|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.




Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
The Tragedy of Suburbia
#7678190 - 11/25/07 02:29 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
An excellent presentation on the effects of neglecting proper civic design in our country (with a good dose of humor).
http://www.glumbert.com/media/suburbia
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
Edited by kake (11/25/07 02:38 PM)
|
ChiefGreenLeaf

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7679235 - 11/25/07 06:27 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
He is so right. I have been thinking the same thing to myself for well over a year now.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
That was rad, thanks! I'm so glad to hear someone articulate how fucking hideously designed our towns are, and what sorts of changes need to take place. I only hope what this guy is talking about catches on, and catches on fast.
This thread belongs in P&S, imo.
|
ChiefGreenLeaf

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7681599 - 11/26/07 12:11 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
^^^ yay i would agree. mods, could you move it? i think it would get more discussion going.
|
Chazzersize
Pokemon Master



Registered: 11/30/03
Posts: 1,274
Loc: Center Of The World
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7681817 - 11/26/07 01:15 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
cp3O?
That little fuck up just invalidated you're entire 20 minute display of verbal diarrhea.
Come on, dude. It's fucking star wars. Most 12 year old girls could tell you who they were.
-------------------- Take off my mask and leave the lies to the liars.
Edited by Chazzersize (11/26/07 01:16 PM)
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7683942 - 11/26/07 11:25 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I get the point of his talk although I think that he was saying some things that didn't make sense. But it's hard talking about something like this without having studied it.
I think he's right, the period up ahead is going to be a lot different and will have challenges but it could really be better than it has been if people are smart about it. I also disagree that no alternative fuels are a viable solution. I really think hemp could work. But for it to happen a lot of land would have to be freed up, that is currently being used for raising farm animals. Which people probably won't give up, but meat consumption may decrease. Even if it does work, society still couldn't go on living like it is. Honestly I hope that these refined fuels fall out of major use either way. I think if hemp or any form of combustible fuels replaced fossil fuels it would be bad. This type of culture should not be continued. It'd be great to take advantage of this opportunity when it comes.
If you don't like what you see, look inside. It's really no wonder americas architecture and civic centers etc. are tacky, souless, wasteful, hideous disasters that reflect americas post ww2 industrial journey. It reflects america in my opinion. He kept criticizing it as if it didn't fit americans cultural standards.
But I totally agree we should stop throwing around the word consumer. Besides falsely portraying citizens as something much less ..alive and narrow viewed in terms of society, it helps to continue to promote a self identity largely based on commerce and industry.
Edited by jonathan_206 (11/26/07 11:35 PM)
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.




Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
|
<looking out the mall window> Wait... you mean, there's an OUTSIDE?
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
I don't think we should have to give up viable farm land or eating meat, so that we can grow enough hemp to continue driving as much as we do these days. That's what he meant by viable. Food is way more important than driving. It makes way more sense to live closer to work, design urban areas so that amenities are readily accessible - within walking and biking distance, etc. That's what this guy was talking about. That and making aesthetically appealing environments people can be proud to live in, instead of the kind of shitholes that have been spreading thier plague across the landscape for the last several decades. Who doesn't want to live in an attractive neighbourhood? Building whole town to facilitate cars is ridiculous.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7684362 - 11/27/07 01:12 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
HEY MODS: can we get a little MOVE to P&S? This topic deserves more exposure!
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.




Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7684432 - 11/27/07 01:37 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I thought this topic belongs here because the description is "This forum is dedicated to the healthy aspects of living, and what we can do to raise our quality of life. " It's about physical well-being and raising quality of life. Not so much a philosophy but a study of history and a look forward.
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
kake
The answer to1984 is 1776.




Registered: 05/06/99
Posts: 2,782
Loc: The 66th harmonic
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7684478 - 11/27/07 02:01 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Also, I thought the best line in the movie was "And you know what the last words of that conversation were... 'FUCK IT' "
-------------------- The answer to 1984 is 1776.
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7685512 - 11/27/07 11:09 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Fair enough, I just see more people responding over there.
And that line was hilarious. The guy was pretty funny all around, which was what made his lecture so accessible and pleasurable to watch.
|
AlteredAgain
Visual Alchemist



Registered: 04/27/06
Posts: 11,181
Loc: Solar Circuit
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7685563 - 11/27/07 11:24 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the video. The guy spoke out on many things that I've always had in my mind. Concrete deserts.. shopping mall parking lots would make great festival grounds.
