Some interesting ideas about land use, taxation and speculators.
November 12, 2023 2:30 PM Subscribe
Detroit is the prime example but land speculation has been a blight for a very long time. SLNYT gift link - Detroit is now under 700 thousand people but it was built to handle 2 million so it really sprawls. It's a huge challenge to provide services and several asshole billionaires are sitting on hundreds (nope - many thousands) of empty buildings and vacant land. I don't know that Georgism is the answer but it's certainly interesting.
My former roommate told me about Georgeism almost 20 years ago. I thought it was an interesting idea. As rents have gone up, I have become increasingly convinced. As I am presently a homeowner, it would be financially bad for me, but it would encourage me to dig out ( to increase ceiling height to legal) and rent my basement. I probably still wouldn't, since I can afford not to and like having an office, storage, and pottery studio down there, but some folks would, which would increase the housing stock in Brooklyn.
A couple of things this article doesn't mention is why YIMBYs like LVT, and why LVT won't increase rents. YIMBYs like it because once you fix the rules so that more housing can be built, you want to encourage people to build it. Since LVT depends on the imputed rent (the rent if the property were built out to the zoned limit), people will be encouraged to build up to that limit to pay the tax.
The reason rents won't go up is that rents don't depend on the landlord's costs. Imagine that you are renting out one floor of your brownstone and then you finish paying off your mortgage. Are you going to suddenly drop the rent? Not a chance! You've got a tenant who is willing to keep paying. The only thing that makes you drop your rent is if you can't find a tenant because they found somewhere cheaper.
(Kind of funny that Henry George is now taking up a piece of prime Brooklyn real estate in Green-wood cemetery).
The other idea that roommate introduced me to is Liquid Democracy. Smart guy.
posted by novalis_dt at 3:15 PM on November 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
A couple of things this article doesn't mention is why YIMBYs like LVT, and why LVT won't increase rents. YIMBYs like it because once you fix the rules so that more housing can be built, you want to encourage people to build it. Since LVT depends on the imputed rent (the rent if the property were built out to the zoned limit), people will be encouraged to build up to that limit to pay the tax.
The reason rents won't go up is that rents don't depend on the landlord's costs. Imagine that you are renting out one floor of your brownstone and then you finish paying off your mortgage. Are you going to suddenly drop the rent? Not a chance! You've got a tenant who is willing to keep paying. The only thing that makes you drop your rent is if you can't find a tenant because they found somewhere cheaper.
(Kind of funny that Henry George is now taking up a piece of prime Brooklyn real estate in Green-wood cemetery).
The other idea that roommate introduced me to is Liquid Democracy. Smart guy.
posted by novalis_dt at 3:15 PM on November 12, 2023 [7 favorites]
"Just tax land, lol."
r/neoliberal is leaking.
posted by charred husk at 3:15 PM on November 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
r/neoliberal is leaking.
posted by charred husk at 3:15 PM on November 12, 2023 [8 favorites]
Oh, and the underlying reason rents don't depend on landlord costs is that the supply of land in cities is limited. If the price of beef goes up and McDonald's raises their prices, either Burger King and Wendy's will do so too, or they will make less money. If the price of beef goes down, and McDonald's doesn't lower their prices, someone else could start a competing burger joint. But there's not more Manhattan to build a competing apartment on, and we (mostly) can't make more.
posted by novalis_dt at 3:31 PM on November 12, 2023
posted by novalis_dt at 3:31 PM on November 12, 2023
The reason rents won't go up is that rents don't depend on the landlord's costs
That is true, but the LVT is based on the economic potential of the land, which is a function of what people are willing to pay, which is a function of demand. So if demand in an area goes up, so will LVT, and so will rents.
It seems that LVT which is highly reactive could spark a development arms race, where smaller buildings get knocked down to create larger, more profitable buildings, which raises the surrounding land value, which incentivizes everyone else to knock down their smaller building and create bigger ones. And everyone who lived in those smaller buildings is now displaced.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:32 PM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
That is true, but the LVT is based on the economic potential of the land, which is a function of what people are willing to pay, which is a function of demand. So if demand in an area goes up, so will LVT, and so will rents.
It seems that LVT which is highly reactive could spark a development arms race, where smaller buildings get knocked down to create larger, more profitable buildings, which raises the surrounding land value, which incentivizes everyone else to knock down their smaller building and create bigger ones. And everyone who lived in those smaller buildings is now displaced.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:32 PM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's also very possible to accompany new land-value taxes (and/or vacancy taxes) with tenant protections and restrictions on destroying existing units. For example, new laws that make it easier to replace single family housing with multi-unit housing in California explicitly limit these eased restrictions to owner-occupied units, and we also have laws (which I know are insufficient in their current form) that restrict the ability of owners to evict tenants to move in to rentals.
posted by latkes at 3:45 PM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by latkes at 3:45 PM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
IMO, the lessons of a declining city are very different than the lessons of a growing (in terms of demand if not actual population) city, so lessons that work for Manhattan have nothing to say about most of Detroit.
IMO the actual lessons of Detroit are that if you have a declining population, then cutting occupants some slack on taxes and slow-rolling liens really helps keep places occupied, which becomes your #1 goal in a declining population situation. Detroit has tons of homes that were occupied (and perhaps rented) but the renters were kicked out over low thousands of dollars in liens and the empty houses deteriorated over about a decade. If the population stabilizes or starts to grow, then you can be a bit more picky (or mean, depending on perspective) about who is allowed to live in your city.
The previous line of thought was to kick people out early to stem the tide of decline, but if there is no one to purchase and move in, then that doesn't work. And the cost of rebuilding a home is far above a few thousands of dollars in liens.
That line at the beginning about mowing lawns: struggling poor people have better things to do than maintain their properties at the standards of middle class, so yes you should mow their lawns. It creates stable jobs, it keeps things looking nice, it cuts down on writing up administrative non-sense so they can work on more important things, it identifies locations where trash is dumped.
