Hacker News Reader

Comment by lend000 | Hacker News Reader

I like the auction aspect the parent described in another comment. However I don't like the idea that the government can revoke at will and eminent domain you out of property even if you paid the tax you won at auction. For example -- what incentivizes people to take their expensive expertise, time and equipment and survey land before placing a bid at auction? If the government is going to be the only one to survey land, that's a great way to kill innovation in the field of natural resource exploration.

Similarly, if you "bought" a piece of land you just use for a single story home near downtown SF 30 years ago, are you still paying the same LVT you got at action back then? Or will the price keep going up and price you out of your longtime house?

View on HN

Yes, many people are not comfortable about being evicted.

In reality that is how majority of people and business operate because they rent from somebody else. Your apartment lease usually expires after a year and you can be 'evicted' by your landlord. Businesess have contracts for longer periods (about 10years) of time because they put more investment into it.

Instead of renting from lucky private landowners, the business owners could just as easily lease from a government for 7 years.

The only question really is how long the auction should repeat after. Every year would mean people would not invest much for risk of non renewal of the contract next year. On the other hand too long between auctions (such as infinite time like in present day situation) and you get huge underutilization because the lucky winner in the first auction is not pressured to sell.

LVT (or this auction mechanism) is based on market price of the land in that area so it changes in time. To prevent sudden spikes in price, the valuation of land should happen in intervals of several years like I described above in the case of an auction.

I would consider “ability to be evicted” to be a great moral wrong, and that access to comfortable housing that doesn’t cause an unreasonable commute to be a basic human right on par with free medical care & education.

It’s hard for me to think of a way to square this without a concept of land ownership and exclusive property rights.

I guess some type of lifelong lease from the government could be OK, but some land is more valuable than other land for living, so then how to allocate the best livable land?

At any rate, I do view the capability to be evicted as a moral wrong.

> I would consider “ability to be evicted” to be a great moral wrong, and that access to comfortable housing that doesn’t cause an unreasonable commute to be a basic human right on par with free medical care & education.

These two ideals of yours are contradictory. The right to not be evicted (in order to better develop the land) can directly prevent the availability of housing with the qualities you require. With the help of zoning boards, which are really just an embodiment of their constituent land owners, isn't this more or less the sum of the housing issue in the bay area? You certainly cannot say that there's any semblance of comfortable hosting with a reasonable commute...

I agree with you that it’s two contradictory forces, and yet I still believe either outcome is wrong. If a person can be evicted from where they live, that is wrong. Yet also if comfortable, nearby, affordable housing (that you did not need to evict others to build) is not widespread for all, that is also wrong.

It’s important to focus on solutions that solve both sides of the problem, and to deny arguments that it’s functionally not possible (which would be an unacceptable outcome).

I don’t mind the contradictory positions in terms of market theory and efficient allocation, and believe it’s important to pursue anyway, that this technical contradiction is fine... necessary even.

The impossibility may be "unacceptable" but it's reality. I believe that at a certain point - e.g. when evicting one means 1000 or 10000 more people are able to afford somewhere decent to live near where they work - eviction becomes a lesser evil. If you're unwilling to make that kind of trade, then however much sophistry you put into "focusing on solutions that solve both sides", more likely you'll just end up never getting those 1000 or 10000 people a place to live.

> which would be an unacceptable outcome

an outcome can be unacceptable, but you have no choice but to accept it. It's like gravity will pull down, whether you accept it or not.

When you lose the ability to evict, you also lose the ability to rebuild (since you'd need to evict to rebuild).

What is desirable is balance. Where that balance lies is up to the populous, and in san fran, the populous have spoken (by their actions) - they prefer to keep it less dense, and suffer the consequences of high property prices.

I too would love to guarantee to every citizen that they will not be evicted.

Unfortunately it cannot be a universal benefit since not everybody lives in their own. Implementing this non-eviction right would vastly benefit one part of the society at the expense of the other. The benefiting half of society would then proceed to collect vast sums of money from the other half through rent payments.

I personally think if there is a class divide in society then it is exactly because of this supposedly universal 'moral good'.

If Marx lived couple more decades he would see that those capitalists used their hard earned money to buy.. real estate and land. Therefore just becoming new aristocracy displacing the old one. It was not the Marx's capitalist who was the exploiting bad guy. It was the landowner after all. Industrial revolution during Marx era was just a transition of aristocratic titles to the new generation of aristocrats that we now call.. well we call them just 'billionaires'.

why is eviction so bad? provided the person has the resources to move and is given enough notice, I fail to see what is so morally wrong about it. it can certainly be inconvenient and/or disappointing, but it's hardly a heinous evil.

the expectation to live on a specific piece of land indefinitely has always seemed one of the more bizarre entitlements to me. it's basically the only thing we can't make more of.

