De-urbanisation - is it time to go back to the country?

[Telconi]

But again tall thin buildings actually are not taking up as much land. They are tall in thin so they take up less land.
That is how it works.
And those buildings generate property tax despite not actually using up very much land. How much time you spend in a place you always pay the same property tax. You pay the same property tax on your empty condo as you do when you live in it.

And again land value is not something you can hand wave away, I told you this already.

Land is a finite resource. Different land has different utility and desirability. All land is unique. Land is therefore not fungible.
Therefore land has value, and different values.

For something to have no value it would have to be infinite. And for something to have identical value it must be fungible.

See you should really try to listen and learn more than just repeating the same sentences over and over without address counterpoints.

why not just let rich oligarchs buy up all the available land and generate all the tax revenue? Dont built housing for anyone else. evict all the peasants.

Land is land. I dont see how its unique.

So an acre of lava rock fifty miles from the nearest building with electrical power and an acre in downtown Manhattan are the same?

[San Lumen]

why not just let rich oligarchs buy up all the available land and generate all the tax revenue? Dont built housing for anyone else. evict all the peasants.

Land is land. I dont see how its unique.

So an acre of lava rock fifty miles from the nearest building with electrical power and an acre in downtown Manhattan are the same?

That’s a bit different as it’s not buildable nor should we destroy every last bit of green left in the world

[Novus America]

But again tall thin buildings actually are not taking up as much land. They are tall in thin so they take up less land.
That is how it works.
And those buildings generate property tax despite not actually using up very much land. How much time you spend in a place you always pay the same property tax. You pay the same property tax on your empty condo as you do when you live in it.

And again land value is not something you can hand wave away, I told you this already.

Land is a finite resource. Different land has different utility and desirability. All land is unique. Land is therefore not fungible.
Therefore land has value, and different values.

For something to have no value it would have to be infinite. And for something to have identical value it must be fungible.

See you should really try to listen and learn more than just repeating the same sentences over and over without address counterpoints.

why not just let rich oligarchs buy up all the available land and generate all the tax revenue? Dont built housing for anyone else. evict all the peasants.

Land is land. I dont see how its unique.

Again the trick is finding the right balance, not going to one extreme or another.
If you want tax revenue to fund affordable housing it is all about getting the right balance between tax revenue properties and tax subsidized properties.

And really? You do not see how a land with oil is not different than land without oil?
How land on the top of a barren mountain is not different than waterfront land?

It is literally impossible to completely duplicate land. Because it cannot exist in the exact same place.

This is a fundamental premise of real property law and a reason it differs from other property and contract law.

[Novus America]

So an acre of lava rock fifty miles from the nearest building with electrical power and an acre in downtown Manhattan are the same?

That’s a bit different as it’s not buildable nor should we destroy every last bit of green left in the world

It is a whole lot different. Which is the point.

[San Lumen]

why not just let rich oligarchs buy up all the available land and generate all the tax revenue? Dont built housing for anyone else. evict all the peasants.

Land is land. I dont see how its unique.

Again the trick is finding the right balance, not going to one extreme or another.
If you want tax revenue to fund affordable housing it is all about getting the right balance between tax revenue properties and tax subsidized properties.

And really? You do not see how a land with oil is not different than land without oil?
How land on the top of a barren mountain is not different than waterfront land?

It is literally impossible to completely duplicate land. Because it cannot exist in the exact same place.

This is a fundamental premise of real property law and a reason it differs from other property and contract law.

But it shouldn’t be all that gets built which is what’s happening in nyc, Miami or San Francisco and other cities. Washington DC could alleviate its housing shortage and prices if they would lift the ridiculous height requirements

Internationally too. London doesn’t allow high rises except for a few places hence part of the reason why it’s so expensive.

Maybe we allow them to own it but they have to rent it out? Would that be a reasonable proposal

[Novus America]

Again the trick is finding the right balance, not going to one extreme or another.
If you want tax revenue to fund affordable housing it is all about getting the right balance between tax revenue properties and tax subsidized properties.

And really? You do not see how a land with oil is not different than land without oil?
How land on the top of a barren mountain is not different than waterfront land?

It is literally impossible to completely duplicate land. Because it cannot exist in the exact same place.