From that perspective, raising tax on land vs improvements isn't very valuable, and I've always felt the effects of Georgism were kind of over-rated. Most states already tax land value demand, so they have round-about Georgism, and evaluating the value of expensive land vs cheap land creates sprawl. Also, unless land value is punitively taxed, most people aren't going to knock down their homes and build extra stuff because the cost of each are wildly different.
And everyone who lived in those smaller buildings is now displaced.
Yeah, but that only matters if there are extreme constraints on building in general, which is why updates to zoning is a far more valuable change than taxing structure.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:45 PM on November 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
IMO the actual lessons of Detroit are that if you have a declining population, then cutting occupants some slack on taxes and slow-rolling liens really helps keep places occupied, which becomes your #1 goal in a declining population situation. Detroit has tons of homes that were occupied (and perhaps rented) but the renters were kicked out over low thousands of dollars in liens and the empty houses deteriorated over about a decade. If the population stabilizes or starts to grow, then you can be a bit more picky (or mean, depending on perspective) about who is allowed to live in your city.
The previous line of thought was to kick people out early to stem the tide of decline, but if there is no one to purchase and move in, then that doesn't work. And the cost of rebuilding a home is far above a few thousands of dollars in liens.
That line at the beginning about mowing lawns: struggling poor people have better things to do than maintain their properties at the standards of middle class, so yes you should mow their lawns. It creates stable jobs, it keeps things looking nice, it cuts down on writing up administrative non-sense so they can work on more important things, it identifies locations where trash is dumped.
From that perspective, raising tax on land vs improvements isn't very valuable, and I've always felt the effects of Georgism were kind of over-rated. Most states already tax land value demand, so they have round-about Georgism, and evaluating the value of expensive land vs cheap land creates sprawl. Also, unless land value is punitively taxed, most people aren't going to knock down their homes and build extra stuff because the cost of each are wildly different.
And everyone who lived in those smaller buildings is now displaced.
Yeah, but that only matters if there are extreme constraints on building in general, which is why updates to zoning is a far more valuable change than taxing structure.
posted by The_Vegetables at 3:45 PM on November 12, 2023 [5 favorites]
A formal Land Value Tax is applied pretty much everywhere here but, because it's administered by states, the way it's applied varies and the threshold at which it kicks in also varies. Some states also exempt land where your principal residence is located and/or primary production land.
But local government taxes ('council rates') are a form of land value tax as well, being a tax levied to fund the operations of the local government and the main component of that is based on the unimproved value of any land you own. Even if the land is vacant, the majority of the rates apply and this levy covers the cost of running the actual services provided by the local government. For vacant land, some charges such as rubbish collection don't apply but those services are, obviously, not available to that property.
Ensuring that every landowner in the local government area contributes to the maintenance of the area seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't understand the rationale for a land owner not paying anything towards maintaining the roads and services that the value of their land depends on. This puts the onus more and more on both owners and renters to pay a disproportionate share of costs, improving the value of all land in the area and those who sit on vacant land are thereby doubly rewarded for turning a city into an eyesore. When there's little or no cost to banking land, there's no incentive to build anything as long as the land value keeps going up. Local governments here will also maintain properties where the owner doesn't (mowing lawns, taking away rubbish etc) but the owner of the lad gets charged at full commercial rates for this, so there is at least some incentive to keep vacant land somewhat tidy.
I'd never heard of Georgism, - I particularly like the idea that land should not be owned but held in trust and leased. By requiring that land in certain places (eg city centres) be built on or handed back, and (we can but dream) designating some land for affordable housing, there are so many ways to make a town or city better. I know there's no chance of this happening, but putting the residents (indirectly) in control of the land that makes up the place they live has to be a good thing, right?
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
But local government taxes ('council rates') are a form of land value tax as well, being a tax levied to fund the operations of the local government and the main component of that is based on the unimproved value of any land you own. Even if the land is vacant, the majority of the rates apply and this levy covers the cost of running the actual services provided by the local government. For vacant land, some charges such as rubbish collection don't apply but those services are, obviously, not available to that property.
Ensuring that every landowner in the local government area contributes to the maintenance of the area seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't understand the rationale for a land owner not paying anything towards maintaining the roads and services that the value of their land depends on. This puts the onus more and more on both owners and renters to pay a disproportionate share of costs, improving the value of all land in the area and those who sit on vacant land are thereby doubly rewarded for turning a city into an eyesore. When there's little or no cost to banking land, there's no incentive to build anything as long as the land value keeps going up. Local governments here will also maintain properties where the owner doesn't (mowing lawns, taking away rubbish etc) but the owner of the lad gets charged at full commercial rates for this, so there is at least some incentive to keep vacant land somewhat tidy.
I'd never heard of Georgism, - I particularly like the idea that land should not be owned but held in trust and leased. By requiring that land in certain places (eg city centres) be built on or handed back, and (we can but dream) designating some land for affordable housing, there are so many ways to make a town or city better. I know there's no chance of this happening, but putting the residents (indirectly) in control of the land that makes up the place they live has to be a good thing, right?
posted by dg at 4:24 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
if demand in an area goes up, so will LVT, and so will rents.
That exact same arms race happens without LVT. Once Long Island City started to get developed, a bunch of big buildings went in.
Maybe there's less incentive to build without LVT, but ot seems like really your objection is to building more housing. If we don't build more housing, rents will keep going up.
As a homeowner, it's in my economic interest to prohibit competition. But as a person who wants to have friends in the city, I want there to be more cheaper housing.
It's true that people will be displaced when buildings are replaced. But people are also displaced when rents rise. The difference is that if we build more, there will be places for the displaced folks to go. And if we have LVT, the landlords will pay for city services instead of working people paying.
(Gonna quit thread sitting now)
posted by novalis_dt at 4:40 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
That exact same arms race happens without LVT. Once Long Island City started to get developed, a bunch of big buildings went in.
Maybe there's less incentive to build without LVT, but ot seems like really your objection is to building more housing. If we don't build more housing, rents will keep going up.
As a homeowner, it's in my economic interest to prohibit competition. But as a person who wants to have friends in the city, I want there to be more cheaper housing.