With a lifelong auction for individuals, perhaps with an agreed upon inflation agreement (which can also be bid in the auction) and a sufficiently long auction cycle for big corporate projects to be worth doing (50 years?), I could see this being feasible. I still don't see a way to condone eviction outside of this period, just because the new land renter A. happened upon unexpected value on the land or B. had more insight to identify the value than other auctioneers. And even with a 50 year cycle, if a business builds a business specific factory, this cycle would discourage more investment into the factory near the end of the "lease" and encourage wastefully leasing some new land and building a new factory on it. There are a lot of theoretical challenges with Georgism, and combined with the impossibility of stripping all existing landowners of their property, it's all just a theoretical exercise. Still an interesting thought experiment though, and could be worth exploring if science opens up new land to divvy up (e.g. on Mars).

To the example of factory and 50 year cycle of auction and potential eviction.

If noone else wished to take over the land on which the factory stood, well then the factory owner renews the lease for another 50 years.

If there was somebody who wished to own that land and offered higher price, well they'd win the auction. However they wouldn't suddenly own the factory. They would still have to pay the price of the factory to the previous owner, much like it is done today.

If they didn't want the factory, only the land under it, and they won the auction but didn't pay for the factory, then that would result in a deadlock situation.

The original factory owner would stop production, but the new owner would be prevented from using it either, but would be stuck with the rent payments for the land under the factory.

Most likely he would sell it back to the previous owner or just not bid for it in the first place.

Only if he really wanted it that much that he would pay for the land rent to the government and price of the factory to the previous owner, he would get it.

And that is pretty much how it works today, so nothing really would change.

How many 50-year-old factories are still operating and making the same thing? My guess is hardly any, and those that are are have likely replaced the majority of their equipment by value, probably multiple times over. You'd be able to plan for the 50 year cycle and align equipment lifetimes etc. with that (whereas currently we see blighted areas because a major rebuilding project is planned someday, but there's no clarity about when); yes the factory owners would be encouraged to wind down their equipment and be prepared to move out if it turned out their land could be put to better use a different way, that's kind of the point. If the cost of moving to a new factory is higher than what someone else could gain by using the land differently, that ought to be reflected in their bids for the land.

> There are a lot of theoretical challenges with Georgism, and combined with the impossibility of stripping all existing landowners of their property, it's all just a theoretical exercise.

While the specific auction mechanism and expropriation of all land is obviously fantasy, substantiatively the same effect can be obtained with property taxes assessed based only on the value of the underlying land and updated frequently (land value tax), with the added benefit of avoiding the distortions of worrying that a lease will expire and someone will outbid you to seize the value of the capital you have invested in improving the property.

> Similarly, if you "bought" a piece of land you just use for a single story home near downtown SF 30 years ago, are you still paying the same LVT you got at action back then? Or will the price keep going up and price you out of your longtime house?

The entire point is for the price to keep going up and to eventually price people out of their longtime homes. It is the specific intent of this sort of policy to force people out of their single story homes near downtown SF. Whether you think it's good policy or bad policy can be debated, but proponents of these sorts of policies consider it bad public policy to allow scarce resources to be monopolized by people using them inefficiently, regardless of who those people are or how they came to possess those scarce resources.

>Or will the price keep going up and price you out of your longtime house?

If we don't have a problem with elderly renters getting priced out and not receiving a windfall (public concern for this issue is pretty muted) I don't see why homeowners getting priced out and receiving a windfall is worse.

I always found it deeply ironic that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers foundation successfully lobbied for prop 13 on the "won't think of the pensioners homeowners" argument and then turned around and lobbied to slash pensions... yet their propaganda still carries weight today.

If you read the stuff Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association puts out it's mostly "taxation is theft!!1" and starving the beast. I don't believe that people are still buying the whole thing about poor old grandma since it's very easy to make laws specific to them, cf. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/2000-R-0836.htm

The comment you are replying to suggested that 7-year leases could be auctioned. A lease cannot be revoked “at will.” But it does mean that people can be priced out of their homes when the lease expires. That’s the point.

Coincidentally, this is similar to the lease-hold system in Hong Kong. Most land plots revert to the government after a 75 or 99 year lease term. You can sublet land during that period, but whoever directly holds the government lease is obligated to pay an annual tax equal to a percentage of the land's rated value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com