Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Detroit Land Grab

Expand Messages
  • John David Kromkowski
    Roy: As to negative land value, I didn t read the paper to advocate paying land owners. (To me, I was thinking that governments could seize via eminent domain
    Message 1 of 395 , Sep 2, 2012
      Roy:

      As to negative land value, I didn't read the paper to advocate paying land owners. (To me, I was thinking that governments could seize via eminent domain without paying. If the owners disputed the just compensation was zero or that they have to pay the government to take (which is actually what a negative value would mean), then the government could withdraw its request to take and send them a bill for LVT based upon their alleged value.)   All the paper really said is negative value is a possible and that an LVT doesn't affect prices at all (whether value is negative or postive), which is one side of the unsettled debate:  does LVT actually drive down price? -  Schwab and Oates, who favor the LVT, have maintained that LVT is truly a neutral tax and has NO EFFECT at all on land prices.

      As to depreciation, this is really an ongoing dispute.  If one builds a house and then does nothing at all to it and doesn't live in it then surely it will depreciate, but that is not how residential housing works.  We live in a house built in 1929, I can assure its value has not depreciated it has appreciated. Why, because its been kept up and updated and wages and materials cost more now than they were in 1929.  The only people who maintain massive depreciation are people who either are trying to lower their property tax bill or are people who never actually lived in a house they owned or are perhaps perhaps people who don't value labor because they have never used a tool in their life, even a paint brush.

      JDK
    • roy_langston
      ... Which might be why I haven t done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn t a question of natural law, and I ve explained why residence defined as six months +
      Message 395 of 395 , Sep 12, 2012
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

        > The main point of resorting to natural law pronoucements of the kind you have bellowed is that they are supposed to help us determine what the various human-made laws SHOULD say. That is, if we have a question about know how some law should be constructed with respect to, e.g., who should receive various benefits and for how long or which protections of person or property must be enforced, or whatever, natural law claims are sometimes made--just as you have confidently made them in this context. It is, thus plainly circular to respond, when asked to specify the characteristics of some claimed natural law, "You'll have to consult the local legislature and courts--they'll tell us."

        Which might be why I haven't done so. Citizenship self-evidently isn't a question of natural law, and I've explained why residence defined as six months + reflects the relevant natural law principles.

        -- Roy Langston
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.