i live in a city were the zoning laws arent bad at all, less regulation and the results are i get to walk to a bunch of stores near me instead of driving my car to the nearest grocery store, if we didnt have zoning we would use less transportation lol
@@geekedmaxx me too. I hate driving. It sbad for the environment. Have you noticed it's usually old cities plus Portland that are wlakable. Go to any old part of Philly or Baltimore or Detroit and they are all walkable. They were mean to for people to wall around to get around.
Great video. Short and to the point. Want more affordable housing? There are free market solutions. Not every solution has to come from government. I wish more progressives understood this.
Free Music Archives What? You need Government to regulate and set rules of which a market can operate. BTW, people choose the government and policy they like. Good go, are Libertarians this stupid or just naive. No wonder Libertarian party is a complete failure and barley make 1% of votes and have zero elected politicians. You are similar to communist nuts.
Mr. Fischel joins almost all analysts of property markets by incorrectly describing the rising price of property as an increase in "housing" prices. Housing units are depreciating assets, just as automobiles or computers. What increases is the value of the location. With population growth land use changes, and both zoning and building codes must change. The process of change will lead to consistent, highest, best use IF the local community, the county and the school district all move to a land-only property tax. The annual tax (or, if one prefers, charge) should be close to the potential annual rental value of the location in order to achieve the best outcome from a standpoint of economic efficiency. It is also fair to ask owners of land to pay for the value created by public infrastructure and amenities, while exempting whatever improvement is made on the location on the grounds that the improvement is THE legitimate private property of the individual or entity.
What? Youre saying property taxes should be near equivalent to the rental value of a property? Then no one would develop or invest at all and housing prices would skyrocket
@@Hallahanify Please read more closely. Only land should be subject to taxation, not housing units or other buildings. A high annual tax on land equal to its rental value will bring down the price of land, but at the same time developing the land to its highest, best use will be greatly rewarded. As land prices come down, so will the total property price (i.e., land plus the house).
Sounds like a good idea. Theoretically a property should be taxed in proportion to its use of public resources. Pay for what you use. A piece of land benefits from a whole host of public services - infrastructure, police, fire, school, administration, etc. Even if that piece of land isn’t using much of these services, it still cost the local government money to provide coverage and the owners should still pay their share of it. This incentivizes the owner to actually use the land productively. Like owning a gym membership, either use the gym or don’t be a member. Either use the land or sell it or pay for the right to not use it.
I think he's right about the home value I think that's not nearly the whole story in fact I know a number of very wealthy people so in my family that are very anti-development near them and I asked them what if your house is worth twice as much if there was moderately more development near you or your house was worth zero but there would be no more development near you All the very rich people said it would definitely choose house to zero and no development. They cited that they cared about keeping the neighborhood as it was when they first got it and they're afraid of having bad neighbors that can't get rid of or looking at an ugly house in an otherwise very pretty town. Its more about that than real estate values.
I'm confuse with most comments, are they pro zoning or NOT? I want to move to move to Lincoln or Concord in MASS, but everything is so FAR, is definitely a turn off!
what the hell if I buy the land i dont own it. such bullshit might as well rent it then. and why the hell can I not build what ever i want to live in on my own property if I am off grid and out of sight such bullshit
This guy is stumbling over his words at the end speaking on behalf of the South. He is speaking subjectively which is why his speech ended so abruptly. Also if he was part of the original zoning ordinance in the 70s and how it would impact modern day then he and his committee didn’t ever think about the future impact on today’s housing crisis- just cared about house values for their own generation of baby boomers. He’s entirely dismissive of owning what HIS initiatives have done to American housing 40 years later.
I am confused. Zoning restrictions have HEAVILY contributed to the housing inflation in the '08 crisis. How is opposing such laws make him a contributor to that problem?
How can the voters who defeated the proposal be “anonymous” when you stated that all the home owners were at the meeting and it was clear that it was they who voted against the project? It is very clear who the voters were. So your statement is misleading at best, and at worst you’re just a flat out liar.
This is no different than union workers getting to vote on the number of new hires in the company. As much as possible, they'd make sure it was as few as possible so they can keep their jobs.
i live in a city were the zoning laws arent bad at all, less regulation and the results are i get to walk to a bunch of stores near me instead of driving my car to the nearest grocery store, if we didnt have zoning we would use less transportation lol
American cities are notorious for horrible zoning laws that are basically anti development.
