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

Re: Derelict Land

Expand Messages
  • Jeffery Smith
    ... Meaning is subjective. Is it also meaningless? ... That s how you figure out in any system how much you re willing to pay. ... Not replace but manifest and
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:01 PM, David Terry wrote:
      >
      > Efficiency of land use is so extremely subjective as to be meaningless.

      Meaning is subjective. Is it also meaningless?

      > Whether the use YOU prefer for a specific property is more efficient
      > than mine is strictly a matter of sufjective opinion.

      That's how you figure out in any system how much you're willing to pay.

      > The only objectivity is created by the marketplace. wherein objective
      > prices and costs replace the subjective "value judgements" of
      > individuals.

      Not replace but manifest and average out.

      > What is wasteful to you isn't necessarily what I would consider
      > wasteful.

      Hardly matters if we all pay for what we take (to those whom we
      exclude).

      > ones, where the grass hasn't been cut or watered in years and is only
      > kept from taking over the whole yard because the owner parks his cars
      > on the grass. IMO, there ARE no derelict properties, only delelict
      > property owners.

      Hear, hear. But let's not penalize them with taxes when they make
      improvements.

      > If there are lots of abandoned buildings, this is symptomatic of some
      > severe economic dislocations. Problems that may, but probably won't be
      > ameliorated by.simple tax reforms.

      Probably _will_, looking at real world results.

      > 3. "one story buildings where four-story might make more sense": Here
      > again, we have same dilemma. Makes more sense; to whom?

      To the market, i.e., the wanna-be residents, in a geonomy.

      SMITH, Jeffery J., President, Forum on Geonomics
      3604 SE Morrison St, Portland Oregon 97214 USA
      503/234-0809; jjs@...; www.geonomics.org
      Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
    • David Terry
      ... It certainly is, if you insist on playing semantic games. There is simply no such thing as the efficiency of land outside of the context of the use for
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 28, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffery Smith writes:


        > On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:01 PM, David Terry wrote:
        > >
        > > Efficiency of land use is so extremely subjective as to be meaningless.
        >
        > Meaning is subjective. Is it also meaningless?

        It certainly is, if you insist on playing semantic games. There is simply no
        such
        thing as the "efficiency of land" outside of the context of the use for
        which it
        is being put. THAT is absolutely subjective! Thus it is meaningless to
        attempt
        to apply a standard of efficiency to a piece of land that is being utilized
        for a
        purpose unrelated to the purpose for which the standard of efficiency was
        designed. Would you use the same rules of efficiency to judge an apartment
        building as you would a cow pasture? or nursury? or school? or park? etc.




        > > Whether the use YOU prefer for a specific property is more efficient
        > > than mine is strictly a matter of sufjective opinion.
        >
        > That's how you figure out in any system how much you're willing to pay.

        But we aren't discussing a voluntary free-market system where decisions
        are based on "how much you're willing to pay". We are discussing "public
        policy" in which decisions, by others determine how much you're to be
        FORCED to pay.


        > > The only objectivity is created by the marketplace. wherein objective
        > > prices and costs replace the subjective "value judgements" of
        > > individuals.
        >
        > Not replace but manifest and average out.

        Come on Jeffery! Stop playing word games. If I WANT to pay $10 for
        an item and you WANT to receive $20 for it; and the "value determined
        by the market is $15. I have the choice of paying more for it than I wanted
        or not buying it all. It I choose to buy it, the market value BECOMES my
        NEW "subjective value judgement" and REPLACES the old one.

        YOU, on the other hand, have the option of accepting LESS than you wanted
        or not selling it at all. If you choose to sell at $15 than THAT becomes
        YOUR
        new subjective value judgement, REPLACING your old one.


        > > What is wasteful to you isn't necessarily what I would consider
        > > wasteful.
        >
        > Hardly matters if we all pay for what we take (to those whom we
        > exclude).

        Then why did you bring the subject up in the first place?.


        > > ones, where the grass hasn't been cut or watered in years and is only
        > > kept from taking over the whole yard because the owner parks his cars
        > > on the grass. IMO, there ARE no derelict properties, only delelict
        > > property owners.
        >
        > Hear, hear. But let's not penalize them with taxes when they make
        > improvements.

        Agreed!



        > > 3. "one story buildings where four-story might make more sense": Here
        > > again, we have same dilemma. Makes more sense; to whom?
        >
        > To the market, i.e., the wanna-be residents, in a geonomy.