It's true that people will be displaced when buildings are replaced. But people are also displaced when rents rise. The difference is that if we build more, there will be places for the displaced folks to go. And if we have LVT, the landlords will pay for city services instead of working people paying.
(Gonna quit thread sitting now)
posted by novalis_dt at 4:40 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm so pro LVT that my wife starts rolling her eyes when I say L. Pair it with UBI though.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:04 PM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:04 PM on November 12, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think this can vary from case to case, and a city like Detroit where there is a lot of vacant land might be a better-than-average case. Altoona, PA, had a land value tax for some time -- although it was removed and there was not a clear benefit.
I was a booster of land value taxes, until I did an analysis for my city of Calgary. We're a fast-growing, sprawling city where the bulk (85% of population) of the metro area is in the central city, and where the city doesn't include any exurban areas.
We currently have a property tax, which obviously taxes the value of the building and the land under it at the same rate. You could think of it as a ratio; if a $500K house sits on $250K of land, then the building-to-land ratio is 2:1. If we went to a land value tax (assuming revenue neutrality), that would reduce taxes on properties with high building-to-land ratios, and increase taxes on properties with low building-to-land ratios.
The first group of winners and losers are really clear; the biggest winners would be high rise apartments, which put a hell of a lot of building on their land -- even if most of it is expensive inner-city land. The biggest losers would be vacant lots, which have no building at all. So far so good; although neither of these are large groups in Calgary; perhaps 5% of units are high rise, and there is not a lot of vacant land in the established area of the city, particularly if you exclude transitory uses, where a lot is vacant for a year while permits, financing, etc. go through.
The second biggest loser would be pre-1970 houses and duplexes. A lot of the inner city of Calgary was built out with these; they are often in gridded areas nearish to the downtown, often with decent transit and access to shops. They tend to be large lots (eg 60' x 120'), and the dwellings on them are by definition 55+ years old; often small by modern standards with fewer bathrooms, etc. than would be typical.
On one hand, an increase in tax would help nudge more of these properties into redevelopment and intensification, and that would be good for reducing sprawl and car dominance. On the other hand, these properties are also currently a major source of affordable housing; they are much more likely to have renters, they support living with less transportation expense, and there is a tranche of fixed-income senior who have lived in these properties since they were new and are now mortgage free. I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides. These properties often list in the $800K range, and the value is basically all in the land.
But the second big group of winners under a land value tax would be new-build suburbs. Houses in our new communities are built on much smaller lots, 30' or even 25' by 100-120'. Not only is there half as much land, but the value of the land is much less; downtown land can be $300 per square foot, in the 1950s communities it's $100 a square foot, and in the new suburbs it's $30 per square foot. So the houses are sitting on $100-150K worth of land, but because they're newly built houses where they can cram 2500 sq ft on a lot, there is a ton of value in the building; these can also sell in the $800K range, but as I noted, maybe 15% of the value is in the land. Because there are relatively few high rise and vacant lots, the big change in taxation would be in these secondary groups, of which there are huge numbers.
And once I realized that the primary function of a land value tax here would be another way to have run-down inner city properties subsidize expensive new suburban sprawl, I quickly lost interest in land value taxes. My suggestion is that vacant lots should be taxed as if there was a typical-for-the-area building on the site; that would increase their tax burden while not fucking over everybody else.
posted by Superilla at 5:48 PM on November 12, 2023 [27 favorites]
I was a booster of land value taxes, until I did an analysis for my city of Calgary. We're a fast-growing, sprawling city where the bulk (85% of population) of the metro area is in the central city, and where the city doesn't include any exurban areas.
We currently have a property tax, which obviously taxes the value of the building and the land under it at the same rate. You could think of it as a ratio; if a $500K house sits on $250K of land, then the building-to-land ratio is 2:1. If we went to a land value tax (assuming revenue neutrality), that would reduce taxes on properties with high building-to-land ratios, and increase taxes on properties with low building-to-land ratios.
The first group of winners and losers are really clear; the biggest winners would be high rise apartments, which put a hell of a lot of building on their land -- even if most of it is expensive inner-city land. The biggest losers would be vacant lots, which have no building at all. So far so good; although neither of these are large groups in Calgary; perhaps 5% of units are high rise, and there is not a lot of vacant land in the established area of the city, particularly if you exclude transitory uses, where a lot is vacant for a year while permits, financing, etc. go through.
The second biggest loser would be pre-1970 houses and duplexes. A lot of the inner city of Calgary was built out with these; they are often in gridded areas nearish to the downtown, often with decent transit and access to shops. They tend to be large lots (eg 60' x 120'), and the dwellings on them are by definition 55+ years old; often small by modern standards with fewer bathrooms, etc. than would be typical.
On one hand, an increase in tax would help nudge more of these properties into redevelopment and intensification, and that would be good for reducing sprawl and car dominance. On the other hand, these properties are also currently a major source of affordable housing; they are much more likely to have renters, they support living with less transportation expense, and there is a tranche of fixed-income senior who have lived in these properties since they were new and are now mortgage free. I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides. These properties often list in the $800K range, and the value is basically all in the land.
But the second big group of winners under a land value tax would be new-build suburbs. Houses in our new communities are built on much smaller lots, 30' or even 25' by 100-120'. Not only is there half as much land, but the value of the land is much less; downtown land can be $300 per square foot, in the 1950s communities it's $100 a square foot, and in the new suburbs it's $30 per square foot. So the houses are sitting on $100-150K worth of land, but because they're newly built houses where they can cram 2500 sq ft on a lot, there is a ton of value in the building; these can also sell in the $800K range, but as I noted, maybe 15% of the value is in the land. Because there are relatively few high rise and vacant lots, the big change in taxation would be in these secondary groups, of which there are huge numbers.
And once I realized that the primary function of a land value tax here would be another way to have run-down inner city properties subsidize expensive new suburban sprawl, I quickly lost interest in land value taxes. My suggestion is that vacant lots should be taxed as if there was a typical-for-the-area building on the site; that would increase their tax burden while not fucking over everybody else.
posted by Superilla at 5:48 PM on November 12, 2023 [27 favorites]
Superilla, thank you for having done that analysis and reporting on the results.
