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

Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 151 posts

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#81

Post by mikeklaas »

jes wrote: post #73
krschultz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land. If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and impro…

Thank you for your comment, and for obviously being concerned with issues of fairness. If a person makes an investment, and that investment goes up in value, even substantially, and even with no additional effort on the part of the investor, does that justify others taking some or all of the resulting value? If I bought stock in Apple years ago, because I thought it was a smart thing to do, and I simply held the stoc…

1. Yes, that's what capital gains taxes are

2. No, but you can use the losses to offset future gains without paying tax (you aren't penalized for an asset depreciating then re-appreciating)

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#82

Post by [deleted] »

jes wrote: post #73
krschultz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land. If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and impro…

Thank you for your comment, and for obviously being concerned with issues of fairness. If a person makes an investment, and that investment goes up in value, even substantially, and even with no additional effort on the part of the investor, does that justify others taking some or all of the resulting value? If I bought stock in Apple years ago, because I thought it was a smart thing to do, and I simply held the stoc…

[deleted]

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#83

Post by toomuchtodo »

radicaledward wrote: post #78
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to change the wrong headed notion that dense urbanity is somehow bad for the environment. On the contrary, it's how we need to build in order to save the earth. I'd like to see the capital/environmental costs of heavy urban development compared to electric cars in the suburbs and rural areas. I'll drive a Nissan Leaf ($199/month) if it means I don't have to live in an urban area (I work from home).

I think a lot more goes into making urban life better for the environment than just cars. Off the top of my head I would expect the following to contribute: Suburban heating and cooling involves larger spaces for less people (houses being bigger in the suburbs), In an urban environment, there is a lower environmental cost for transportation and processing of food/water/other goods (fewer locations to deliver to). In…

> Suburban heating and cooling involves larger spaces for less people (houses being bigger in the suburbs),

Shouldn't matter as long as your dwelling is properly insulated.

> In an urban environment, there is a lower environmental cost for transportation and processing of food/water/other goods (fewer locations to deliver to).

I concede this point, although moving trucks to cleaner fuels will resolve this.

> In an urban environment, I would expect fewer materials are needed to maintain infrastructure (power lines, water pipes, roads, etc). Manufacturing all of these parts involves an environmental cost.

This is mostly a sunk cost with existing suburban and rural infrastructure.

> Suburban living currently almost certainly means a big lawn. Traditional green lawns are bad for the environment.

No disagreement, although you're not required to have a lawn. You can cover the whole area with rock or a garden (I know several people who do either).

> Urban communities can also centralize waste disposal and (I suspect) more easily implement recycling programs.

My local suburban trash service uses methane from the local landfill to power its vehicles, and in due time will switch to electric vehicles.

> Finally, don't forget that an electric car is only actually better for the environment if the electricity is produced sustainably (this is mostly not the case in the US). I suspect that electric cars may actually be worse for the environment if powered by most US power plants.

This was the point I was most interested in responding to. In all cases, electric vehicles are better than petroleum vehicles, even if powered by fossil fuel generation sources. Its much simpler to maintain emissions controls on one coal plant than 100K cars. Also, your fleet gets "cleaner" as renewables and other clean energies come online, whereas your petroleum-powered vehicles will always burn petrol for the life of the vehicle.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#84

Post by Frondo »

jes wrote: post #49
j_baker wrote: post #33

> Land taxes are efficient. They are difficult to dodge; you cannot stuff land into a bank-vault in Luxembourg. Whereas a high tax on property can discourage investment, a high tax on land creates an incentive to develop unused sites. Land-value taxes can also help cater for newcomers. New infrastructure raises the value of nearby land, automatically feeding through into revenues—which helps to pay for the improvemen…

I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. As I understand the last paragraph of your comment, you wish to see the owner of the vacant lot forced into a situation where he had to act in some way other than how he currently chooses to act. In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his prope…

All laws govern our actions in one way or another. No law is totally free from imposing or preventing a specific action.

As for "taking other people's property without their voluntary consent," yes, from one private citizen to another, that is true, stealing is wrong.

Extending that idea to cover taxation is also wrong; taxation isn't stealing. Taxation is paying the bill you incur by living in a place with a government that provides you with a wide variety of services.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#85

Post by rayiner »

jes wrote: post #49
j_baker wrote: post #33

> Land taxes are efficient. They are difficult to dodge; you cannot stuff land into a bank-vault in Luxembourg. Whereas a high tax on property can discourage investment, a high tax on land creates an incentive to develop unused sites. Land-value taxes can also help cater for newcomers. New infrastructure raises the value of nearby land, automatically feeding through into revenues—which helps to pay for the improvemen…

I don't wish to be confrontational, but in my view, taking other people's property without their voluntary consent is wrong. As I understand the last paragraph of your comment, you wish to see the owner of the vacant lot forced into a situation where he had to act in some way other than how he currently chooses to act. In other words, you want to substitute your judgment for his, when it comes to the use of his prope…

I think land has probably the least defensible claim to inalienable property. You didn't create it, it'll be here long after you're dead. You have it because the government stole it from a bunch of Indians by force, and it's only the government's continued threat of force that allows you to preserve your claim on it.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#86

Post by mrob »

