new | show | ask | jobs Github

echelon 3 days ago

Zoning rules can be useful, but if they produce negative externalities then they should be taxed.

Want to only allow single-family residences?

Fine, but pay the city taxes on that privilege. Then use those funds to offset the negative externality.

▲

3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If the majority faction of the population want to force single family residences, what other majority faction is going to want to force a tax on it? Mathematically, you would need to find overlap where a large segment of the population want both single-family residences and to be taxed on it.

Good luck.

▲

echelon 3 days ago | parent [-]

You won't in the suburbs, which isn't where the problems lie. Nobody cares if you have a big single family residence when the land is plentiful.

Major urban centers have enough renters to form a voting bloc, and this is where such a policy could be useful to increase housing supply.

	▲	9rx 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> enough renters to form a voting bloc Maybe, but voting would only matter if there was a referendum, which is highly unlikely for something that isn't challenging fundamental rights. Taxes are easily repealed if the people realize they made a mistake. It not need that kind of level of agreement. What does matter is having time to participate in democracy. It very well may be that in theory the renting crowd have a loud enough voice to be heard, but in practice do they really have the time/the feeling of having enough time to actually do it? Statistically, renters are lower income and tend to struggle to make ends meet. While making themselves heard would be beneficial, often they face other pressures, like needing to go to work, instead that diminish their ability to carry through with it.
	▲	treis 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Renters don't want to live next to a SRO/boarding house either.