--------------------
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7686077 - 11/27/07 01:30 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
don't think we should have to give up viable farm land or eating meat, so that we can grow enough hemp to continue driving as much as we do these days. That's what he meant by viable. Food is way more important than driving.
It's really not as drastic as you make it sound. First off, it's going to happen whether you like it or not, because when the population gets high enough people will have to reduce their meat take. Especially will nations becoming more industrious like china and india.
But it's not like everyone would absolutely have to stop eating meat altogether, although it's not a bad idea. farm animals take up a lot of resources, they're incredibly innefficient. We only eat a small portion of the crops that are grown here. The rest goes to feeding farm animals. And they also take up a huge amount of space in the midwest.
I've seen it said that if somewhere around 6-10% percent or somewhere around there was freed up for cannabis cultivation it could provide all the fuel in the u.s. I don't know how true that is though, but I think if meat consumption was cut in half, things would be alot better off in other areas and it would be entirely possible to provide a lot more fuel. In fact we'd have more food than ever.
I'm not really for all of that though, not that I'm not for hemp fuel, but I just think we use too much fuel now and too much technology now I wouldn't want it continued.
Quote:
It makes way more sense to live closer to work, design urban areas so that amenities are readily accessible - within walking and biking distance, etc. That's what this guy was talking about. That and making aesthetically appealing environments people can be proud to live in, instead of the kind of shitholes that have been spreading thier plague across the landscape for the last several decades. Who doesn't want to live in an attractive neighbourhood? Building whole town to facilitate cars is ridiculous.
I agree with you, but I am cautious. What you're saying reminds me of what canadian leaders seem to want to do. Move everybody into supercities. I don't want to live like that. It's still a continuation of the same out of balance culture. It's really creepy too.
Edited by jonathan_206 (11/27/07 06:30 PM)
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
My point is that it is ridiculous to try and replace oil with hemp when it makes more sense to just drive less and use solar/wind/geothermal energy for our homes. Building 'green' makes a difference as well. Eating local foods instead of shit shipped halfway across the world helps as well. There are a lot of ways to cut back on petroleum consumption - one of the best is reorganizing the way our communities are designed.
You don't have to live in a giant city to be close to a grocery store, a hardware store, and a couple of cafes. Friends of mine live on a tiny rural island with 4 or 5 stores downtown and they have pretty much everything they need not too far from home. The garden pretty heavily to, so that supplements thier diet in a major way.
I don't know what you are talking about with the canada thing, Canadian cities are still way smaller than american cities for the most part, and we've got a lot of rural communities too. We can take the same small towns we currently live in, and instead of having strip mall after strip mall after factory outlet, we could have smaller amenities more frequently interspersed so that people wouldn't have to drive halfway across town to get each item.
|
PyroBurns
душа кофе


Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 4,343
|
|
I agree that America is fucking ugly most of the time. Just drive around here in Ohio and you'll want to blow your brains out. It looks like someone just dropped a bunch of cruddy boxes everywhere.
-------------------- Remember to cut your nails regularly.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7688961 - 11/28/07 12:52 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know what you are talking about with the canada thing, Canadian cities are still way smaller than american cities for the most part, and we've got a lot of rural communities too. We can take the same small towns we currently live in, and instead of having strip mall after strip mall after factory outlet, we could have smaller amenities more frequently interspersed so that people wouldn't have to drive halfway across town to get each item.
Yeah, I know canada has a lot of rural space. What you were saying wasn't bad, It just reminded me of it. A while ago I was reading this atlas at the library and it was talking about how canda would be in the future. I actually have the page here, I photocopied it for research purposes. It's from:
" The Canadian atlas : our nation, environment and people. Montreal : Reader's Digest Association (Canada) ; Ottawa, Ont. : Canadian Geographic ; Vancouver, B.C. : Douglas & McIntyre, 2004. "
It shows a picture of this twin tower mega city that's out on this island.
Quote:
left: towers massed on a man made island: a visionary model of a 21st century high density urban center from famed archtect arthur erikson.
It's really creepy. I wish I could find a picture of it.
Quote:
How will we live and work?
- In 2050, there will be fewer building starts, and more recycling of existing structures. Older buildings will be massively retrofitted with the latest technological innovations. New homes and workplaces will be smarter, built for energy efficiency nd ease of maintqenance. They will be constructed with self reparing "intelligent materials" capable of responding to enviromental changes. Home and business energy requirements will be supplied by wind and solar power, or by fuel cell or photovactiv devices.
