Parks are not zoning
- On 31 Jul 2006 at 16:13, Paul Metz wrote:
> A park usually is not a result of LVT, however, but of planning,Parks are indeed part of planning, as are roads and infrastructure.
> zoning or however it is named, in the first place. I am convinced that
> still every day developers try to buy or lease land in parks.
They are public goods, and the legitimate part of planning is the
provision of public goods. Zoning, however, is telling private
landholders what they may or may not do with their landholds. Often
it reserves prime land (such as land near parks) for low intensity use.
This means access to the parks in question is reserved for smaller
numbers of wealthier landholders instead of larger numbers of poorer
> The real matter is whether LVT can not only replace property-relatedThe private provision of parks would require the private leasing of
> taxes, but also zoning. To make the point, it would be interesting and
> educational to have proof of parks developed by private companies and
> making a profit and generating a tax base. That could perhaps make
> zoning unnecessary.
nearby land for the parks to enjoy any profit. However, as the private
provision of parks is a separate question from zoning, the better
question is whether laws should be written to protect small numbers
of wealthier people in small buildings from having to share access to
the park with larger numbers of people who would be willing to live
in bigger buildings.
This problem could be solved by building enough parks for everyone,
as parks are just open space and are not very expensive. Zoning
creates exclusivity, which is a back door to privilege.