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

Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#241

Post by bumby »

JeremyNT wrote: post #226
hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community" The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses. You should live where the government aligns with your phase o…

> You should live where the government aligns with your phase of life and personal goals and be free to choose a new government later. Also, democracies can shift over time but generally it is easier to move somewhere new than to feel entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older. I feel like people need to understand this. I'm currently living in Nashville, TN, which you may as well have been re…

There is an unacknowledged knock-on effect though. I doubt anyone completely assimilates to the new locale, with the result becoming a mix of values. This may not suit so well with local residents (see opinions from ID and TX regarding new CA residents who “voted with their feet”)

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#242

Post by mandevil »

tracker1 wrote: post #233
tclancy wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older I get what you probably meant, but this is a really strong statement. Our town is struggling with spiraling property taxes and it is forcing long-term residents out. I really feel for older people who've had decades of a social circle, have people to help them with things they can no longer do, etc. You can't move somewhere else and replicate that.

Yeah... I hate property taxes as a concept. That you can lose your property due to simply living another year is kind of messed up. At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation. My house (according to the city/county) is worth 3x what I bought it at 5 years ago... If it goes up this much again, taxes will likely reach close to the mortgage payment. It's simply not right. I'd be happy to mo…

This- fixing property tax to purchase price- is exactly what California's Prop 13 did, which has ended up gutting California local governments (https://edsource.org/2022/californias-prop-13s-unjust-legacy...). It has resulted in lots of people who aren't paying their fair share into the upkeep of their community, and driving CA house prices insane. It's been a giant fiasco, hurting California's growth, and locking people into their house so they can't move: https://www.nber.org/digest/apr05/lock-effect-californias-pr...

So, not a good solution. Got another idea?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#243

Post by bumby »

wyager wrote: post #236
tracker1 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... I hate property taxes as a concept. That you can lose your property due to simply living another year is kind of messed up. At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation. My house (according to the city/county) is worth 3x what I bought it at 5 years ago... If it goes up this much again, taxes will likely reach close to the mortgage payment. It's simply not right. I'd be happy to mo…

> At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation This completely eliminates the social upside of property taxes compared to other forms of taxes

Couldn’t that social upside be captured through means that don’t force people from their homes?

It seems like the use of property tax as a major local finding mechanism has a lot of negative effects, from poor school performance to inflated housing costs.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#244

Post by tracker1 »

psacawa wrote: post #229
legitster wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this not just pure, racist nationalism? Where you live is not a family. If you are born unlucky geographically it seems like you should absolutely have the right to improve your lot.

What can I say, man? History is absolutely chock full of examples that show that other identity groups can represent existential threats, including very recent ones: Chinese genocide of Uyhgurs, Burmese genocide of Rohinya, Russian agression in Ukraine. Let me pick at specifically Russia/Ukraine. A short time ago, these countries economic ties were vast. There were many Ukrainians whose personal wealth stemmed from e…

I would say you only have (limited) influence over the nation you are born into... so, you should somewhat naturally favor that nation's well-being over others. You can only influence the acts/actions of other nations as strings attached to trade/treaty. And can only assume those that you trade with will be making the same emphasis, which is their own nation's well-being.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#245

Post by ghaff »

tclancy wrote: post #206
hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community" The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses. You should live where the government aligns with your phase o…

>entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older I get what you probably meant, but this is a really strong statement. Our town is struggling with spiraling property taxes and it is forcing long-term residents out. I really feel for older people who've had decades of a social circle, have people to help them with things they can no longer do, etc. You can't move somewhere else and replicate that.

I live in an ex-urban town and there's very little commercial development in town except at the fringes. However, town services and school need to be paid for and this was becoming an issue without significantly raising property taxes--which aren't super-high but it's also not an especially wealthy town as a whole.

We recently went through a couple of very contentious town meetings about doing a rezone in one of the two parts of town that has some commercial development basically so distribution centers can be built there. But make no mistake. The town as a whole would be perfectly happy to have near zero non-farm commercial activity if that were financially feasible.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#246

Post by hammock »

hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community" The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses. You should live where the government aligns with your phase o…

> generally it is easier to move somewhere new than to feel entitled to change a municpal culture simply because you got older.