Urban sprawl, already infringing on canadas first rate farmland, will be halted by mid century. A general awareness of the enviromental impact and expense of building and maintaining highways and other infrastructures may diminism the appeal of the suburban, communting lifestyle. By 2050, many people may have returned to the cities, where urban spaces will be more extensively redeveloped for business and residential purposes. In city cores moreover, there will be a high proportion of people living on their own, particularly young singles, widows, and widowers.
- The city bound flow will increase urban densities. Today more than 12 million canadians live and work in toronto, montreal, vancouver, and the edmonton-calgary corridor. Within 50 years, 8 to 10 million more will be concentrated in these centres.
By 2050, all homes will have an entertainment centre, which combines interactive television, telephone, and computing capacity. Household robots will be commonplace. Garages will house small, quiet, nonpolluting battery powered vehicles with ceramic engines and recycles plastic bodies. For the most part, products will be created from recycled materials. At least half of all products will be purchased through the use of a computer.
In 2050, canadians will be better educated, constantly renewing skills to keep up with rapid changes in information and technology. Technological advanges will enable most people to work at home. Retirement will be an outmoded concept. Many seniors will opt to work as long as thier health, and their desire to do so, holds out.
- The 2050 economy may be driven by the knowledge-intensive jobs (design work, for example) administration, education, social work, tourism, leisure, and the cultural field. Only a few will work in the primary sector (farms, fisheries, forests, and mines). Automation will mean small staffs in the manufacturing sector, which will produce high quality goods that will be inexpensive. Some experts say most manufacturing may be sent "offshore"- a trend increasingly apparent in today's global economy. Whether some manufacturing is retained here or goes abroad will depend on comparitive production costs.
I think it's really the new age liberal nwo nutjobs like ted terner who would like to implement this kind of stuff. There's word going around that we're treading the open wilds of nature too much and so we need to concentrate in cities, and also for other reasons.
Edited by jonathan_206 (11/28/07 01:00 AM)
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Well, is it really so irrational? Sprawl has got to stop right now. I don't want to see any more of Canada's vast wildnerness threatened so that everyone can have thier tacky little palace driving distance from the walmart. Living in a small apartment in the city isn't so bad, if all amenities are closeby and there are distinct, smaller neighbourhoods that function like smaller localized communities. Canada has got to stop sprawling. I'd be horrified to see us lose our wildnerness the way the US has. The population is expanding, and this needs to be dealt with appropriately, with minimal ecological strain. This means we have to seriously reconsider how we do a lot of things.
The source you've quoted is just an estimate though, it's hard to say exactly how things will turn out. Some of the guesses in there are kind of silly and farfetched. I doubt people will buy most things online, people like leaving the house and having a complete sensory experience. When was this written? During the dotcom boom? I also find some of those estimates creepy, but not the curtailment of sprawl- that is a great idea.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7694910 - 11/29/07 01:43 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I don't have a problem dealing with urban sprawl either, but for everyone to have to live in these "high-density urban centers" is creepy. Urban sprawl should be addressed by addressing the root problem, which is our culture and way of life.
It just worries me to think of a day when those in power will have coerced the general populace to give up so much freedom. But I believe it's entirely possible.
|
Land_Crab
NeuroticPsychonaut


Registered: 08/29/04
Posts: 2,194
Loc: U.S.
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: kake]
#7701395 - 11/30/07 11:45 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
One of his slides really got me:

^This is a school. Even though the pic quality is poor, it's hard not to recognize the problem here. There's a prison in my area that looks less oppressive. His point about not referring to ourselves as "consumers" is interesting, but I only agree if he's saying we are more than consumers, because our whole lives as members of this society are structured according to production and consumption. It's no coincidence that the United States is by far the most powerful (and indebted) economy in the world, and also the youngest.
The point is we were still just settling during (our) Industrial Revolution, which brought production and consumption to a MASSIVE scale--as well as generating the single technology around which all of our cities are structured, which of course is the automobile. So, unlike areas which were urbanized hundreds (see: Europe) and even thousands (see: China) of years before electricity, steel-reinforced concrete, air conditioning, central heating, plumbing, cars, supermarkets, superhighways, traffic jams, etc -- our unstoppable engine of "progress" was not hindered by having to incorporate preexisting architecture. Nope, the main obstacle was nature, (and still is, in more ways than one.) So in the interest of function we went ahead and implemented the contemporary strategy of destroying it whenever it gets in the way, which does tend to happen when the population goes from 75 million to 275 million in a single century.