This is a fundamental premise of real property law and a reason it differs from other property and contract law.

But it shouldn’t be all that gets built which is what’s happening in nyc, Miami or San Francisco and other cities. Washington DC could alleviate its housing shortage and prices if they would lift the ridiculous height requirements

Internationally too. London doesn’t allow high rises except for a few places hence part of the reason why it’s so expensive.

Maybe we allow them to own it but they have to rent it out? Would that be a reasonable proposal

Well yes. We currently are definitely not getting the right balance at all.
Something we absolutely should fix.

Certainly additional taxes on vacant property and better tax deductions on property actually being lived in would be a great idea.
Rather than forcing them to rent it out per se I would instead just tax them much more heavily then if the do not.

[San Lumen]

But it shouldn’t be all that gets built which is what’s happening in nyc, Miami or San Francisco and other cities. Washington DC could alleviate its housing shortage and prices if they would lift the ridiculous height requirements

Internationally too. London doesn’t allow high rises except for a few places hence part of the reason why it’s so expensive.

Maybe we allow them to own it but they have to rent it out? Would that be a reasonable proposal

Well yes. We currently are definitely not getting the right balance at all.
Something we absolutely should fix.

Certainly additional taxes on vacant property and better tax deductions on property actually being lived in would be a great idea.
Rather than forcing them to rent it out per se I would instead just tax them much more heavily then if the do not.

They can afford the extra tax therefore not sure what that would do.

The mayor of nyc announced yesterday that the building law loophole that allowed monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue to be built will be slammed shut. I very much approve of this change

[Novus America]

Well yes. We currently are definitely not getting the right balance at all.
Something we absolutely should fix.

Certainly additional taxes on vacant property and better tax deductions on property actually being lived in would be a great idea.
Rather than forcing them to rent it out per se I would instead just tax them much more heavily then if the do not.

They can afford the extra tax therefore not sure what that would do.

The mayor of nyc announced yesterday that the building law loophole that allowed monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue to be built will be slammed shut. I very much approve of this change

Well if they pay the extra tax that might actually be more valuable.

If the condo would only be rented to one person but the extra tax can fund two appartments it is actually better they pay the tax.

I am not sure the details of this “loophole” but restrictions on building will not increase availability. As you note strict height codes in DC have increased housing prices.

Will closing it reduce tax revenues as well?

Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The trick part is actually properly determining and quantifying the benefits and the costs.

[San Lumen]

They can afford the extra tax therefore not sure what that would do.

The mayor of nyc announced yesterday that the building law loophole that allowed monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue to be built will be slammed shut. I very much approve of this change

Well if they pay the extra tax that might actually be more valuable.

If the condo would only be rented to one person but the extra tax can fund two appartments it is actually better they pay the tax.

I am not sure the details of this “loophole” but restrictions on building will not increase availability. As you note strict height codes in DC have increased housing prices.

How would it be more valuable?

The loophole is it allows someone to buy airspace and build pencil like towers on small plots of land and gives you monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue that are ghost apartments for the Uber rich

I don’t know why dc won’t lift the building restrictions it would help their issue greatly. It would require an act of Congress. The height of buildings act would have to be repealed

[Novus America]

Well if they pay the extra tax that might actually be more valuable.

If the condo would only be rented to one person but the extra tax can fund two appartments it is actually better they pay the tax.

I am not sure the details of this “loophole” but restrictions on building will not increase availability. As you note strict height codes in DC have increased housing prices.

How would it be more valuable?

The loophole is it allows someone to buy airspace and build pencil like towers on small plots of land and gives you monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue that are ghost apartments for the Uber rich

I don’t know why dc won’t lift the building restrictions it would help their issue greatly

Because creating space for two more people accommodates more people than just one.
So if the tax creates two apartments elsewhere that is more valuable than them renting just one.

Well if New York is restricting building that could have negative effects like reduced tax revenue.

All policies come with costs. Does the benefit outweigh the cost?

The reason DC does so is the same reason you oppose those towers. They like the look of low rises, and do not want them blocking light and views.

Which of course comes with a cost.

Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The trick is making sure you accurately account for ALL costs. Many times a cost gets overlooked or not properly quantified.

[The Emerald Legion]

And then the rich would remove you from office.

