@DonaldFalk is worried about land value capture.
-
-
Relatedly, is anyone noting how all the "value capture" talk puts the lie to nexus studies and related ways of addressing takings clause concerns?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cjg2127 @kimmaicutler and
Theoretically, the caselaw says that jurisdictions can't use regulations as a pretext to extract value from private parties, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Which cases are you thinking of?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nollan/Dolan
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @TribTowerViews @kimmaicutler
Right. Theoretically, absent constitutional limitations, governments could "capture value" from any economic activity, not just infill housing construction, by charging arbitrarily high fees as a condition of allowing the activity
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
As terms are being used in SB827 debates, any private profit is "value" that could be "captured"
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
In one sense, this is already what income and capital gains taxes are. In another sense, this could be the gov't saying "We've artificially restricted your land value for decades. Now we're going to remove that restriction and make you pay for it."
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ahabeetle @cjg2127 and
My view begins with the idea that a land parcel is shaped like a box, the buildable envelope's extending to the height limit imposed by the gov't through zoning. When the gov't--the public--increases the height limit, it's a gift to the land owner.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
*Not* building can also be a wealth gift to an existing property owner through govt-enabled scarcity. Every home owner who owned as of March 2012 in SF has been given a median $626,000 over the last 6 years in real estate appreciation.
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.