When one becomes accustomed to their environment (and has not had the inclination or the opportunity to travel), the long-term psychological impacts of the aesthetics of their native area are not obvious--though no less real. I was thinking about this during my 9-mile morning commute, which takes an average of nearly an hour on the freeway. The solution they're working on is of course to add a fifth lane, which will be nice because in light traffic the same route takes about 10 minutes. Of course, they had to cut down a lovely grove of very tall eucalyptus trees which used to provide shade and a nice, dense buffer for a relative of mine who happens to work right next to that side of the freeway. Now she will face a gigantic concrete wall every time she goes in to work, or outside, and the wall will be a hundred feet closer to the little building she works in. A better long-term solution instead of adding a lane would have been to improve our piss-poor public transportation system, because we're going to need yet another lane on the other side of the freeway in the next 5-15 years. A train would be nice... and expensive -- but unlike the cost of a train, the cost of stress induced by repeated exposure to an oppressive environment cannot be measured in dollars.
Edited by Land_Crab (11/30/07 11:53 PM)
|
NiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
I don't have a problem dealing with urban sprawl either, but for everyone to have to live in these "high-density urban centers" is creepy. Urban sprawl should be addressed by addressing the root problem, which is our culture and way of life.
Urban areas don't necessarily have to be endless megaliths, but they do have to be densified. There is no way to simultaneously give everyone a 1/2 acre kingdom on the edge of town and stop urban sprawl, the former is the cause of the latter. People are going to have to rethink how they live. I don't know what's so creepy about living in a 550 sq. foot apartment that is close to a grocery store and other shopping. That's what living in any even remotely central part of a city is like already. I live in a whole house, but it's on a half sized lot and houses 5 people. Our yard is definitly tiny, but there's enough for a garden nonetheless. We're close enough to everything to either walk or cycle, and the transit system is decent enough that there's usually reason to drive. This is what densification is about. I can't imagine it meaning that the entire city would be nothing but high rise apartments. If that's what you're thinking, than yeah, creepy.
Quote:
It just worries me to think of a day when those in power will have coerced the general populace to give up so much freedom. But I believe it's entirely possible.
That worries me too. I don't think living in a smaller house, closer to amenities is a risk factor for this, though. I can understand your worry, as I'm also worried about the theft of freedom, which, as far as I'm concerned, is already fully happening.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7707014 - 12/02/07 03:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Urban areas don't necessarily have to be endless megaliths, but they do have to be densified. There is no way to simultaneously give everyone a 1/2 acre kingdom on the edge of town and stop urban sprawl, the former is the cause of the latter. People are going to have to rethink how they live. I don't know what's so creepy about living in a 550 sq. foot apartment that is close to a grocery store and other shopping. That's what living in any even remotely central part of a city is like already. I live in a whole house, but it's on a half sized lot and houses 5 people. Our yard is definitly tiny, but there's enough for a garden nonetheless. We're close enough to everything to either walk or cycle, and the transit system is decent enough that there's usually reason to drive. This is what densification is about. I can't imagine it meaning that the entire city would be nothing but high rise apartments. If that's what you're thinking, than yeah, creepy.
If we were talking about major cities, I could certainly accept the idea of densification to that extent. But this nonsense about everyone not being able to have their own piece of land or farm is nonsense. China is mostly rural and look how many people they have! The truth is that being spread out in the right way is the best way for people to live. If the midwest were re allocated to crop farmers, there would be lots more room. I think that canada can in fact be utilized for farming further north than is now common. People in siberia cultivated crops up there in the far north for a long time until in was no longer possible from what I've heard. And with the weather getting warmer who knows what will happen. The idea I am thinking of when I mean changing culture and way of life, is going back to local communities, "hamlets", a downgrade in technology,less travel (esp. in fossil fuel vehicles), and having an economy that serves the community and common good and needs of each citizen in moderation rather than for a over inflated and over productive economy that serves the rich such as we have right now. One that works in balance with nature and supports it. Remember that throughout history, people in countries have had farms close to each other and they survived. Honestly, I don't want to live in america anymore. But I'm very interested in it's economy and culture changing for the betterment of society.