How? They have one vote like everyone else

As we have been over, that does not work economically. You would have no money to build affordable housing.

How would it not work? How would there be no money?

They have money. They don't have to vote. They can just have you shamed in front of your electorate so noone will vote for you.

[San Lumen]

How? They have one vote like everyone else
How would it not work? How would there be no money?

They have money. They don't have to vote. They can just have you shamed in front of your electorate so noone will vote for you.

I doubt many average people would care if the rich didn’t have luxury penthouses from which to look down upon them

[San Lumen]

How would it be more valuable?

The loophole is it allows someone to buy airspace and build pencil like towers on small plots of land and gives you monstrosities like 432 Park Avenue that are ghost apartments for the Uber rich

I don’t know why dc won’t lift the building restrictions it would help their issue greatly

Because creating space for two more people accommodates more people than just one.
So if the tax creates two apartments elsewhere that is more valuable than them renting just one.

Well if New York is restricting building that could have negative effects like reduced tax revenue.

All policies come with costs. Does the benefit outweigh the cost?

The reason DC does so is the same reason you oppose those towers. They like the look of low rises, and do not want them blocking light and views.

Which of course comes with a cost.

Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The trick is making sure you accurately account for ALL costs. Many times a cost gets overlooked or not properly quantified.

But these towers come at the expense of everyone else and drive up costs for everyone and are eyesores.

There ought to be restrictions on buildings. Banning future buildings like 432 Park Avenue is overwhelming supported.

[Novus America]

Because creating space for two more people accommodates more people than just one.
So if the tax creates two apartments elsewhere that is more valuable than them renting just one.

Well if New York is restricting building that could have negative effects like reduced tax revenue.

All policies come with costs. Does the benefit outweigh the cost?

The reason DC does so is the same reason you oppose those towers. They like the look of low rises, and do not want them blocking light and views.

Which of course comes with a cost.

Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The trick is making sure you accurately account for ALL costs. Many times a cost gets overlooked or not properly quantified.

But these towers come at the expense of everyone else and drive up costs for everyone and are eyesores.

There ought to be restrictions on buildings. Banning future buildings like 432 Park Avenue is overwhelming supported.

Eyesore is completely subjective.
And that does not change that prohibiting them will have costs as well.
Have you and the majority done an in depth cost benefit analysis backed by data?

Do you have data supporting your claims? Or just emotions?

See you criticize DC while doing the same thing.

[San Lumen]

But these towers come at the expense of everyone else and drive up costs for everyone and are eyesores.

There ought to be restrictions on buildings. Banning future buildings like 432 Park Avenue is overwhelming supported.

Eyesore is completely subjective.
And that does not change that prohibiting them will have costs as well.
Have you and the majority done an in depth cost benefit analysis backed by data?

Do you have data supporting your claims? Or just emotions?

See you criticize DC while doing the same thing.

Maybe to the rich they aren't eyesores but to everyone I know they are

The current administration obviously has or they wouldn't be finally banning them.

Congress passed a law in 1910 restricting building heights in DC because they wanted to preserve the European vibe of the city. Sadly there is nothing the city can do as the only way to allow taller buildings is to repeal the law. Dc has limited home rule.

[Novus America]

Eyesore is completely subjective.
And that does not change that prohibiting them will have costs as well.
Have you and the majority done an in depth cost benefit analysis backed by data?

Do you have data supporting your claims? Or just emotions?

See you criticize DC while doing the same thing.

Maybe to the rich they aren't eyesores but to everyone I know they are

The current administration obviously has or they wouldn't be finally banning them.

Congress passed a law in 1910 restricting building heights in DC because they wanted to preserve the European vibe of the city. Sadly there is nothing the city can do as the only way to allow taller buildings is to repeal the law. Dc has limited home rule.

NYC does stuff without doing the research all the time.

[San Lumen]

Maybe to the rich they aren't eyesores but to everyone I know they are

The current administration obviously has or they wouldn't be finally banning them.

Congress passed a law in 1910 restricting building heights in DC because they wanted to preserve the European vibe of the city. Sadly there is nothing the city can do as the only way to allow taller buildings is to repeal the law. Dc has limited home rule.

NYC does stuff without doing the research all the time.

Proof?