251–260 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who wants to invest in a neighborhood that can be ruined by a few bad apples not maintaining their properties?
Why would people need to invest in a neighborhood? Houses are for living in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a really natural solution would be to tax these sort of land restrictions for as long as someone is actually willing to pay. Just assess the value with the restrictions vs without and then tax it at the standard property tax rate. If nobody cares enough to pay for the restriction then it is lifted.
are you OK with charging apartment renters property tax in addition to the landlord? On a more serious note, I think tax is a terrible solution. Who is going to value all of these use rights, restrictions, and options on an ongoing basis. Why punish everyone with any kind of good faith contract to deal with an extremely niche issue, which may not even be a problem. Seems like the current solution is best. If someone…
1. Restrictions have to have a "controlling party": a dedicated party that controls the restrictions and can agree to lift it. Classical example would be HOA, but it can also be a seller if they want to sell property with additional restrictions.
2. The controlling party sets the price of a restriction
3. Restricted party can remove the restriction paying price set in 2 to controlling part.
4. The controlling party pays tax as percentage of price set in 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.
The HOAification of America has gone too far. There are some places where it's hard to find a home not subject to a HOA. I don't think "well live somewhere else" is a reasonable answer to that complaint. That's definitely a "I got mine, so eff off" sort of response.
Realtor looked at us. "You're probably not interested in this house, right?" Nope. She read us right. We would never live in a place under the thumb of an HOA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed. I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having co…
It is capitalism, and I think this is inherent in all stages of capitalism. The goal of any corporation is to maximize profit, period. In earlier forms, monopolists and oligarchs may have used different levers of power, but it’s all ultimately the same thing. Use whatever means are available to make profit.
Yea, but that's not some strictly inherent property of capitalism, and I thought stakeholder vs shareholder is still an open issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the boot of big government. The vacant store has a 100 miles of literal desert in each direction and nobody can build a competing store because the environmental review process is weaponized.
that's not the issue -- it's much much more expensive to build a store on undeveloped land, even if it weren't restricted, than remodel an existing structure
>In Mammoth Lakes, Vons is the main supermarket, and there are suspicions they have been working to limit the construction and growth of a competitor, Grocery Outlet, through environmental claims. In 2017, a group, Sustainable Mammoth Lakes, filed to prevent the construction of a small Grocery Outlet occupying slightly more than one acre, with just 49 parking spots, on a spot that had already had commercial building and was close to a highway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you OK with charging apartment renters property tax in addition to the landlord? On a more serious note, I think tax is a terrible solution. Who is going to value all of these use rights, restrictions, and options on an ongoing basis. Why punish everyone with any kind of good faith contract to deal with an extremely niche issue, which may not even be a problem. Seems like the current solution is best. If someone…
There's a reasonably simple change that would allow application of Harberger's taxes. 1. Restrictions have to have a "controlling party": a dedicated party that controls the restrictions and can agree to lift it. Classical example would be HOA, but it can also be a seller if they want to sell property with additional restrictions. 2. The controlling party sets the price of a restriction 3. Restricted party can remove…
Renters are the controlling party. Landlords are the restricted party- they can not rent to other people or use the house themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Noncompetes are capitalistic. Property use restrictions aren't inherently capitalist but how they're used in most cases, particularly within the US, they almost always are. Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.
capitalism is about competition and non-competes are literally named a "not gonna compete" agreement. I don't see how's that capitalism at all . If Coca-cola and Pepsi signed a agreement not to compete that was made public, the FTC would go after them. If Microsoft made secret backroom deals that gave them an unfair advantage, the FTC would and did go after them. If you don't like competition, having the government c…
In this case, I suppose the “invisible hand” operates by making Mammoth a less desirable place to live, causing them to lose tourism and residents to places with stronger competition.
No, it becomes a "food desert", and people just learn to buy a car and drive to the nearest town with a store once a week. So really it just increases car dependency. (they are buying too much to bike or take transit - you need a car for the large storage space)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the case of house builders, he's explicitly says land use regulations aren't a significant factor ("just pointing at over-regulation in and of itself isn’t a satisfying explanation"), Umm... what? Those are two quite different statements. You can't conflate them that way and be arguing in good faith. You have either misunderstood his stance or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Here's his tweet promoting that article: >I took on the YIMBY’s here and pointed out that the problem of housing prices and construction is about consolidation of homebuilders, not an upsurge in annoying people who want to maintain neighborhood character. I'm sure you can come up with a contrived worldview that proclaims those two statements, but doesn't believe "land use regulations aren't a significant factor", but…
This doesn't mean that land use regulations (and permiting processes and the other NIMBY tools) don't have an impact, but it does mean that we cant look at that impact to expain the increase.
Believing there is only one cause is simplistic and naive and believing in multiple causes is not "contrived".
As I said elsewhere, I think NIMBY land use restrictions are an obvious tool to use by any would be oligopolist or monopolist who wanted to restrict the growth of our housing supply.
The actual article linked in the tweet does a pretty good job of layong out an argument for the importance of the consolidation among homebuilders (and notably spends no time arguing that land use regulations have no impact.) Instead of engaging with any of those argument you've opted for a shallow dismissal based on trying to tie them to a position that you are only assuming they hold. That is not how you have a good faith discussion.