I think if you compare our economy right now to the british empire right before it ended I think you would see a lot of similarities.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: The Tragedy of Suburbia [Re: NiamhNyx]
#7707131 - 12/02/07 03:34 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Actually, one of the biggest causes of urban sprawl is land speculation. It's not people with big yards in their houses, but rather wealthy speculators who buy large lots and keep them out of use while they let the land value accumulate.
http://www.henrygeorge.org/mikeurb.htm
Quote:
The Urban Dilemma
by Mike Curtis Director, Henry George School, Philadelphia
Why our present revenue system stifles productivity, eliminates jobs, empties buildings and destroys the tax base.
How one revenue system provides the incentives to redevelop the cities and create an expanding tax base.
American cities are taxing themselves out of existence. They could just as easily tax themselves back in. Through the power of taxation, our cities could fly out of the ashes of urban decay and soar to a far higher plane of community.
America's oldest and largest cities are in dire financial trouble. Their tax bases are shrinking, their obligations are increasing, and every time they raise taxes, they alienate business owners or individuals, many of whom stop producing (and stop paying taxes altogether). Many of the political leaders of those cities believe they are approaching the point where, if they raise tax rates, so many taxpayers will leave that the cities will actually receive less revenue.
The immediate response by our city leaders is to ask for state and federal aid - and to extend the city limits to broaden the tax base. Neither option is necessary. Every city has created within its borders sufficient values to finance its municipal operations; cities need only collect them.
But if it collects them, will it not increase the cost of doing business so much that it will drive economic activity away? No - not if it collects these values directly.
Almost everyone can think of two similar buildings for which the rents are very different. And we know exactly why - location. Every building and every activity take place on land at one location or another.
When we think of the value of buildings, we think of the value of the labor and materials embodied in them. When we think of the value of land, we think of the location, or the advantages and disadvantages attached to it.
The Value of Land
As people come together in communities, they cooperate. The more dense the population, the greater the subdivisions of labor, the greater the different bodies of knowledge and skill, and the greater the economies of scale. Public expenditures - including roads, sewers and police - support this cooperation and facilitate the greater productive result.
In effect, the city is like a non-profit business that builds and maintains the infrastructure and provides services, which increases the potential to produce and satisfy our desires. It is this greater result that is expressed in the value of land and paid for by its users.
Suppose a city government dissolved - the mayor and all public employees went home, no taxes were collected, and no revenues were spent. Would it cost less to have a building constructed? No. Would it cost less to produce a loaf of bread? No. There is little doubt in anyone's mind; it is the value of land that would fall.
To a large extent, the value of land is a reflection of how much and how well public money has been spent in facilitating the subdivisions of labor and economies of scale.
When we consider residential locations, we look at proximity to jobs and stores and access to public transportation, the quality of schools, the level of safety and beauty, and the intangible sense of community. When we consider industrial locations, we look at access to rivers, railroads, high-voltage electric sources, and water mains. Furthermore, we look at a skilled work force. When we consider commercial locations, we look at many other things, but the most important is the number of potential customers.
Confiscatory Taxes Lower the Value of Land
In fact, the only way by which we can really measure the merits of a city government is the value it creates in its land. Yet, when a city finances the creation of this value, it usually confiscates wages, buildings, and a portion of just about everything that is produced within its borders. And this lowers the land value it created.
Consider this example. You are looking to buy a house. Suppose that only within the city limits there is a wage tax of 5 per cent. Would you pay as much for a house within the city as the same house outside the city limits? No, but the house costs as much to build, no matter where it's located, so the tax on wages reduces the value of land.
Suppose you live in the suburbs. Would you consider a job in the same city at 5 per cent less take-home pay? (Some cities, such as New York or Philadelphia, levy a wage tax on all people who live and work there.) All other things being equal, you would not; therefore, the employer has to compensate with higher wages or accept a less productive worker. Either way, the tax adds to the cost of production. However, the building and other costs of production remain the same, so the tax diminishes the value of the location. All confiscatory taxes diminish the value of land.
In the worst areas of cities, taxes that fall on wages, buildings, and economic activity add up to even more than the value of the land. This prohibits all profitable reinvestment. We know this because properties are often abandoned by their owners, and cities have trouble finding anyone who will take those properties without charge and rebuild them.
In the profitable areas of the city, taxes are absorbed by even higher land values. This is evident because in spite of the taxes, people pay thousands, and millions, of dollars to lease or purchase land.
