How about an “urban wealth fund”? • Hacker News Board

Re: How about an “urban wealth fund”?

#41

Post by antisthenes » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

jlrbuellv wrote: post #30

kasey_junk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they rare in the US? Every stop I use regularly (in Chicago) has shops in it. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head that don't are ones where there isn't space or where businesses have left on their own volition.

I'm sure someone will show up with a counterexample, but DC doesn't have any that I've ever seen. I feel like they'd make a killing if they just stepped up their vending machine game to be more like Japan, though eating and drinking on the metro is supposed to be banned in DC, so I guess that would send mixed messages.

I don't think DC has enough space to put any stores there, aside from one of those gaudy souvenir-tents.

And it most certainly doesn't make any sense placing those stores on stations that are outside of the Beltway (there's simply not enough demand there, and stations that are farther out are almost deserted by the standards of EU cities)

Re: How about an “urban wealth fund”?

#42

Post by ThrustVectoring » Mon, Jul 24, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #37

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Unless you get efficiency gains, all the income from the government charging itself rent gets eaten up as expenses for paying itself rent. Basically what it's doing is making imputed rent an explicit budget item, and then allowing financial ~stuff~ to be done with those budget items explicitly (say, letting a department save money by using real estate more efficiently).

My interpretation was they charge other people rent for the services, no?

Not at first. It's fixing an accounting rule that draws distinctions between equivalent cash-flow situations.

A: City owns an office building with a $1MM/yr fair-market rent, which it uses for administration.

B: City collects $1MM/yr rent from their office building, and pays $1MM/yr to rent out a different building for their administration to use.

If you net out the imputed rent in situation A, then it looks like the administration is $1MM/yr cheaper than it actually is.

Re: How about an “urban wealth fund”?

#43

Post by mathattack » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 1:31 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #42

mathattack wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation was they charge other people rent for the services, no?

Not at first. It's fixing an accounting rule that draws distinctions between equivalent cash-flow situations. A: City owns an office building with a $1MM/yr fair-market rent, which it uses for administration. B: City collects $1MM/yr rent from their office building, and pays $1MM/yr to rent out a different building for their administration to use. If you net out the imputed rent in situation A, then it looks like the…

Ahh - got it. Thanks!