We have long known that self-set (i.e., Harberger) property taxes can not only lower the cost of making property trades, and discourage leaving properties idle, but can also serve as a substitute for eminent domain, wherein governments force sales at its-set prices in order to assemble large property packages. As with self-set taxes all properties have reasonable price offers, a buyer can suddenly buy a package at once.
Wouldn't it be far easier to make the asset I own (re my neighbours) also subject to self-set and let investors buy me off? Saves on having to buy the whole neighbourhood.
Obviously givethe owners the choice to either bundle all such assets with their property and self-set one price, or disentangle and set multiple prices
I'm confused about, "you should be legally allowed to remove or change any zoning restriction if you can get the consent of all owners of those other properties to which that restriction is owed." How many owners of the other properties are you imagining there would be? Every homeowner in a zone? It's impossible to get hundreds or thousands of homeowners to agree unanimously to sell their properties to an entrepreneur with the expectation of being sold them back after the zoning change. Even if the entrepreneur's zoning change idea is fantastic and obvious they'll be lucky to get 90% agreement. Because people aren't always rational or not everybody devotes the time to understand the deal.
It's the same problem as tragedy of the commons. In theory, the tragedy of the commons is fixable by having one entity buy up the commons from everyone with a right to it, and then make improvements that benefit all, and sell it back. In practice you can't get that level of agreement. (And each person using the commons has an incentive *not* to sell but still get the benefit of the improvements, if the improvements can't be limited to only those who sold, as is often the case.)
“every zoning restriction on how a particular property can be used is an obligation to other particular properties within a limited spatial proximity of that first property. “
I think the legal term you are looking for is “easement”. A negative easement prevents the owners from doing certain things with their property without permission from the holders of the easement, say painting their house orange. A positive easement prevents the owners from excluding the holders of the easement from using the property is a certain way, e.g. using a path that crosses the property. Such easements can be created by enforceable contracts and traded, at least in theory. I’m not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I may have missed a detail. But this sounds a lot like the sort of non-general restriction you are describing.
1) I don't think you include enough consideration to legal risk. What if the government changes the terms of how buyback or whatever works out from under you? There is very little protection for this kind of contractual arrangement unlike just directly owning your house.
2) I feel like if this proposal had a hope of being passed we'd have already been able to pass other zoning reforms. The problem is many voters *want* to stop other people from making mutually beneficial trades in their neighborhoods so they can influence/decide how the rest of the town looks and because they don't believe in basic economics. Adding these corporate forms that buy up a bunch of property only makes it worse.
There seems to be a slight Coasean problem with this set up: non-reciprocal nuisance bans. E.g. grade schools create problems for liquor stores in the sense of "Oh crap, they are building a grade school two blocks over, now my liquor store is illegal." Now, clearly this is a problem with the current Zoning regime as it stands, as certain land uses have sort of a presumptive right to impose restrictions on nearby land owners, but it seems like it is still a big issue here that isn't resolved except by buying out the land imposing the restrictions. I can imagine abusing such a system by setting my tax/buyout high, then building something that imposes great restrictions on those around me, forcing them to either radically alter their land use or buy me out at an exorbitant rate.
That said, your plan is almost certainly a large improvement to the status quo. I don't really have a great solution to the problem mentioned, other than standard rules about "You can't buy a place then complain about what was already there," and those are spotty in execution it seems.
Wouldn't it be far easier to make the asset I own (re my neighbours) also subject to self-set and let investors buy me off? Saves on having to buy the whole neighbourhood.
Obviously givethe owners the choice to either bundle all such assets with their property and self-set one price, or disentangle and set multiple prices
What you're proposing sounds similar to how covenants running with the land already work.
I'm confused about, "you should be legally allowed to remove or change any zoning restriction if you can get the consent of all owners of those other properties to which that restriction is owed." How many owners of the other properties are you imagining there would be? Every homeowner in a zone? It's impossible to get hundreds or thousands of homeowners to agree unanimously to sell their properties to an entrepreneur with the expectation of being sold them back after the zoning change. Even if the entrepreneur's zoning change idea is fantastic and obvious they'll be lucky to get 90% agreement. Because people aren't always rational or not everybody devotes the time to understand the deal.
It's the same problem as tragedy of the commons. In theory, the tragedy of the commons is fixable by having one entity buy up the commons from everyone with a right to it, and then make improvements that benefit all, and sell it back. In practice you can't get that level of agreement. (And each person using the commons has an incentive *not* to sell but still get the benefit of the improvements, if the improvements can't be limited to only those who sold, as is often the case.)
“every zoning restriction on how a particular property can be used is an obligation to other particular properties within a limited spatial proximity of that first property. “
I think the legal term you are looking for is “easement”. A negative easement prevents the owners from doing certain things with their property without permission from the holders of the easement, say painting their house orange. A positive easement prevents the owners from excluding the holders of the easement from using the property is a certain way, e.g. using a path that crosses the property. Such easements can be created by enforceable contracts and traded, at least in theory. I’m not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I may have missed a detail. But this sounds a lot like the sort of non-general restriction you are describing.
I think this proposal has 2 major difficulties.
1) I don't think you include enough consideration to legal risk. What if the government changes the terms of how buyback or whatever works out from under you? There is very little protection for this kind of contractual arrangement unlike just directly owning your house.
2) I feel like if this proposal had a hope of being passed we'd have already been able to pass other zoning reforms. The problem is many voters *want* to stop other people from making mutually beneficial trades in their neighborhoods so they can influence/decide how the rest of the town looks and because they don't believe in basic economics. Adding these corporate forms that buy up a bunch of property only makes it worse.
Each obligation should have its own self-set value for tax purposes and be subject to a line-item buyout without buying the underlying property.
There seems to be a slight Coasean problem with this set up: non-reciprocal nuisance bans. E.g. grade schools create problems for liquor stores in the sense of "Oh crap, they are building a grade school two blocks over, now my liquor store is illegal." Now, clearly this is a problem with the current Zoning regime as it stands, as certain land uses have sort of a presumptive right to impose restrictions on nearby land owners, but it seems like it is still a big issue here that isn't resolved except by buying out the land imposing the restrictions. I can imagine abusing such a system by setting my tax/buyout high, then building something that imposes great restrictions on those around me, forcing them to either radically alter their land use or buy me out at an exorbitant rate.
That said, your plan is almost certainly a large improvement to the status quo. I don't really have a great solution to the problem mentioned, other than standard rules about "You can't buy a place then complain about what was already there," and those are spotty in execution it seems.