It is good to have data to challenge our assumptions of how these sorts of proposals might play out. I agree that taxing vacancy and neglect seems a more beneficial route.
posted by meinvt at 6:03 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
It is good to have data to challenge our assumptions of how these sorts of proposals might play out. I agree that taxing vacancy and neglect seems a more beneficial route.
posted by meinvt at 6:03 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
This article on social housing in Vienna seems to belong here.
posted by Glomar response at 6:29 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Glomar response at 6:29 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
The first time I heard of Georgeism was in the 1990 movie Metropolitan, a satire about a bunch of rich college-student teenagers living in Manhattan and chatting with each other a lot. When the conversation turns to politics, Tom (the main character) claims he's a Georgeist, a subject which he learned about in a history class.
The joke is that, for these people, their "politics" has nothing to do with any real issues impacting anyone in NYC -- in fact, Tom's the only one with an opinion and he just plucked some antique movement out of the 1800s because it seemed interesting.
So it was pretty funny to see an article on Georgeism on the front page of the New York Times Business section today, suggesting it might solve what has now become New York City's #1 real estate problem.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 7:49 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
The joke is that, for these people, their "politics" has nothing to do with any real issues impacting anyone in NYC -- in fact, Tom's the only one with an opinion and he just plucked some antique movement out of the 1800s because it seemed interesting.
So it was pretty funny to see an article on Georgeism on the front page of the New York Times Business section today, suggesting it might solve what has now become New York City's #1 real estate problem.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 7:49 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
As a homeowner, it's in my economic interest to prohibit competition. But as a person who wants to have friends in the city, I want there to be more cheaper housing.
I often think the idea that homeowners should want rising property values just doesn’t usually hold water. Or it held true for a very particular generation, like World War II vets who bought suburban houses in the North and sold them to retire somewhere warmer and cheaper, and we act like it applies to everyone.
Lots of places have issues with older homeowners who don’t want to move but have to pay rising property tax. And then, yeah, there’s the issue that your friends and family can’t afford to live near you, which is a potentially huge impact on your quality of life!
And if you don’t plan to sell and find a way to keep the gains while staying housed, what’s the benefit? Your kids *may* inherit a more valuable house, but that typically depends on how your medical costs play out, and they might have been overall better off in a society with cheaper housing to begin with.
And yes, you can potentially borrow against that new equity. That access to credit is worth something! But will you? If you do, will it improve your life?
posted by smelendez at 8:18 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
I often think the idea that homeowners should want rising property values just doesn’t usually hold water. Or it held true for a very particular generation, like World War II vets who bought suburban houses in the North and sold them to retire somewhere warmer and cheaper, and we act like it applies to everyone.
Lots of places have issues with older homeowners who don’t want to move but have to pay rising property tax. And then, yeah, there’s the issue that your friends and family can’t afford to live near you, which is a potentially huge impact on your quality of life!
And if you don’t plan to sell and find a way to keep the gains while staying housed, what’s the benefit? Your kids *may* inherit a more valuable house, but that typically depends on how your medical costs play out, and they might have been overall better off in a society with cheaper housing to begin with.
And yes, you can potentially borrow against that new equity. That access to credit is worth something! But will you? If you do, will it improve your life?
posted by smelendez at 8:18 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
FinTimes: The Case for a Land Value Tax is Overwhelming
posted by Fupped Duck at 8:27 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Fupped Duck at 8:27 PM on November 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Maybe there's less incentive to build without LVT, but ot seems like really your objection is to building more housing. If we don't build more housing, rents will keep going up.
No. I absolutely support building more housing, upzoning, etc. I am not a NIMBY. I just don't think LVT helps that much once all available land has been developed.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:40 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
No. I absolutely support building more housing, upzoning, etc. I am not a NIMBY. I just don't think LVT helps that much once all available land has been developed.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:40 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
My suggestion is that vacant lots should be taxed as if there was a typical-for-the-area building on the site; that would increase their tax burden while not fucking over everybody else.
I mean, the point of LVT is to (a) do the above, and (b) strongly encourage high land value to have high value structures built on it.
The best place for new dense (high value) buildings is in the high land value core. Right now, low density housing is a great way to park it and pay far less property tax. You are talking about having retired folk there... asset rich retired folk with a near million dollar lot. "Forcing" them to move to somewhere they aren't using high-demand real estate we could put 10 families in, with density enough for a good transit system, isn't a horrible thing. They'll have nearly a million bucks to salve their disappointment.
Now you also want to charge for services. Those new developments need to pay full price up front for the water links *and* core water capacity upgradrs, sewage links *and* core sewer capacity upgrades , for the road links *and * core road capacity upgrades, for the transit links *and* core transit capacity upgrades.
Using "land+building" as an imprecise way to move tax costs to suburbs is ... using the wrong tool?
Have them pay for their higher cost of service delivery due to the sprawl. Note this also hits the old core single family neighbourhoods; with their lower density, they'll get hit as well.
Housing that isn't at least 3-5 story, dense, and near the core gets expensive. Core land that doesn't have 3-5 story mid-density housing gets expebsive. Transit get cheap, because dense populations are cheap to provide transit to. Service quality goes up, because dense populations are cheap to provide service to.
At least that is the goal. And yes, grandpa sitting in a tiny home with a huge lot worth a million bucks gets pressured into selling.
posted by NotAYakk at 9:53 PM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
I mean, the point of LVT is to (a) do the above, and (b) strongly encourage high land value to have high value structures built on it.
The best place for new dense (high value) buildings is in the high land value core. Right now, low density housing is a great way to park it and pay far less property tax. You are talking about having retired folk there... asset rich retired folk with a near million dollar lot. "Forcing" them to move to somewhere they aren't using high-demand real estate we could put 10 families in, with density enough for a good transit system, isn't a horrible thing. They'll have nearly a million bucks to salve their disappointment.