Although owners of the best locations in the city might well afford to pay considerably more in taxes, every time tax rates increase, another marginal area of the city becomes unprofitable for reinvestment. When buildings in those areas require major repairs, their owners often abandon them and stop paying taxes altogether. It is only because of areas where taxes exceed the annual value of land that a general increase in taxes could yield the city less revenue.
When land stops yielding revenue, it stops supporting housing or jobs. This adds to the degeneration of the community and the increasing demands for police and public welfare.
Empty Buildings and Vacant Lots in Valuable Areas
Throughout most areas of our cities, including the very best, there are valuable sites that are either unused or grossly underused. It costs as much to maintain the streets and pipes, and to have the police and fire trucks travel past vacant lots as those on which people are working or living. And, because most of our taxes now come from workers, buildings and the products they make, these unused and underused sites mean lost revenue for cities. They also mean less jobs and housing.
When the owners of empty buildings and vacant lots are offered thousands or millions of dollars, why don't they sell? They receive no income from their ownership at all. If they sold their properties and put the money in the bank, they would receive interest. Any income is better than none. However, many people find that the annual increase in the selling value of their land, even after the property taxes are paid, is greater than the interest they would receive by selling the land and putting the money in the bank. Even during a recession, while land prices are falling, many people believe that in the long run, the selling price of their land is their best financial asset. As a result, they hold the land out of use, and this creates lost revenue and a shortage of housing and jobs.
In the world of competitive enterprise, business ebbs and flows - a steel mill closes down, a truck manufacture expands, a clothing producer goes abroad, a computer network goes online - but there is little pressure on those who do not use the land to sell to those who will. It costs little to hold onto land, and the resulting scarcity of land simply raises the cost of sites for business. What starts out as small pockets of inactivity, waiting to see what market demands will be in their future, often manifests in the degeneration of a whole region of the city.
The Solution
Eliminate all confiscatory taxes and collect revenues based on the rental value of land. By taxing the rental value of land, each city would be charging for the opportunities created by the community.
In the best areas of the city, the land tax would take the profit out of holding idle (or grossly underused) land. In marginal areas, removing taxes from economic activity would take the penalty out of producing housing and jobs. Because the land tax would have to be paid whether the land was used or not, owners of valuable land could not afford to hold it idle. They would either have to use it themselves or sell it to someone who would. The land tax would expand the revenue base and provide the incentives for redevelopment - more housing, jobs and economic activity. As the redevelopment of the city continued, construction would radiate back into the worst neighborhoods and create additional housing and jobs. As the worst areas of the city became wholesome communities, the land within them would attain a value and provide revenue.
To implement this concept, an assessment of land values must be made. Because confiscatory taxes - like those on buildings and wages - lower the value of land, it is necessary to determine what the rental value of each parcel of land would be in the absence of all taxes now levied by the city. In most cities, the "real estate" tax, often called the "property tax," is the largest or second largest tax levied. This tax is levied on the value of buildings and land at the same rate. However, in many cities, the value of the building and other improvements is assessed separately from the value of the land on which they are built. In those cities, only a change in the law is required to significantly reduce the level of confiscation and increase the revenues based on benefits received - reducing land speculation and increasing redevelopment.
Example of the Property Tax vs. the Land Value Tax
The following is a hypothetical consideration of the property tax - as it is and as it could be. The following exercise shows how the present property tax permits speculators, who hold many of the most valuable building sites empty in a city, to make a profit while making construction costs prohibitive in the worst areas of the city.
This example contrasts the present property tax with the predictable effects of a tax that generates the same total revenue from the value of land only. You will see how assessments on "land only" reduces the taxes of homeowners, discourages non-use and underuse of valuable land, and, in the worst areas of the city, creates a natural enterprise zone with no real estate taxes at all.
Let's say it's the mid-1980s, and you bought a $150,000 house on the edge of Center City. In the first year, the market value increased by 4.8 percent, or $7,200 - a modest increase for housing during the 1980s. If you received $12,000 in annual rent, that would be a total gain of $19,200.
If the building is worth $120,000 and we allow 4 percent of that for maintenance and management, that's $4,800 in expenses.
In Philadelphia, the property tax rate is about 2.5 percent of market value for land and buildings. Your $150,000 asset would pay $3,750. That would bring your total expenses to $8,550. Subtract that from a total gain of $19,200 and you have a net gain of $10,650. You would have received, on your investment of $150,000, a 7.1 percent return.
