Discussion about this post

User's avatar
DeepLeftAnalysis🔸's avatar

It seems insane to tax developers to build housing, with that tax ostensibly being justified as helping "lower the cost of housing." Like, really? Taxing a good to increase its supply? Come on guys! I had no clue this was happening, but it is really wacky. If anything, we should be implementing a Georgist tax on *not building housing.*

For example, we should divide the property tax (determined by square footage/acreage of plot) by the total volume of housing. This would be a tax on parking lots and green spaces. I have this model of a perfect city as one where the city is surrounded by a giant "ring" park, like central park, but it's a ring that surrounds the entire city, and has tunnels going under it. This would solve the problem of accessibility to walkable green spaces, while also maximizing housing density. Exciting stuff!

Expand full comment
Andy G's avatar

“Affordable”, below-market-rate housing requirements are simply a bad idea that ensures that less housing gets built, and a few lucky people benefit while the community as a whole suffers.

Kudos to you for if not being fully and openly unequivocally against it at least pointing out the problems with it.

Of course it’ll probably be a cold day in hell (and a hot month in SF in September…) before your fellow San Franciscans agree with you…

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts