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

141–150 of 151 posts

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

#141

Post by panglott »

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…

Well, it operates in a different way from opportunity costs, which could counteract a "pushing on a string" effect.

And perhaps for many properties in the mid-range of site value, the opportunity cost is masked by high information costs, which a land-value tax could make more clear.

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

#142

Post by panglott »

logfromblammo wrote: post #62
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 should point out that a tax to promote efficient use of land surface area should not include the value of improvements to the property. Most municipalities in the US tax property based upon assessed market value, which discourages more efficient use of land. If you knock down your single-family house and erect a multistory condo, the value of the improvement will swamp the value of the land, and you will be punishe…

But a hectare in an isolated backwater has less value than a hectare in an urban area.

The land-value tax boils down to a tax on the site-value of land, which necessarily has to account things like proximity/distance to commercial centers.

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

#143

Post by rwmj »

fsavard2 wrote: post #140
rwmj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually work in a completely remote team, in the sense that everyone works remotely (about 50 people). So there is no hierarchy of remote people being second-class team members, as you seem to be describing. For minute-by-minute chats we use IRC, and that works well. For longer conversations, mailing lists. And we have twice weekly video conferences, and twice yearly physical meet ups. This works well. I suspect i…

Do you think/feel this affects how close-knit a team can be in your company? From what you say you don't seem to use video much (for one-on-one), so a lot of visual/non-verbal is lost (also there are no non-work regular meetups, e.g. lunches, which I think helps with nurturing a bit of informality). Also when someone is sitting next to me the threshold for asking a question is rather low, and when working remote I te…

We're pinging each other on IRC all day, and yes it interrupts your flow just as much as asking someone next to you.

Most open source software development happens this way - IRC, email, git, patch review ... It's a very well-proven model.

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

#144

Post by logfromblammo »

panglott wrote: post #142
logfromblammo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should point out that a tax to promote efficient use of land surface area should not include the value of improvements to the property. Most municipalities in the US tax property based upon assessed market value, which discourages more efficient use of land. If you knock down your single-family house and erect a multistory condo, the value of the improvement will swamp the value of the land, and you will be punishe…

But a hectare in an isolated backwater has less value than a hectare in an urban area. The land-value tax boils down to a tax on the site-value of land, which necessarily has to account things like proximity/distance to commercial centers.

That's why a land-value tax discourages inefficiency in land use to a lesser extent than a land-surface-area tax.

You generally want people to increase their density, because that makes it possible to provide more efficient services with a distance, area, or volume component less expensively.

Electrically-powered commuter trains are more efficient movers of people than automobiles, but the capital requirements are such that you need a minimum population density to run the train profitably. The commuter train increases the desirability of property near the stations. Taxing that value discourages use of the train.

A hectare in the country is the same area as a hectare in the city. Land value usually has an inverse relationship with population density. You could either tax based on area alone, or try to cancel the value effect of increased density by dividing the land value by the density of the census tract.

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

#145

Post by radicaledward »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #83
radicaledward wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ur…

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

I realize that neither of us are citing sources, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this. I don't want to spend too much more time on this response (I wrote the other bits first). So I'll leave it at that.

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

It could mitigate some of this, but definitely not all of it. Resources will still be spent on replacing worn parts or entire trucks in the fleet. Expending resources will always have some negative effect on the environment.

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

I said maintenance not construction. Infrastructure decays incredibly quickly. We are constantly replacing and upgrading our infrastructure. Power lines go down in storms. Water pipes get broken as the earth settles. Roads are repaved or rebuilt constantly.

> 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).

Fair enough.

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

Ok, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be easier (cheaper and less resource intensive) to ramp up such services for the same number of people if those people are living at a higher population density.

> 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.

I seem to be thinking about completely different sources of environmental damage from you. My understanding is that 1) the majority of the environmental costs from cars actually comes from new car production, not from fuel consumption. 2) Electricity distribution is inefficient enough that it requires a disproportionately large amount of coal to power a car when compared to the petrol used to drive the car the same distance. 3) Electric car batteries are composed of materials that must be mined, which carries its own environmental costs.

For the record, I didn't downvote you. I don't downvote people just because they disagree with me. I also don't have downvote privileges on this site anyway. I'm enjoying the discussion and I hope that you are too!

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

#146

Post by pitt1980 »

"Two long-run trends have led to this fractured market. One is the revival of the city as the central cog in the global economic machine (see article). In the 20th century, tumbling transport costs weakened the gravitational pull of the city; in the 21st, the digital revolution has restored it. Knowledge-intensive industries such as technology and finance thrive on the clustering of workers who share ideas and expertise. The economies and populations of metropolises like London, New York and San Francisco have rebounded as a result."