        Fortunately, the market only deals with aggregates, and the owner still has
        the option of NOT optimizing his opportunities.

        Let me be sure I understand what you are saying. IF, as you stated above,
        "lets not penalize [owners of delelict property] with taxes when they make
        improvements" ; is it not contradictory to imply that an owner of a one
        story
        ought to be penalized for not replacing it with a four story building,
        simply
        because the maket has determined that it would be more "efficient"?

        David Terry

        ---
        [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]
      • David Terry
        Jeffery Smith writes; ... First, it is NOT a definition; it IS a public policy decision. Secondly; accepted by whom? Central Planners? The Real Estate Board?
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeffery Smith writes;


          > On Sep 28, 2005, at 4:27 PM, David Terry wrote:
          > >
          > > There is simply no such thing as the "efficiency of land" outside of
          > > the context of the use for which it is being put.
          >
          > How about the accepted definition of matching value and use?

          First, it is NOT a definition; it IS a public policy decision.
          Secondly; accepted by whom? Central Planners? The Real Estate Board?
          The Tax collector?

          If I own and operate a small retail business that provides me and my family
          an adequate income to sustain us. If my grandfather started the buisness and
          I have been operating that business for over 35 years myself and want to
          simply maintain that status quo? Should I be forced to discontinue by
          solvent
          business fire my employees and construct a multi-story office building,
          simply
          on the testimony of some bean counters [who have no personal stake] who
          think that it would be a more efficient use of my property to do so?

          > > We are discussing "public policy" in which decisions, by others
          > > determine how much you're to be FORCED to pay.
          >
          > Actually, land dues don't change how much you pay but to whom you pay

          Maybe not on your planet, but it does on mine.On my planet we pay property
          taxes, not dues. Ironically, if I lived on your planet and only paid dues on
          the
          land value, ACCORDING TO YOU; I should NOT be charged anymore for
          not improving the property than doing so. So how do you rationalize this
          with
          the comment that not improving a location deprives others of value.

          Do you not see this as contradictory?.


          > Improving a property does not deprive anyone else of
          > anything. Not improving a location is what does that.

          The only person ACTUALLY deprived by the failure to improve a location
          is the owner of that location. All OTHER "presumed" loses are hypothetical!

          David Terry

          ---
          [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]
        • Dan Sullivan
          I wanted to clear up a confusion promulgated by the Austrian school of economics. There are two meanings of value. One is personal value, or utility, which
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I wanted to clear up a confusion promulgated by the Austrian school
            of economics. There are two meanings of "value." One is personal
            value, or utility, which is entirely subjective, and the other is
            exchange or market value, which can almost always be determined
            objectively.

            Clearly, it is market value that is being taxed under a land value tax,
            not personal utility. When the objection arises that nobody can know
            how much the owner personally values a property, the proper
            response is that it is nobody's business in the first place, and that
            nobody is suggesting a tax on personal utility.

            Market value is the subject of taxation. When land value is
            substantially taxed and the owner continues to hold the property, it is
            safe to assume that the land's utility to that person is either greater
            than or roughly equal to the market value. Otherwise, he would sell it.

            However, none of that is any of our business. Our business is to levy a
            charge that reflects the public's loss of access to that land, for it is the
            public that would either use that land or rent it out to another if the
            title holder were not holding it exclusively.

            This makes market value, rather than personal utility, the appropriate
            measure for tax purposes. The market, the public and the community
            are all the same thing. We just call it the market when it expresses
            itself economically, the public when it expresses itself politically, and
            the community (or society) when it expresses itself socially. In all
            cases, it is the aggregate effect of individual actions. While each
            individual action is subjective and unpredictable, the aggregate effects
            are easily measured.
          • David Terry
            ... Thank you for pointing this out. This is precisely the point I was trying to make when I originally wrote; The only objectivity is created by the
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dan Sullivan writes:

              > I wanted to clear up a confusion promulgated by the Austrian school
              > of economics. There are two meanings of "value." One is personal
              > value, or utility, which is entirely subjective, and the other is
              > exchange or market value, which can almost always be determined
              > objectively.