This notion sounds right, but observationally it is incorrect in practice. In Chicago the neighborhoods cycle between bustling, vibrant - when filled with new, young singles who move in and bring business with them; and eventually evolving over a decade or so into a bougie DINK family-oriented community, before completing the lifecycle as a sleepy, economically depressed place with miserably stable/flat real estate values that you just pass over.

Seen this exact cycle happen with a dozen different neighborhoods in Chicago.

If people were instead moving to a different area, this wouldn't happen. Well, some are moving to different areas (the suburbs, etc) but not entirely.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#247

Post by ticviking »

indigochill wrote: post #216
lolinder wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perspective that's really hard for someone in the US to understand. When people here make the exact same arguments that you're making, it sounds xenophobic and dangerous. It's the stuff of Trumpism and MAGA. However, in the context of a true nation state, the exact same words can mean something very different. When we in the United States try to claim that immigration would hurt our sovereignty as a people,…

There are a couple interesting assumptions here: 1. There's such a thing as a true nation 2. That how long a person's family has lived in a region should entitle them to keep others out The first one is bound to wander into circuitous philosophical debate, but I'm curious what the rationale is for the second.

I think the second one comes from the idea that we inherit the residence and customs as something akin to property. The 'right' to inhabit a particular region in the same way of life, could be defended if people coming to a place disrupted those rights.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#248

Post by tracker1 »

thex10 wrote: post #99
dougmwne wrote: post #2

This is pretty silly because governments do compete for residents. Having jobs is a major part of attracting new residents unless you are a (sub)tropical paradise. A business that doesn’t employ anyone or consume any inputs from other state businesses is not going to be a particularly interesting business to incentivize.

> This is pretty silly because governments do compete for residents. I agree, but I also think many places compete poorly. I recently moved to a fast-growing (read: developer-friendly) region of the USA that often claims to be a "top place to live". And I might just leave, for many reasons: * The water tastes terrible. But I bought a filter so whatever... * The schools are bad. But I can try to lottery into the magne…

Sounds like Phoenix area suburbs.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#249

Post by ghaff »

bumby wrote: post #243
wyager wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least, it should be locked to value at purchase adding only inflation This completely eliminates the social upside of property taxes compared to other forms of taxes

Couldn’t that social upside be captured through means that don’t force people from their homes? It seems like the use of property tax as a major local finding mechanism has a lot of negative effects, from poor school performance to inflated housing costs.

There's very little correlation between per student costs and performance. It's very common for urban schools to have very poor outcomes with very high costs per student compared to suburban towns with much lower costs and much better performance. The state where I live also equalizes educational funding to some degree with state funding.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#250

Post by rajin444 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #198
rajin444 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cultural erosion is IMO nativism and bias Are you implying that non natives are inherently better than natives? One of the hallmarks of declining empires is importing people - not to say those people are better or worse, but mixing diverse peoples together is extremely hard. It has to be done slowly and carefully. > Changing populace doesn’t change a culture any more than time does I don’t see how you can look at t…

No, that’s a false dichotomy. You are implying by that false dichotomy that one is greater than the other. Until very recently in human history one would be the same as the other. That is what I am saying. Being born in a location has nothing to do with being better or worse. It’s just a random occurrence. What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth. While…

I guess it’s safe to assume you think genetics has no impact on life outcomes and/or there aren’t significant genetic differences between geographically (by ancestor) populations?

> What makes a person better than another is how they live their life, not the circumstances of their birth.

Their genetics dictate how they live their life. Environment can have an affect, but genes dictate how you react to your environment (unless you believe in God etc).

> I would simply point to American history as an example of how the empire you seem to laud was built by mixing peoples relentlessly.

Compared to the last 50 years or so these immigrants were all very similar both in history and genetics. And even then it’s been a rough ride! I agree immigrants can be great as long as they are carefully selected for.

> I find it fascinating you think culture doesn’t change with time, but with the mixing of different people into a culture only.

Cultures absolutely change over time but the rate of change is much slower than if you introduce a new people from vastly different cultures. It’s the shearing force applied by the differences that’s the issue. If it’s too powerful something has to give.

Post reply on HN