In the American system, the public pays for infrastructure improvements while private land owners adjacent to the stations reap the financial benefits of increased land values, to the detriment of displaced tenants.
-
-
Show this thread
-
In other countries more of the increased land value is captured to finance the project itself, finance ongoing transit access/maintenance or to provide other public benefits.
Show this thread -
But I would hate to see people interpret this story as a reason to never invest in more mass transit. Let’s figure out a better way to do value capture in America.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Story" is wrong – MTA collects billion+ each year from real estate transactions, I can't fathom why
@jimdwyernyt claims otherwise. Secondly – Paris gets almost all its transit money from a payroll tax, not real estate. Madrid gets it from the general treasury, not real estate. -
Was thinking of HK/Japan obviously.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
They don't do value capture here. They just have a payroll tax to fund STIF.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We do this w zoning too. Upzoned owners get all benefits. Adjacent owners bear costs. Could be done in participatory way that discourages NIMBYs, but no.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.