Love it! Very well explained. The surrounding parcels always bear the burden of down-zoning. Reminds me a lot of Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen." We see the benefits of downtown parks but not the scarcity rents they induce. We see the greenery in the city center and worry about its loss, but not the greenery outside the city that is saved from sprawl. Seems like there would always be an inherent selection/preference bias for greenery that is at the center of population and seen by the most people.
1) the preservation of natural open space and parks can often increase the value of surrounding land.
2) tree canopy should also be recognized as creating public value; to that end, I've proposed establishing a 'tree canopy market' to establish economic incentives to promote adequate tree canopy in areas that are under their tree canopy target: https://www.strongwa.org/policy-concepts#h.w0mzmwxad1sk (Similar programs could be arranged for other public/natural environment benefits, such as for accommodating stormwater drainage capacity.)
3) land value is made of many different parts, including a bundle of rights. If a particular area is unfit for building due to natural circumstances, the owners of that land should be allowed to sell their "development rights" to be used in some other area of the city which is targeting growth.
4) I'd be willing to provide some exemption of land value tax to properties that actively restrain their rights for the public benefit, such as inviting others to make use of their land by restraining their right to exclusion (in which case they would mark their land as being openly accessible to the public).
> A practical Georgist might relent — knowing that the result would be the same whether the community had access to the data and were made aware of it or not: Surrounding lots would still bear the burden of increased land values (and corresponding taxes) and anyone doggedly curious enough could derive the value of the exempted lot based on surrounding increases.
Re #2:
Too cool. ❤️
Re #3:
I understand the bundle of rights. We want to separate the rights to the use/control from the rights to the residuals. I would imagine the “development rights” falls under the former. I don’t see what would prevent them from selling those rights currently. How would one use the rights of a particular parcel somewhere else? Maybe I’m thinking too literally?
Re #4:
Yep, that would be decided by the community — preferably by some democratic process — since the community would ultimately be the ones who provide the offset in tax revenue for that exemption (as you pointed out in your first point and as I pointed out in the article, so full-circle).
Love it! Very well explained. The surrounding parcels always bear the burden of down-zoning. Reminds me a lot of Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen." We see the benefits of downtown parks but not the scarcity rents they induce. We see the greenery in the city center and worry about its loss, but not the greenery outside the city that is saved from sprawl. Seems like there would always be an inherent selection/preference bias for greenery that is at the center of population and seen by the most people.
I'd raise a couple of points on this:
1) the preservation of natural open space and parks can often increase the value of surrounding land.
2) tree canopy should also be recognized as creating public value; to that end, I've proposed establishing a 'tree canopy market' to establish economic incentives to promote adequate tree canopy in areas that are under their tree canopy target: https://www.strongwa.org/policy-concepts#h.w0mzmwxad1sk (Similar programs could be arranged for other public/natural environment benefits, such as for accommodating stormwater drainage capacity.)
3) land value is made of many different parts, including a bundle of rights. If a particular area is unfit for building due to natural circumstances, the owners of that land should be allowed to sell their "development rights" to be used in some other area of the city which is targeting growth.
4) I'd be willing to provide some exemption of land value tax to properties that actively restrain their rights for the public benefit, such as inviting others to make use of their land by restraining their right to exclusion (in which case they would mark their land as being openly accessible to the public).
Re #1:
Yep, that was exactly my point in #5 😁
> A practical Georgist might relent — knowing that the result would be the same whether the community had access to the data and were made aware of it or not: Surrounding lots would still bear the burden of increased land values (and corresponding taxes) and anyone doggedly curious enough could derive the value of the exempted lot based on surrounding increases.
Re #2:
Too cool. ❤️
Re #3:
I understand the bundle of rights. We want to separate the rights to the use/control from the rights to the residuals. I would imagine the “development rights” falls under the former. I don’t see what would prevent them from selling those rights currently. How would one use the rights of a particular parcel somewhere else? Maybe I’m thinking too literally?
Re #4:
Yep, that would be decided by the community — preferably by some democratic process — since the community would ultimately be the ones who provide the offset in tax revenue for that exemption (as you pointed out in your first point and as I pointed out in the article, so full-circle).
re #3, King County has a program to facilitate the purchase/sale of development rights, wherein specific areas are designated as eligible to 'give' or 'receive' development rights: https://kingcounty.gov/en/legacy/services/environment/stewardship/sustainable-building/transfer-development-rights