Now you also want to charge for services. Those new developments need to pay full price up front for the water links *and* core water capacity upgradrs, sewage links *and* core sewer capacity upgrades , for the road links *and * core road capacity upgrades, for the transit links *and* core transit capacity upgrades.
Using "land+building" as an imprecise way to move tax costs to suburbs is ... using the wrong tool?
Have them pay for their higher cost of service delivery due to the sprawl. Note this also hits the old core single family neighbourhoods; with their lower density, they'll get hit as well.
Housing that isn't at least 3-5 story, dense, and near the core gets expensive. Core land that doesn't have 3-5 story mid-density housing gets expebsive. Transit get cheap, because dense populations are cheap to provide transit to. Service quality goes up, because dense populations are cheap to provide service to.
At least that is the goal. And yes, grandpa sitting in a tiny home with a huge lot worth a million bucks gets pressured into selling.
posted by NotAYakk at 9:53 PM on November 12, 2023 [3 favorites]
Personally I favour a generalized productive assets tax over the inherently narrower LVT, because the core of so many of today's apparently intractable problems is the concentration of too much economic power (and therefore political power) in too few hands.
There are endless ways to cook the books so that income becomes undetectable according to tax rules. Those ways become selectively more available as incomes rise, and as things stand at present across most of the industrialized world, the highest incomes of all accrue to those who derive them from the productive assets they own rather than any labour or skills they have to offer. Hence the emergence of whole families of uber-wealthy parasites more likely than not to fuck over everybody else on a whim.
But productive assets are far harder to disguise or reclassify than money flows, and should therefore be correspondingly much less administratively expensive to tax.
Consider a portfolio of productive assets - shopping centres, say, or factories, or railroads, or parcels of shares - returning a net 3% of its total purchase price annually as income to its owner. A 1% tax on a fairly assessed value of all those assets, then, would be equivalent to a 33% tax on that income; a 2% asset tax would be equivalent to a 66% income tax and a 3% tax would effectively render those assets entirely economically unproductive for their current owner and cause some of them to be sold off.
So if we were to phase out all income taxes and phase in taxes on productive assets to replace them, levied at finely graded progressive rates that depend on the total value of the assets owned by any given entity, then not only could we raise an equivalent amount of tax revenue with far less administrative complexity, but maximizing income could no longer be achieved by owning All The Things: the more stuff you own, the easier you become to compete with on price. We could set the maximum rate, the one that actually means it makes no sense to keep on owning what's being taxed, at a level where it really only affects people who own stuff to a extent that most people would simply be appalled by.
In effect, an assets tax is an effective counterbalance for the tendency toward wealth concentration inherent in the fact that it takes money to make money.
The only way for the uber-wealthy to retain their grip on All The Things under such a regime would be via sybil attacks, creating proliferations of sub-entities each of whose total asset pool would be smaller and therefore subject to a lower rate of assets tax. But since it's ultimately the State that protects and enforces ownership, the only ways to do this without those sub-entities becoming taxable productive assets in and of themselves would be unreliable in inverse proportion to the degree of actual devolution of control involved. Simply setting up subsidiaries actually increases the amounts leaked away in taxes because (a) subsidiaries are taxable entities, to that leakage would be happening at every level in the hierarchy and (b) the value of a subsidiary, considered as an asset in its own right, is always going to be at least as high as the aggregate value of the assets it owns.
I have yet to see a single argument against assets taxes that doesn't boil down to "the billionaires would never let it happen". But who would you rather owned your apartment block - millionaire J. Local Landlord or Elon Musk?
posted by flabdablet at 10:05 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
There are endless ways to cook the books so that income becomes undetectable according to tax rules. Those ways become selectively more available as incomes rise, and as things stand at present across most of the industrialized world, the highest incomes of all accrue to those who derive them from the productive assets they own rather than any labour or skills they have to offer. Hence the emergence of whole families of uber-wealthy parasites more likely than not to fuck over everybody else on a whim.
But productive assets are far harder to disguise or reclassify than money flows, and should therefore be correspondingly much less administratively expensive to tax.
Consider a portfolio of productive assets - shopping centres, say, or factories, or railroads, or parcels of shares - returning a net 3% of its total purchase price annually as income to its owner. A 1% tax on a fairly assessed value of all those assets, then, would be equivalent to a 33% tax on that income; a 2% asset tax would be equivalent to a 66% income tax and a 3% tax would effectively render those assets entirely economically unproductive for their current owner and cause some of them to be sold off.
So if we were to phase out all income taxes and phase in taxes on productive assets to replace them, levied at finely graded progressive rates that depend on the total value of the assets owned by any given entity, then not only could we raise an equivalent amount of tax revenue with far less administrative complexity, but maximizing income could no longer be achieved by owning All The Things: the more stuff you own, the easier you become to compete with on price. We could set the maximum rate, the one that actually means it makes no sense to keep on owning what's being taxed, at a level where it really only affects people who own stuff to a extent that most people would simply be appalled by.
In effect, an assets tax is an effective counterbalance for the tendency toward wealth concentration inherent in the fact that it takes money to make money.
The only way for the uber-wealthy to retain their grip on All The Things under such a regime would be via sybil attacks, creating proliferations of sub-entities each of whose total asset pool would be smaller and therefore subject to a lower rate of assets tax. But since it's ultimately the State that protects and enforces ownership, the only ways to do this without those sub-entities becoming taxable productive assets in and of themselves would be unreliable in inverse proportion to the degree of actual devolution of control involved. Simply setting up subsidiaries actually increases the amounts leaked away in taxes because (a) subsidiaries are taxable entities, to that leakage would be happening at every level in the hierarchy and (b) the value of a subsidiary, considered as an asset in its own right, is always going to be at least as high as the aggregate value of the assets it owns.