Frozenlock wrote: post #75
panglott wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point of land-value taxes rather than simple land taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax The site-value of unoccupied desert is pretty low, so the land-value taxes on it would be low, which gives incentive to build there rather than elsewhere. Whereas an empty lot on valuable real estate in the city would face not merely the opportunity cost but also a high land-value tax. A lot of tax policy…

But the point was that the vacant lot was somehow "free" to the owner. It's not, he is sacrificing any value he might get by selling it. If someone sees a better potential use of the land (able to get more value out of it), he can propose to buy it at a higher price. A land-value taxes is just a multiplier of the opportunity cost, but without any real economic foundation (no one is proposing to buy the land at a high…

It's correcting the common market failure of humans undervaluing opportunity costs. The economic foundation is behavioral economics, or maybe a more advanced model of rational actor economics which takes into account the often high cost of measuring opportunity costs.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#87

Post by andkon »

Frozenlock wrote: post #75
panglott wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point of land-value taxes rather than simple land taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax The site-value of unoccupied desert is pretty low, so the land-value taxes on it would be low, which gives incentive to build there rather than elsewhere. Whereas an empty lot on valuable real estate in the city would face not merely the opportunity cost but also a high land-value tax. A lot of tax policy…

But the point was that the vacant lot was somehow "free" to the owner. It's not, he is sacrificing any value he might get by selling it. If someone sees a better potential use of the land (able to get more value out of it), he can propose to buy it at a higher price. A land-value taxes is just a multiplier of the opportunity cost, but without any real economic foundation (no one is proposing to buy the land at a high…

Maybe that's a good idea: multiplying the opportunity cost ends up punishing the people who hold valuable land and don't develop it. The more valuable the land, the greater the punishment. That seems exactly what you'd want to do to encourage that West Oakland lot to get developed.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#88

Post by krschultz »

jes wrote: post #73
krschultz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That the value of land is substantially based on the environment around it, one that is largely driven by societal factors. 1 acre of land in Manhattan is extremely expensive. 1 acre of land 20 miles north of Manhattan is not expensive. The difference is everything surrounding the land. If the people in a community have decided to spend a lot of their money to reduce crime, improve transit, improve schools, and impro…

Thank you for your comment, and for obviously being concerned with issues of fairness. If a person makes an investment, and that investment goes up in value, even substantially, and even with no additional effort on the part of the investor, does that justify others taking some or all of the resulting value? If I bought stock in Apple years ago, because I thought it was a smart thing to do, and I simply held the stoc…

You're basically arguing against property taxes or capital gain taxes entirely. Our existing property taxes are measured against the improved (built-up) value of the land. An alternative would be property taxes against the unimproved value of the land. The latter are often called "land taxes".

I personally think land taxes are better than as-built property taxes because they encourage investment. If you assume that lower taxes are an incentive, we currently are giving land owners an incentive not to invest in their property. Society as large actually wants land owners to invest in their properties.

If you want to argue that land owners shouldn't be taxed at all, fine, but they are currently being taxed.

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#89

Post by omegaworks »

Frozenlock wrote: post #75
panglott wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point of land-value taxes rather than simple land taxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax The site-value of unoccupied desert is pretty low, so the land-value taxes on it would be low, which gives incentive to build there rather than elsewhere. Whereas an empty lot on valuable real estate in the city would face not merely the opportunity cost but also a high land-value tax. A lot of tax policy…

But the point was that the vacant lot was somehow "free" to the owner. It's not, he is sacrificing any value he might get by selling it. If someone sees a better potential use of the land (able to get more value out of it), he can propose to buy it at a higher price. A land-value taxes is just a multiplier of the opportunity cost, but without any real economic foundation (no one is proposing to buy the land at a high…

I think the parallel to draw here is inflation. The Fed sets interest rates low to encourage people to invest or spend their dollars instead of sitting on them. If you have cash in a savings account it loses about 3% of its value year over year.

I see land-value tax as the same economic mechanism applied to vacant lots. There should be some penalty to sitting on land and simply watching its value accrue. Why aren't we treating the land crisis like a deflationary spiral currency crisis?

Re: Poor land use in the world’s greatest cities carries a huge cost

#90

Post by ghaff »

deet wrote: post #79
dankohn1 wrote: post #41

I may live in the densest neighborhood of any HN participant: North Battery Park City [1] in Lower Manhattan. As an example, my son's 500 kid elementary school serves 9 buildings. And I'm here to tell you, the future feels great. Specifically, living vertically has all sorts of wonderful aspects in terms of community (the kids can trick-or-treat without leaving the building), access to resources (my kids can ride the…

High density doesn't always equate to pleasantness though. It still has to be done right to be livable. I spent last year living near Columbus Circle (the southwest corner of Central Park in Midtown Manhattan) which is probably equally dense as Battery Park, and didn't care for it much primarily due to its mixed use. The population density is quite high there, but it is mixed in with office buildings that suck the ch…

And the density of someplace like Manhattan has inherent characteristics that aren't to everyone's taste. I enjoy visiting there (a lot) but I lived in Manhattan one summer. It was a while ago when aspects of Manhattan were admittedly less pleasant than today. And I was an intern while in school so I didn't have a lot of money to spend. And it was summer. But I remember that by August I was calling up friends in Greenwich and Princeton to inform them that I WAS coming to visit them for the weekend :-) I just have to get out of the city.
Post reply on HN