              Thank you for pointing this out. This is precisely the point I was trying to
              make when I originally wrote; "The only objectivity is created by the
              marketplace. wherein objective prices and costs replace the subjective
              "value judgements" of individuals"

              You will note that I use the term "prices and costs" to denote market
              derived <objective> "values" and only use the term value to denote the
              subjective utility which comes from the personal opinions of individuals.

              This protocol eliminates much of the semantic confusion. .


              > Clearly, it is market value that is being taxed under a land value tax,
              > not personal utility. When the objection arises that nobody can know
              > how much the owner personally values a property, the proper
              > response is that it is nobody's business in the first place, and that
              > nobody is suggesting a tax on personal utility.

              I submit that what has been implicitly suggested is much worse than taxing
              "personal utility"..

              When I offered the question of whether an owner should be coerced into
              developing land in accordance to some "master plan" contrived by and in
              accordance to wishes of some 'planning commission' or 'community
              developement agency' rather than the wishes of the property owner, the
              response was;

              "Happens all the time, in any system"

              Aside from the fact that this is factually incorrect and only occurs in a
              fascist, communist or state structures wherein private property and the
              right to exercise control over it is not recognized - the implied
              acquiesence
              to such an egregious public policy is, appalling and terrifying.

              This goes WAY BEYOND simple taxing policy!
              .
              respectfully,
              David Terry

              ---
              [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]
            • Dan Sullivan
              David Terry is engaging in circular reasoning. He starts with the presumption that land is private property instead of a commons, and then proceeds to argue
              Message 6 of 8 , Oct 6, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                David Terry is engaging in circular reasoning. He starts with the
                presumption that land is private property instead of a commons, and
                then proceeds to argue that asserting a common right of access to land
                violates his unsubstantiated presumption. This is a common error
                among neolibertarians.

                He then confuses market value with the value set by some master
                planner, and falsely states that only communists, fascists and other
                statists do not share his views. I would suggest he read "Our Enemy,
                The State," by the famed libertarian, Albert Jay Nock. Nock makes it
                clear that the institution of private property in land is itself statist.

                A point to be observed in passing is that by the State-system of
                land-tenure each original transaction confers two distinct
                monopolies, entirely different in their nature, inasmuch as one
                concerns the right to labour-made property, and the other
                concerns the right to purely law-made property. The one is a
                monopoly of the use-value of land; and the other, a monopoly
                of the economic rent of land. The first gives the right to keep
                other persons from using the land in question, or trespassing
                on it, and the right to exclusive possession of values accruing
                from the application of labour to it; values, that is, which are
                produced by exercise of the economic means upon the
                particular property in question. Monopoly of economic rent, on
                the other hand, gives the exclusive right to values accruing
                from the desire of other persons to possess that property;
                values which take their rise irrespective of any exercise of the
                economic means on the part of the landholder.

                -- Chapter 4, opening paragraph

                John Locke, Adam Smith, the French Physiocrats (who gave us the
                term "laissez faire"), Bastiat, William Penn, Ben Franklin, Thomas
                Jefferson, Tom Paine and many others either denounced unlimited
                property in land or explicitly called for a land value tax. Is David
                Terry suggesting that these people are communists, facists and
                statists?

                -ds

                On 5 Oct 2005 at 10:14, David Terry wrote:

                > > Clearly, it is market value that is being taxed under a land value
                > > tax, not personal utility. When the objection arises that nobody can
                > > know how much the owner personally values a property, the proper
                > > response is that it is nobody's business in the first place, and
                > > that nobody is suggesting a tax on personal utility.
                >
                > I submit that what has been implicitly suggested is much worse than
                > taxing "personal utility"..
                >
                > When I offered the question of whether an owner should be coerced into
                > developing land in accordance to some "master plan" contrived by and
                > in accordance to wishes of some 'planning commission' or 'community
                > developement agency' rather than the wishes of the property owner, the
                > response was;
                >
                > "Happens all the time, in any system"
                >
                > Aside from the fact that this is factually incorrect and only occurs
                > in a fascist, communist or state structures wherein private property
                > and the right to exercise control over it is not recognized - the
                > implied acquiesence to such an egregious public policy is, appalling
                > and terrifying.
                >
                > This goes WAY BEYOND simple taxing policy!
                > .
                > respectfully,
                > David Terry
                >
                > ---
                > [This E-mail Scanned for viruses by OnlineNW.com]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics.
                > Click and talk back!
                > http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
                > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
                > >
                >
                > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                > To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                > To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.