maybe $50 right next door, and $70 500 yards away, $90 1000 yds away, and $95 between the location and the major highway. Pay them the $50/$30/$10/$5 loss of their value, maybe in tranches when the project is approved, built, occupied. It can come out of some combination of the developer's or the town's budget.

That sort of appropriate compensation would go a long way towards reducing opposition.

What the tantrum-people ignore is that they want to live in the nice places, but giving them what they want is literally doing to destroy the very thing they want.

Says the guy who LITERALLY proposes that he be compensated if dense housing is built on land that he doesn't fucking own because it messes up his morning walk.

I'm not asking for anything free. I'm asking that rightful owners of property be allowed to build on that property that they own without writing a random old man a massive check for ruining his morning walk.

Strategic advice for lurkers:

0. OP is common, and people like this are NEVER going to compromise. You have to crush them with pure electoral force. This is possible.

1. Attend a few meetings and do 1:1s with every seatholder, but don't get too bogged down. Either you have the votes or you don't, and this is an issue where many council people have huge personal financial vested interest. Figure out what they do for a living, any rental income streams they have, and how they got their seat.

2. If you have seats on your side, work with the most senior friendly councilperson to draft a plan of action. They'll know how the local law works and what there are likely votes for. Contrary to parent's cloud yelling, there is no one golden solution. The levers available and the impact those levers will have is highly contextual to your community.

3. If you don't have the seats, focus on flipping seats and crushing NIMBYs. Again, work with a friendly councilperson on a strategy and figure out if there's already organizing happening.

You likely have the votes; the key is turnout. One good strategy is to target renters, who tend to be pro-housing. Be smart and use your skills.

"Does the person who owns this property live there" is the question to ask, and there are many different ways of answering that question. You'll likely need a quiltwork approach, using public property records as your starting point. In many states you can obtain county-level voter rolls for free or for a small fee. Names and addresses.

Then canvas. Don't pitch, listen. Don't try to convince or debate; that's literally doing turnout work for t he other side. Just listen, ask a couple open ended questions, walk away, and at the sidewalk tick "yes" or "no" or "doesn't care". Find your base. Make sure they know how to vote for and make sure they vote.

Only start doing the hard work of convincing people to change their minds if you don't have the votes in your base. The good news is that you likely have the votes in your base. Look at numbers from prior elections. Turnout is low.

4. Likely don't run yourself; find a candidate who is passionate about YIMY and anti-rentier. But also embedded in the community. Churches, school groups, grew up in the area, etc. Well liked. It's possible you're a good candidate, but much more likely that you can find a better candidate who agrees with you on these key issues.

5. Regarding meeting attendance: stuff like "big groups at city council meetings" only works when you have the votes anyways, or when a councilperson doesn't really GAF, which makes it kind of silly. Especially for this issue where there are likely well-formed opinions and financial conflicts of interest. Don't waste your time if the votes aren't there. Until you have a majority of friendly councilpeople, ignore the city council boomer circus. (And it really is a total circus of retired nutjobs many weeks...) Ignore it. Quietly do the work of flipping seats. Turnout in local elections is low; getting even 20% of renters in your community to vote 100% pro-housing is likely enough to flip every at-large and a good number of precincts.

6. This will likely take multiple election cycles, but if you can find one cycle where all the seats you need line up, go all in. Spend money, spend time, don't squander a rare opportunity. Slating can be incredible effective, especially with a really good at-large candidate who can carry multiple precincts on his/her coattails.

This year is an especially good year because of massive rent increases. People are angry. Capitalize.

7. If you think this helpful, thank OP. Without the strange condescension I wouldn't have bothered typing this up.