I have yet to see a single argument against assets taxes that doesn't boil down to "the billionaires would never let it happen". But who would you rather owned your apartment block - millionaire J. Local Landlord or Elon Musk?
posted by flabdablet at 10:05 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
grandpa sitting in a tiny home with a huge lot worth a million bucks gets pressured into selling
Not so in a tax regime where any taxpayer's place of primary residence has a ten million dollar discount applied to its value when being assessed for tax purposes.
posted by flabdablet at 10:55 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
Not so in a tax regime where any taxpayer's place of primary residence has a ten million dollar discount applied to its value when being assessed for tax purposes.
posted by flabdablet at 10:55 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
How would public parks or libraries or other public-service uses of land work under a LVT system?
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 11:22 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 11:22 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]
I would be completely pointless to levy any form of asset tax on a publicly owned asset.
posted by flabdablet at 11:46 PM on November 12, 2023
posted by flabdablet at 11:46 PM on November 12, 2023
They'll have nearly a million bucks to salve their disappointment.
Jesus. Please Google “Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association” to find a real world example of exactly how that million dollars would get spent. Someone is going to be “disappointed”, but it’s not going to be the homeowners. It’s going to be the now ex-elected officials who got the law passed.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 12:30 AM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Jesus. Please Google “Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association” to find a real world example of exactly how that million dollars would get spent. Someone is going to be “disappointed”, but it’s not going to be the homeowners. It’s going to be the now ex-elected officials who got the law passed.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 12:30 AM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Sorry if that question seems obtuse - I’m not meaning to be. Just not sure how, if an LVT system allows/incentivizes land value changes to drive revenues, a city could justify holding onto park land in dense, desirable neighborhoods. Would people move often because of changes in tax valuation (either as owners or renters)? Would lots be under construction more often as land values change, introducing a different constraint to occupancy?
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 12:39 AM on November 13, 2023
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 12:39 AM on November 13, 2023
How would public parks or libraries or other public-service uses of land work under a LVT system?
You do know that most governments don't charge themselves tax right?
posted by srboisvert at 4:25 AM on November 13, 2023
You do know that most governments don't charge themselves tax right?
posted by srboisvert at 4:25 AM on November 13, 2023
Re Calgary (sorry, can't let it go): 60x120', in Brooklyn, would be 3 brownstones holding as many as 4 units each (actually, 60x100 would be more typical; 120 gives an extra-deep back yard). So if someone wants a single-family home there instead of 12 families, I don't mind at all if they have to pay a lot of taxes for the privilege. 800k is hardly affordable housing (especially with today's interest rates). Sure, Grandma might have to move, but she will be much safer in a new highrise with an elevator than she was schlepping up two flights of stairs to dust the attic armchairs. (If you really don't want to make anyone rich enough to own move, you could phase the tax in when the property changes hands, but this discourages moving and it's rather unfair). If you really have single-family homes on lots that size, replacing 10 of them with brownstone levels of density (not even highrises!) would roughly double your housing stock.
Also, it seems odd to describe the area with denser construction as "sprawl".
The reason the lots downtown are expensive is that everyone wants to live/work there. The reason they can't afford to is that the land is underutilized. Once you fix that, you will have a denser downtown, which makes it easier to build mass transit (more riders in a smaller area), which means less carbon.
posted by novalis_dt at 4:41 AM on November 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
Also, it seems odd to describe the area with denser construction as "sprawl".
The reason the lots downtown are expensive is that everyone wants to live/work there. The reason they can't afford to is that the land is underutilized. Once you fix that, you will have a denser downtown, which makes it easier to build mass transit (more riders in a smaller area), which means less carbon.
posted by novalis_dt at 4:41 AM on November 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
A family member has a house in Detroit. The house next door was abandoned years and years ago. A tree grew up through one of its walls.
posted by doctornemo at 4:56 AM on November 13, 2023
posted by doctornemo at 4:56 AM on November 13, 2023
taxing vacancy and neglect seems a more beneficial route...productive assets...
You'd have to be careful how you define 'vacancy' or you'd just end up with land holders building low density uses.
Taxing productive assets is even worse, as what happens is that you disincentivize the kinds of things that tend to drive the real economy. Now, if you limit it to capital gains or something, that's better. But what we're after and what can never happen politically, is a tax on wealth. It's simple, yet impossible.
Georgeism is seductive from a technical perspective, but it's audacious. Rent extraction based on land is one of the oldest and largest hustles in human activity. Even Superilla's most likely very thoughtful analysis is pure hypothetical. The 2nd+ order effects would be legion for a policy change like this. I'm not saying they'd be bad, I'm just saying that no one really has a clue what would happen if a large enough part of the economy tried this for an extended period.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:18 AM on November 13, 2023
You'd have to be careful how you define 'vacancy' or you'd just end up with land holders building low density uses.
Taxing productive assets is even worse, as what happens is that you disincentivize the kinds of things that tend to drive the real economy. Now, if you limit it to capital gains or something, that's better. But what we're after and what can never happen politically, is a tax on wealth. It's simple, yet impossible.
Georgeism is seductive from a technical perspective, but it's audacious. Rent extraction based on land is one of the oldest and largest hustles in human activity. Even Superilla's most likely very thoughtful analysis is pure hypothetical. The 2nd+ order effects would be legion for a policy change like this. I'm not saying they'd be bad, I'm just saying that no one really has a clue what would happen if a large enough part of the economy tried this for an extended period.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 7:18 AM on November 13, 2023
Once you fix that, you will have a denser downtown, which makes it easier to build mass transit (more riders in a smaller area)
If only we didn't need existing density to justify building mass transit. There are lots of highly desirable, transit rich areas that originally begin as a train to nowhere, built on speculation that the development would follow. Transit should be the thing that enables higher density, not the thing you build as a reward for achieving it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:46 AM on November 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
If only we didn't need existing density to justify building mass transit. There are lots of highly desirable, transit rich areas that originally begin as a train to nowhere, built on speculation that the development would follow. Transit should be the thing that enables higher density, not the thing you build as a reward for achieving it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:46 AM on November 13, 2023 [4 favorites]
Taxing productive assets is even worse, as what happens is that you disincentivize the kinds of things that tend to drive the real economy.
Not if it's done right. You could make exactly the same claim about income taxes, and yet economies all over the world seem to function just fine with those in place. Back in the pre-fintech era when upper-tier rates were much higher than today's and the wealthy had to work harder to evade and/or avoid them, they functioned even finer.
