Hacker News Reader

Comment by ItsMonkk | Hacker News Reader

Under the existing system you are incentivized for your own land to be zoned as highly as possible while your neighbors land is restricted as possible to keep supply low. Since everyone votes against you and you vote against everyone, zoning is low just about everywhere.

Under a land value tax this flips, and the majority vote would go to up-zoning.

View on HN

No, I think it is the opposite. The more options available for your land and that of your neighbors, the higher your land is valued.

This means you want the maximum restrictions to keep the value low, for both you and your neighbors.

If the land of Joe's neighbours has no restrictions at all, it will be valuable. But if Joe's land has a weird zoning that says 'can only be used by Joe' that land would be nearly worthless on the market, but good for Joe.

Less extreme, if you have a neighbourhood with plots that allow unlimited building and a few plots that only allow single family homes, the latter would be a lot cheaper.

Exactly what I am saying.

And what is your take on when Minneapolis voted to allow multi-family units[0] and rents dropped[1] relative to other cities? Shouldn't those new units have brought higher land values, and with it higher rents?

[0]: https://archive.ph/7oCO6

[1]: https://archive.ph/lO8xY

rents =/= land value.

you can put a duplex or quad-plex on a parcel and have much lower rent, but higher parcel land value.

If you are a homeowner who wants lower land value tax, you should fight tooth and nail to prevent higher density zoning,

You would want higher density zoning in all the other neighbourhoods across town, I guess?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com