Even if producing a record supply of housing units could guarantee solving the affordability issue, actually building that much housing with viable density comes with a steep price tag. Even advocates of mass housing admit as much. If we don’t go after the land value itself, we are essentially trying to deflate a balloon by blowing on it.
  •  ImplyingImplications   ( @ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ) 
    32•10 months ago

    Really great article. One point I particularly love:

    [Increase in land value] isn’t inherently a problem if the community that produces that land value also controls it. If the land value is being extracted by a landlord, however, it creates a gaping and growing hole in the economy. The landlord—who neither created the land nor produced its value—is collecting unearned income.

    There is no place for leeches in housing.

    •  blindsight   ( @blindsight@beehaw.org ) 
      8•10 months ago

      I liked that bit, but the argument that most resonated with me is that property taxes disincentivize development, but land value taxes encourage density.

      Rosedale, the wealthy single-family-homes community with massive lots close to downtown Toronto, should not exist. It’s insane. A single person should not reasonably be able to afford to own an acre of land close to an urban core. That whole neighbourhood wouldn’t exist if land value taxes had slowly increased over the last century.

      I think we need a 10-20 year plan to shift from property taxes to land-value taxes, at maybe 5% a year. Give the market enough time to respond, to buy up and develop the land.

      Throw in minimum mixed zoning requirements to get commercial spaces embedded in the new communities, too, while you’re at it, so we can actually get some walkability.