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

The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#201

Post by vacri »

seanalltogether wrote: post #71
mech4bg wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have yearly property taxes in Australia, just council rates which are usually around 0.2% of the house valuation (which is much lower than in the US AFAIK). However we don't have the split land/house purchasing like in the UK (or it's not very common at least) - I wonder why?

The UK is the type of place where every last square inch of land has been claimed and defended several times over. Australia likely has plenty of land that no one is in a hurry to claim.

It may be important to note that while Australia has a huge amount of land, most people live in the cities. Australia's urban population is 90%, versus the UK's 80% and the US's 82%. There are only a couple of large countries higher than Australia in this regard.

We have fooled not only the world into thinking we're all outback-dwellers, but also ourselves. What we like is tarmac and suburban strips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#202

Post by vacri »

argumentum wrote: post #108
vacri wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So take voting. Just saying 'the vote' is way too simplistic. Allowing women to vote? Good, not obsolete. Allowing minorities to vote? Good, not obsolete. Electoral college method? Facilitates sinister behaviour, obsolete. Districting rules that allow for relatively easy gerrymandering? Obsolete, and definitively sinister. Promotional materials encouraging people to exercise their rights by voting? Good, not obsolete…

Provision of universal healthcare is a clear and topical example. Come on, you know that's political and there are arguments on both sides. For the record, I don't agree with you here. I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right. That being said, I take your criticism, and will rephrase part of what I said .. Necessary components of government (such as many you mentioned) are the parts which define how t…

Everything in government is political. Western democracy is a decent form of government, but it's not the best - benevolent dictatorship is the best; it just doesn't have checks against it turning non-benevolent.

The problem is where do you draw the line, because it has to be drawn somewhere. You claim that limiting the government's scope is good in all cases, yet this is clearly not true - if we were to take arrest powers away from police for example, society as a whole would suffer.

Limiting scope can be argued all the way down to anarchy, which is clearly not supportable at anything beyond the size of a small conclave.

I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right.

The truth has never been simple in politics, and anyone who maintains that it is, is simply displaying contempt (open or otherwise) for your intellect. As a result, we can't rely on simplistic solutions for politics, and have to be cautious of things that try to make it one-size-fits-all.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#204

Post by arethuza »

mech4bg wrote: post #84
seanalltogether wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is the type of place where every last square inch of land has been claimed and defended several times over. Australia likely has plenty of land that no one is in a hurry to claim.

The property market underwent a huge decade plus long boom in Australia, with land prices rising astronomically. There are all sorts of rules for land development in place, and limited availability for development in the major cities. It's not quite as bad as the UK, but it's not like we have huge chunks of land to spare. I assume it's either a result of property law differences, or the sheer length of time land has…

I can recommend the book "The Poor Had No Lawyers" for some background on the history of land ownership in Scotland:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Poor-Had-No-Lawyers/dp/184158907...

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#205

Post by pc86 »

codex wrote: post #87

Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets. Most of the time, cabs just drive around waiting for a fare. This is because cabs are often hailed when they are seen, but even if a cab is summoned by a phone call (or smartphone) the closet cab to the fare is…

You can't say with a straight face that if 11,000 taxis are good enough for 1930s NYC that 13,000 taxis are good enough for 2013 NYC.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#206

Post by desas »

rdtsc wrote: post #156
makomk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you'll find the economics are such that most home owners wouldn't be able to afford to buy the land their house is on.

So what happens. Presumably there is a completely parallel market for land. Land owning elites presumably buy and sell land all the time and homes are bought and sold all the time as well. The two rarely intersect? Or maybe those that can buy land can easily buy the house as well? Very confusing. In US effectively the local government and the state "own" and you are just leasing it. There is not parallel land market…

Usually it's not a house, but a block of apartments, each of which are owned individually. It's usually cost prohibitive for someone who owns one apartment in a block of twenty to buy out the land for all twenty.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#207

Post by desas »

rdtsc wrote: post #157
PeterisP wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once there are separate owners (for whatever reason it happened), it's not that easy to arrange that - since the land owner usually does not want to sell.

What if they do sell? Can land owners do whatever they like to the home owners? Like kick them out? Start drilling tunnels through the land, extract oil in the back yard?

Usually the home owner will have a lease that lasts for 99 years (or at least the person who first built the home had a lease for 99 years...).

Mortgage providers won't give you a mortgage term that ends after the lease does.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#208

Post by desas »

ajays wrote: post #184
adventured wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the US ever had a land crunch, it could easily open up vast new tracks of land for settlement via the US Govt. It's very valuable to have that ability. The Feds are already beginning to sell off their hoard of property due to fiscal problems.

That's assuming anyone would want to live on the barren North Slope of Alaska. Just because it's land doesn't mean you can live there comfortably...

There's plenty of suitable land in the US that isn't barren frozen waste or barren desert.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#209

Post by joezydeco »

mh- wrote: post #193
rdtsc wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems almost like a scam. Kind of like time shares.

Not really. Some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_estate

Condos differ from time shares. In a condominium, you own 100% of a unit and everything inside the boundaries of that unit is your responsibility (repairs, damage, upgrades, etc). You also have exclusive access to that unit (nobody else can use it, unlike a time-share).

You own a fraction of the land that the building sits on, and a fraction of the "common areas" (lobby, swimming pool, parking lot, etc). You are responsible for contributing for the maintenance of those areas, or paying assessment fees to a management company that will take care of those areas.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#210

Post by aetherson »

vacri wrote: post #98
aetherson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, argumentum's point is that presumably there is some cost at which the ground holder would sell the land. Like, if the ground rental brings in $10,000 per year to the owner of the title, and I came along and said, "I will pay your $1,000,000 for the title," well... I'm offering you one century's worth of ground-use fees up-front. Presumably all but the most irrational actors would sell their ground.

Of course, but that's nitpicking. The point is that the price is well out of reach of the average Tom.

Well, but why is it out of reach?

I mean, the same guy ("Tom") is going to be giving you money one way or the other. Either in bits and pieces as ground lease, or in lump-sum as purchase.

If you simply want more money than Tom can pay, well, you're out of luck. You don't get any money if you price your tenants out of the market.

If there is an amount of money that Tom can afford to pay in ground leases, then why can't he get a bank loan and make you an attractive offer on the purchase? My earlier example of 100 years rent was extreme to make a point. What if Tom offered you 20 years land rent in an up-front lump sum? Maybe not every land-owner would consider that a good deal, but it's hard to imagine that none of them would. The land-owner gets a present value that exceeds the future value of the rent to them, the bank gets interest, Tom gets synergistic value from now owning not just the house but the land.

Post reply on HN