The point of progressive rates of taxation on productive assets is not to disincentivize the creation and ownership of productive assets per se, but to (a) disincentivize excessive concentration of such ownership which does nobody but the excessively concentrated owners any good and (b) incentivize innovations that drive improvements in the productivity of assets, the effective returns from such improvement being magnified under an asset tax regime and (c) incentivize ongoing employment as the lower-cost alternative to installation of high-capex automated plant.
Under a properly designed progressive rate regime, the asset taxes paid by most asset owners should be relatively low; certainly lower than the income taxes they'd be replacing, simply because the total tax take would end up skewed so much more heavily toward people who, under today's arrangments (a) own almost all of the productive assets and (b) pay fuck-all tax. Tax arrangements that favour small to medium enterprise at the expense of bigger businesses would boost, not detract from, the diversity and competition that drives the real economy.
posted by flabdablet at 8:00 AM on November 13, 2023
Not if it's done right. You could make exactly the same claim about income taxes, and yet economies all over the world seem to function just fine with those in place. Back in the pre-fintech era when upper-tier rates were much higher than today's and the wealthy had to work harder to evade and/or avoid them, they functioned even finer.
The point of progressive rates of taxation on productive assets is not to disincentivize the creation and ownership of productive assets per se, but to (a) disincentivize excessive concentration of such ownership which does nobody but the excessively concentrated owners any good and (b) incentivize innovations that drive improvements in the productivity of assets, the effective returns from such improvement being magnified under an asset tax regime and (c) incentivize ongoing employment as the lower-cost alternative to installation of high-capex automated plant.
Under a properly designed progressive rate regime, the asset taxes paid by most asset owners should be relatively low; certainly lower than the income taxes they'd be replacing, simply because the total tax take would end up skewed so much more heavily toward people who, under today's arrangments (a) own almost all of the productive assets and (b) pay fuck-all tax. Tax arrangements that favour small to medium enterprise at the expense of bigger businesses would boost, not detract from, the diversity and competition that drives the real economy.
posted by flabdablet at 8:00 AM on November 13, 2023
Transit should be the thing that enables higher density, not the thing you build as a reward for achieving it.
"Build it and they will come" has been shown, over and over again, to work exceedingly well when it comes to keeping roads operating at their point of maximum tolerable congestion. And it costs a lot less to add new carriages to overcrowded trains, and whole new trains to overcrowded transit services, than it does to build whole new lanes on overcrowded freeways.
posted by flabdablet at 8:08 AM on November 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
"Build it and they will come" has been shown, over and over again, to work exceedingly well when it comes to keeping roads operating at their point of maximum tolerable congestion. And it costs a lot less to add new carriages to overcrowded trains, and whole new trains to overcrowded transit services, than it does to build whole new lanes on overcrowded freeways.
posted by flabdablet at 8:08 AM on November 13, 2023 [2 favorites]
If only we didn't need existing density to justify building mass transit.
This is yet another zoning issue. The law in California was just changed this year to allow/require higher zoning uses and to discount parking, extremely close to transit stops. And every other state with transit that is not NYC is trailing California in terms of zoning near transit.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:16 AM on November 13, 2023
This is yet another zoning issue. The law in California was just changed this year to allow/require higher zoning uses and to discount parking, extremely close to transit stops. And every other state with transit that is not NYC is trailing California in terms of zoning near transit.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:16 AM on November 13, 2023
Changing zoning around existing transit to encourage higher density is good, but it's something that happens after the transit has already been built.
The big issue is how hard it is to justify spending on new transit to areas that have the potential to become higher density but don't have that density yet--"build it and they will come" as flabdablet put it. No one wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a "train to nowhere", even though "nowhere" is precisely where you should be building trains to because the land is cheap and it's less disruptive to build before things get dense.
We're stuck in a backlog of transit. We're penny-wise and pound-foolishly only building it where we know there's already density. This is why it's so expensive. Almost every transit project currently being built should have been built thirty, forty, of even fifty years ago.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:29 AM on November 13, 2023
The big issue is how hard it is to justify spending on new transit to areas that have the potential to become higher density but don't have that density yet--"build it and they will come" as flabdablet put it. No one wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a "train to nowhere", even though "nowhere" is precisely where you should be building trains to because the land is cheap and it's less disruptive to build before things get dense.
We're stuck in a backlog of transit. We're penny-wise and pound-foolishly only building it where we know there's already density. This is why it's so expensive. Almost every transit project currently being built should have been built thirty, forty, of even fifty years ago.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:29 AM on November 13, 2023
It seems like using LVT as an incentive to build rather than sitting on vacant land to speculate is desirable. From what folks are saying it seems like a less sensible approach to already built out property. But in a city like Detroit where speculators are sitting on thousands of vacant lots it could help.
posted by leslies at 8:29 AM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by leslies at 8:29 AM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
If only we didn't need existing density to justify building mass transit. There are lots of highly desirable, transit rich areas that originally begin as a train to nowhere, built on speculation that the development would follow. Transit should be the thing that enables higher density, not the thing you build as a reward for achieving it.
Only thing I'd say is if you'll build transit where density is absent you also need to pass laws to prevent the blocking of new high density construction, because it'll 100% happen guaranteed.
I'm still unsold on LVT especially in the details. With the exception of vacant lots where nobody has to move, at current construction costs it will need to be really high to create the intended effect which is to make people rebuild the current housing stock for more density. And you'll basically put homeowners at the mercy of developers since these are not projects they're likely to undertake/finance themselves.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:35 AM on November 13, 2023
Only thing I'd say is if you'll build transit where density is absent you also need to pass laws to prevent the blocking of new high density construction, because it'll 100% happen guaranteed.