Is this really true?

seems like anyone with an internet connection can interface with someone from SF or NYC

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

#147

Post by panglott »

logfromblammo wrote: post #144
panglott wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a hectare in an isolated backwater has less value than a hectare in an urban area. The land-value tax boils down to a tax on the site-value of land, which necessarily has to account things like proximity/distance to commercial centers.

That's why a land-value tax discourages inefficiency in land use to a lesser extent than a land-surface-area tax. You generally want people to increase their density, because that makes it possible to provide more efficient services with a distance, area, or volume component less expensively. Electrically-powered commuter trains are more efficient movers of people than automobiles, but the capital requirements are su…

Maybe high taxes on land area would encourage densification if they were sufficiently high, but I suspect the prices necessary would cause problems in other areas. Like taking arable land out of agriculture because the land is taxed at the same level as a dense urban business district. If the land taxes are high enough to discourage suburban housing versus urban housing formats, the farms would be taxed at the same rate, which would be ruinous.

The problem with a flat tax on land is that it provides no incentive to allocate land to the most productive uses. A flat land tax sufficient to encourage low-density suburban areas to convert to medium-density urban areas might still be low enough to permit vacant lots in high-density areas.

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

#148

Post by tn13 »

arfar wrote: post #124
tn13 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is very shallow logic. If there is a land tax, any product or service that uses land will become more expensive for everyone. Whatever gain in productivity we might get by making vacant lands usable will be simply negated by the loss in productivity due to the land tax. Also, taxation is meant for government to run to do its primary duties and not affect the market forces.

>Also, taxation is meant for government to run to do its primary duties and not affect the market forces. I don't think this is the case for every tax. Look at the different carbon tax systems. This is a tax to try to drive the market towards greener solutions/products. I guess an argument could be made that the tax is a way to quantify damage to the environment done and the money it's going to take to repair it, but…

I dont agree with any logic behind the carbon taxes however, there is good case for taxation in case of pollution. The key problem with pollution is that no single person owns the air or water bodies and hence no one minds degrading it even thought everyone loses collectively.

This is a very hard problem to solve and taxation may not be one of those. If US government puts stronger restriction on US companies, they lose the competitive edge against Chinese and Indian who do not have to pay any such tax.

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

#149

Post by logfromblammo »

panglott wrote: post #147
logfromblammo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why a land-value tax discourages inefficiency in land use to a lesser extent than a land-surface-area tax. You generally want people to increase their density, because that makes it possible to provide more efficient services with a distance, area, or volume component less expensively. Electrically-powered commuter trains are more efficient movers of people than automobiles, but the capital requirements are su…

Maybe high taxes on land area would encourage densification if they were sufficiently high, but I suspect the prices necessary would cause problems in other areas. Like taking arable land out of agriculture because the land is taxed at the same level as a dense urban business district. If the land taxes are high enough to discourage suburban housing versus urban housing formats, the farms would be taxed at the same r…

> The problem with a flat tax on land is that it provides no incentive to allocate land to the most productive uses.

What?! It provides a direct incentive in the form of $/hectare-year. If your use of the land does not earn at least that amount, you lose money by owning it. If it does, the relative burden of the tax decreases as you make your use of the land more efficient.

A dense urban business district is incontestably a more efficient use of land than an agricultural field. If any land is removed from cultivation because the crop yields cannot support the tax, then the land with the lowest yields, and therefore least suited for agriculture, will be abandoned first. Those lands might be better suited for other purposes. In that sense, the tax is working exactly as expected.

And that farm-use consideration is vital for keeping the tax low. The government cannot use that tax to squeeze any particular type of person without devastating agriculture. If you try to use a tax as a sledgehammer rather than a speed bump, you end up with all sorts of nasty unintended consequences.

If you need a sledgehammer, you can simply write a zoning law that effectively abolishes new low-density residential neighborhoods. Or you could use eminent domain to take vacant urban lots. But those are going to cost a lot more money and public goodwill than a uniform tax on land surface area.

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

#150

Post by panglott »

logfromblammo wrote: post #149
panglott wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe high taxes on land area would encourage densification if they were sufficiently high, but I suspect the prices necessary would cause problems in other areas. Like taking arable land out of agriculture because the land is taxed at the same level as a dense urban business district. If the land taxes are high enough to discourage suburban housing versus urban housing formats, the farms would be taxed at the same r…

> The problem with a flat tax on land is that it provides no incentive to allocate land to the most productive uses. What?! It provides a direct incentive in the form of $/hectare-year. If your use of the land does not earn at least that amount, you lose money by owning it. If it does, the relative burden of the tax decreases as you make your use of the land more efficient. A dense urban business district is incontes…

Out in the grassland, 50 miles from any existing center, a farmland is indeed a more productive use of the hectare than paving it over and building an uninhabited-but-dense urban center there.
Post reply on HN