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

101–110 of 151 posts

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

#101

Post by charlesdm »

Frozenlock wrote: post #44
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…

The harm for the owner in leaving the lot vacant for a decade is opportunity cost. If he is in a valuable spot , it would be advantageous to sell and just do something else with the money. Imagine high land taxes in the middle of the desert. Is it an incentive to build? Quite the contrary.

Land is leverage-able, at low interest rates (think mortagage at 1-2%).

So, if he believes that the value of a certain area will increase by 50-100% over the next decade, and he can borrow against it for cheap, it actually wouldn't be advantageous to sell it.

If land taxes would be higher, he would probably sell it.

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

#105

Post by j_baker »

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…

Well yeah of course I want the owner to be forced to act in a way other than what he chooses because the way he chooses to act affects me negatively. That's why we have laws.

There are any of a number of things the owner could be doing with the property. For instance, he could build an urban farm and help provide the area with more food. There are property tax incentives for doing as such, but when you're paying less than $1000 a year for property taxes why would you go to the effort? So instead of using the land for something useful, it's blocked off with a chain link fence and laying unused.

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

#106

Post by jes »

j_baker wrote: post #105
jes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well yeah of course I want the owner to be forced to act in a way other than what he chooses because the way he chooses to act affects me negatively. That's why we have laws. There are any of a number of things the owner could be doing with the property. For instance, he could build an urban farm and help provide the area with more food. There are property tax incentives for doing as such, but when you're paying less…

Do you think force should be used whenever someone else's actions affect us negatively?

I agree, there are many things the owner could be doing with his property. I see that as entirely his choice, as long as he is not violating the rights of others.

Could you perhaps try talking to the owner of the vacant lot? Maybe you and he (or her) could find a good solution to the problem you perceive.

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

#107

Post by akgerber »

krschultz wrote: post #59
_delirium wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's odd is that Manhattan's population density has on a long timescale been declining rather than growing, despite quite a bit of construction. In the 1900 census the population was 1.85 million (density ~80,000/sq mi), and it reached its peak of 2.33 million (~100,000/sq mi) in the 1910 census. Since then it's on the way down, with some bumps here and there: 1.96 million (~85,000/sq mi) in 1950, and all the way d…

In terms of #3, anywhere developers can build residential, they will. Rents & prices on residential are much higher. Unfortunately Manhattan zoning prevents residential in large parts of the city. I believe that is why there are so many hotels going up in the 20s/30s on the west side, when that is someday rezoned it will be easier to convert to residential than offices would have been.

The garment district (the 20s/30s on the West Side) is zoned industrial. Hotels are legal in industrial zones, but apartments aren't, so hotels get built.

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

#108

Post by jseliger »

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Lifting all the barriers to urban growth in America could raise the country’s GDP by between 6.5% and 13.5%, or by about $1 trillion-2 trillion. It is difficult to think of many other policies that would yield anything like that. And it would also reduce the real but unaccounted-for environmental and social externalities of our sprawling homogenous suburbs. Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint o…

Someone living in New York has half the energy footprint of the average American

This is absolutely true and some of the daughter comments are missing the point; see Edward Glaeser's The Triumph of the City (http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Health...) for more details, but people in urban environments tend to drive less and drive shorter distances; they're less likely to own cars in general and more likely to take mass transportation or bike; and their overall energy usage for heating and cooling is much lower because they share those costs (and walls) with neighbors.

Everyone has to live somewhere, and every time a five to fifty story building gets blocked in a city, dozens or hundreds of high-energy-cost, detached single-family houses get built in Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta.

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

#109

Post by Apes »

jes wrote: post #98
krschultz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Yes, I am arguing against taxes. I'm against taking things by force from other people, which is what taxation appears to be, as I understand it. You are correct, of course, that land owners are taxed. I don't expect to live to see the day when most people realize that initiating force against others is counterproductive. But I do think it's helpful to look into the essentials of things. Thank you for a good discussio…

I went into a Burger King and asked for a Burger. They generously provided said burger, but then asked that I provide them with money. I told them that I appreciated their burger, but that I would not be providing them with any money at this time. When they told me that I didn't have a choice, I was outraged and offended! How dare they try to take something from me unwillingly! I immediately called the police and informed them of the harassment that I was undergoing. But the police also demanded that I give up my money! This is why the government is corrupt! It should be _MY CHOICE_ as to when and how I give out my money!

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

#110

Post by UVB-76 »

jes wrote: post #98
krschultz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

Yes, I am arguing against taxes. I'm against taking things by force from other people, which is what taxation appears to be, as I understand it. You are correct, of course, that land owners are taxed. I don't expect to live to see the day when most people realize that initiating force against others is counterproductive. But I do think it's helpful to look into the essentials of things. Thank you for a good discussio…

Your argument conveniently overlooks the role of force in the establishment and maintenance of property rights.

Without the state (or society, if you prefer) exercising, or threatening, the use of force against people who would otherwise infringe on your property rights, your 'ownership' of your land is worthless.

So it follows the state (or society) expects something in return, as your exclusive use of your land is necessarily a cost to the rest of society.

Post reply on HN