I'm still unsold on LVT especially in the details. With the exception of vacant lots where nobody has to move, at current construction costs it will need to be really high to create the intended effect which is to make people rebuild the current housing stock for more density. And you'll basically put homeowners at the mercy of developers since these are not projects they're likely to undertake/finance themselves.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:35 AM on November 13, 2023
Yes, I do know that cities don’t pay taxes on their own fucking land. I’ll take my question to a city planner.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 9:26 AM on November 13, 2023
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 9:26 AM on November 13, 2023
Changing zoning around existing transit to encourage higher density is good, but it's something that happens after the transit has already been built.
it could be changed before hand. Also the majority of lines that are being built in the US (like Florida's Brightline) and local mass transit lines in Boston, LA, Dallas, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Washington DC all currently under construction, could all be rezoned to increase density along the lines. So yes, 'build it and they will come' is kind of an issue, but it's not like mass transit is not being built in the US.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:44 AM on November 13, 2023
it could be changed before hand. Also the majority of lines that are being built in the US (like Florida's Brightline) and local mass transit lines in Boston, LA, Dallas, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Washington DC all currently under construction, could all be rezoned to increase density along the lines. So yes, 'build it and they will come' is kind of an issue, but it's not like mass transit is not being built in the US.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:44 AM on November 13, 2023
Yes, I do know that cities don’t pay taxes on their own fucking land. I’ll take my question to a city planner.
Then your question doesn't make sense, and is not something a city planner could help you with. There are lots of places that don't pay property taxes [or very much], not just city property but also things like schools and churches. They would still exist under different land taxing plans.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:46 AM on November 13, 2023
Then your question doesn't make sense, and is not something a city planner could help you with. There are lots of places that don't pay property taxes [or very much], not just city property but also things like schools and churches. They would still exist under different land taxing plans.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:46 AM on November 13, 2023
I think rrrrrrrrt's question is basically: how would this impact a city's cost-benefit analysis around public land? I don't really think so - development gets the city more revenue either way, and while the financial incentive to develop in a very dense place would get extreme, those places are proportionally fiercely cherished by the people who love them. No amount of money is going to get NYC to develop any part of Central Park.
posted by McBearclaw at 10:16 AM on November 13, 2023
posted by McBearclaw at 10:16 AM on November 13, 2023
Owners of vacant lots in Detroit wouldn't pay more tax on them, they would simply default on the taxes. The land is vacant because it didn't support development when the land was acquired, and the situation hasn't gotten better. Return to office is unpredictable everywhere and doesn't look especially good for downtown Detroit. Detroit lacks the urban amenities and appeal that have pushed up apartment rents and condo sale prices in many cities post-COVID, to say the least of the particular law and order and education solves that are needed to attract suburban Detroit people back to the city in large numbers.
posted by MattD at 10:17 AM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 10:17 AM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Guys, it's speculation that's driving costs up. Investors will pay more than residents if they think they can sell to other investors for more in the future. Like stocks. So prices get set by future projections, not current value to users. And potential future value is higher if you can up-zone and build "luxury" condos or whatever. In the meantime, sit on it and don't waste money on maintenance or taxes. A house you can tear down and build multiple units on will never sell for what it's worth to residents as a house, especially if the neighborhood is "improving".
My city added a ton of units and not a lot of people, but housing costs are way up, and the highest rises are in the neighborhoods with the most new building. Why? So is the percentage of units owned by investors, all speculating about the next hot neighborhood and up-zoning.
I have no idea why urban planning is the one topic everyone thinks removing regulations will somehow work out for anyone other than the rich people saying "trust us we'll give you more of what you want if you just make these pesky rules go away".
It's also super oblivious to the actual experience of people living in neighborhoods targeted by developers, which in cities are mostly minorities.
posted by sepviva at 7:19 PM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
My city added a ton of units and not a lot of people, but housing costs are way up, and the highest rises are in the neighborhoods with the most new building. Why? So is the percentage of units owned by investors, all speculating about the next hot neighborhood and up-zoning.
I have no idea why urban planning is the one topic everyone thinks removing regulations will somehow work out for anyone other than the rich people saying "trust us we'll give you more of what you want if you just make these pesky rules go away".
It's also super oblivious to the actual experience of people living in neighborhoods targeted by developers, which in cities are mostly minorities.
posted by sepviva at 7:19 PM on November 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
Guys, it's speculation that's driving costs up.
People study this stuff. There is nowhere in the US that building is up on a comparative basis vs population trend (normalized building trends) vs the 1970s and earlier. Unless you live in Phoenix or DFW metros, your city probably didn't add very many units in the past decade.
Speculation only works if construction is held back.
It's also super oblivious to the actual experience of people living in neighborhoods targeted by developers, which in cities are mostly minorities.
People also study this. The number of neighborhoods in the entire US that are primarily owned by minorities that are becoming wealthier at a rate that is above the rest of the city is like 10%, vs 90% declining vs the rest of the city. Also, when broad upzoning is done, developers concentrate on already wealthy areas for construction. So from that perspective, if broad upzoning is done, those 10% of poor but gentrifying neighborhoods will actually fall to less than 10%. Which is a problem that can only be fixed via subsidized housing. Not market solutions.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:51 AM on November 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
People study this stuff. There is nowhere in the US that building is up on a comparative basis vs population trend (normalized building trends) vs the 1970s and earlier. Unless you live in Phoenix or DFW metros, your city probably didn't add very many units in the past decade.
Speculation only works if construction is held back.
It's also super oblivious to the actual experience of people living in neighborhoods targeted by developers, which in cities are mostly minorities.
People also study this. The number of neighborhoods in the entire US that are primarily owned by minorities that are becoming wealthier at a rate that is above the rest of the city is like 10%, vs 90% declining vs the rest of the city. Also, when broad upzoning is done, developers concentrate on already wealthy areas for construction. So from that perspective, if broad upzoning is done, those 10% of poor but gentrifying neighborhoods will actually fall to less than 10%. Which is a problem that can only be fixed via subsidized housing. Not market solutions.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:51 AM on November 14, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older Nonanism | "The only reason for the existence of a print is... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is not an argument against new construction and housing. I just don't see how LVT solves any of the problems that arise in areas where there are no vacant lots.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:14 PM on November 12, 2023 [1 favorite]