@@saudielbamber4227 yea and that's what sucks because I prefer to walk to work instead of driving everywhere
@@geekedmaxx me too. I hate driving. It sbad for the environment. Have you noticed it's usually old cities plus Portland that are wlakable. Go to any old part of Philly or Baltimore or Detroit and they are all walkable. They were mean to for people to wall around to get around.
@@saudielbamber4227 gotta check those out ,
Great video. Short and to the point. Want more affordable housing? There are free market solutions. Not every solution has to come from government. I wish more progressives understood this.
Free Music Archives What? You need Government to regulate and set rules of which a market can operate. BTW, people choose the government and policy they like. Good go, are Libertarians this stupid or just naive. No wonder Libertarian party is a complete failure and barley make 1% of votes and have zero elected politicians. You are similar to communist nuts.
sadly most libertarian conservatives are not on board. They will bark against rent control, but love restrictive large lot single family zoning.
Mr. Fischel joins almost all analysts of property markets by incorrectly describing the rising price of property as an increase in "housing" prices. Housing units are depreciating assets, just as automobiles or computers. What increases is the value of the location.
With population growth land use changes, and both zoning and building codes must change. The process of change will lead to consistent, highest, best use IF the local community, the county and the school district all move to a land-only property tax. The annual tax (or, if one prefers, charge) should be close to the potential annual rental value of the location in order to achieve the best outcome from a standpoint of economic efficiency. It is also fair to ask owners of land to pay for the value created by public infrastructure and amenities, while exempting whatever improvement is made on the location on the grounds that the improvement is THE legitimate private property of the individual or entity.
What? Youre saying property taxes should be near equivalent to the rental value of a property? Then no one would develop or invest at all and housing prices would skyrocket
@@Hallahanify Please read more closely. Only land should be subject to taxation, not housing units or other buildings. A high annual tax on land equal to its rental value will bring down the price of land, but at the same time developing the land to its highest, best use will be greatly rewarded. As land prices come down, so will the total property price (i.e., land plus the house).
Sounds like a good idea.
Theoretically a property should be taxed in proportion to its use of public resources. Pay for what you use.
A piece of land benefits from a whole host of public services - infrastructure, police, fire, school, administration, etc.
Even if that piece of land isn’t using much of these services, it still cost the local government money to provide coverage and the owners should still pay their share of it.
This incentivizes the owner to actually use the land productively. Like owning a gym membership, either use the gym or don’t be a member. Either use the land or sell it or pay for the right to not use it.
@@Basta11 Right. The annual charge to the owner of land ought to be equal to the value of the benefits received.
I think he's right about the home value I think that's not nearly the whole story in fact I know a number of very wealthy people so in my family that are very anti-development near them and I asked them what if your house is worth twice as much if there was moderately more development near you or your house was worth zero but there would be no more development near you All the very rich people said it would definitely choose house to zero and no development. They cited that they cared about keeping the neighborhood as it was when they first got it and they're afraid of having bad neighbors that can't get rid of or looking at an ugly house in an otherwise very pretty town. Its more about that than real estate values.
I'm confuse with most comments, are they pro zoning or NOT? I want to move to move to Lincoln or Concord in MASS, but everything is so FAR, is definitely a turn off!
what the hell if I buy the land i dont own it. such bullshit might as well rent it then. and why the hell can I not build what ever i want to live in on my own property if I am off grid and out of sight such bullshit
Cry more.
This guy is stumbling over his words at the end speaking on behalf of the South. He is speaking subjectively which is why his speech ended so abruptly. Also if he was part of the original zoning ordinance in the 70s and how it would impact modern day then he and his committee didn’t ever think about the future impact on today’s housing crisis- just cared about house values for their own generation of baby boomers. He’s entirely dismissive of owning what HIS initiatives have done to American housing 40 years later.
I am confused. Zoning restrictions have HEAVILY contributed to the housing inflation in the '08 crisis. How is opposing such laws make him a contributor to that problem?
How can the voters who defeated the proposal be “anonymous” when you stated that all the home owners were at the meeting and it was clear that it was they who voted against the project? It is very clear who the voters were. So your statement is misleading at best, and at worst you’re just a flat out liar.
This is no different than union workers getting to vote on the number of new hires in the company. As much as possible, they'd make sure it was as few as possible so they can keep their jobs.