The figure of 7.1 percent seems rather low for the mid 1980s, but every year the rent and the selling price of your land had been expected to rise more than inflation, and increase your rate of return.
Might an alternative investment yielded you a better return? The 4.8 percent annual increase in the value of your property can be broken down. If the building is in good condition and consistent with the development of the neighborhood, it might be worth four times as much as the land - $120,000 for the value of the building and $30,000 for the value of the land.
The building, which is a product of labor, increases in value at approximately the rate of inflation: 3 percent of $120,000 = $3,600. The other half of the $7,200 increase in the value of your property would be the value of the land: $3,600 divided by $30,000 gives your land a 12 percent annual increase in value.
For the same $150,000 - at $30,000 each - you could buy five lots without houses on them. You receive no income, but the land has increased at 12 percent per year: $150,000 x 12 percent = $18,000. Your only expense is the property tax of $3,750, which leaves you with a net gain of $14,250, or 9.5 percent. Is it any wonder that people hold on to land from which they experience actual no income?
Although land prices fall during recessionary periods, many owners still do not sell. They believe in the long run that the increase in the selling price of their land will be their most profitable asset.
Now go to the very best place you can find that has no land value. Many cities offer these vacant lots and broken-down houses for free. All you have to do is rebuild them. Still, many of these properties have no takers.
Since the land is free, you could spend the full $150,000 on buildings. You could build two $75,000 houses. The question is: Could you rent the houses for enough money to make a profit?
In the mid-1980s, in an area where rents were not increasing, such as the worst slums, no one would have accepted 7.1 percent return. For the purpose of comparison, the same 7.1 percent return used in the first example will be used here. We need a net profit of $10,650 to yield 7.1 percent return on a $150,000 investment.
You would gain 3 percent in the appreciation of your $150,000 buildings: $4,500, but you also need 4 percent of the $150,000 building value for maintenance and management, or $6,000. This requires $12,150 to be collected in rent. Divide the rent by two houses and 12 months, and you must be able to charge $506.25 per house each month.
However, the property tax, which in Philadelphia is 2.5 percent of your total $150,000 property value, will add $3,750 to the rent someone must be willing to pay in order for you to make a profit. In other words, the property tax adds over $150 to the minimum profitable rent of each $75,000 house per month.
Land Value Tax Providing the Same Revenue
With a tax on the value of land only, the owners of land that has no value, like that in the last example, would pay no tax. It would lower the minimum profitable rent for each $75,000 house by over $150 per month. Although it might not be enough to make reinvestment in housing profitable in the very worst areas, it certainly would make it profitable in others.
In the city of Philadelphia, the total land and building value is approximately four times the total land value. In order to generate the same revenue from land as is currently being collected from land and buildings, the tax rate must be multiplied by four: 2.5 percent on land and buildings = 10 percent on land only.
Reflect on the first example on the edge of Center City. The land and buildings were worth $150,000 x 2.5 percent = $3,750. The land was worth $30,000 x 10 percent = $3,000. There would be a $750 reduction in the homeowner's taxes.
Now consider the speculators. Under the present system, they would have paid the same 2.5 percent, or $3,750, and enjoyed a 9.5 percent return. If they paid only a land tax of 10 percent, they would have paid $15,000 in taxes and experienced a mere 2 percent return.
Shifting taxation from production to the value of land within a city does not diminish the selling price of the land as long as it does not increase total revenues - because it does not diminish the potential profits. It does, however, increase the cost of holding idle land so that land owners will have to develop it themselves or sell to someone who will. And that means housing and jobs.
This change in the property tax can be implemented gradually over many years. Through a scheduled reduction in the tax rate on buildings and a synchronized increase in the rate on land, cities can convert their property tax into a tax on the value of land.
In Pennsylvania, this gradual shift has begun in 17 cities. Results have been, predictably, favorable - more jobs and housing.
Summary
At present, urban revenues are primarily based on confiscatory taxes. These taxes reward non-development in valuable areas and prohibit redevelopment in the worst areas of our cities. By reducing the taxes of owners who withhold their land from production, our present system increases the cost of government and ultimately destroys the tax base and the cities.
By taxing the rental value of land, the revenue is based on the value of opportunities and services rendered - each landowner pays only for the value of the benefits received. Because it makes each parcel of land profitable only when put to productive use, the land tax delivers a compelling incentive for the redevelopment of cities.
--------------------
|
|