Comments on: Matt Yglesias attacks parking maximums, outs himself as a market urbanist

By: more info on ryan international school

more info on ryan international school — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:35 +0000

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: marketurbanism.com/2010/10/26/matt-yglesias-attacks-parking-maximums-outs-himself-as-a-market-urbanist/ […]

By: veneersearch.net

veneersearch.net — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 02:31:40 +0000

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: marketurbanism.com/2010/10/26/matt-yglesias-attacks-parking-maximums-outs-himself-as-a-market-urbanist/ […]

By: seo white label

seo white label — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:18:43 +0000

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More here: marketurbanism.com/2010/10/26/matt-yglesias-attacks-parking-maximums-outs-himself-as-a-market-urbanist/ […]

By: John Bailo

John Bailo — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:52:00 +0000

I don’t see how you can be Free Market supporters and yet want to “banish” or regulate anything.

Every metropolis, after hundreds of years of liberal planners, is still radically dependent on personal transit systems like the car (PTS).

Every modality of public transport has been tried and retried and cannot serve the public the way a PTS does.

By: John Bailo

John Bailo — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:52:00 +0000

I don’t see how you can be Free Market supporters and yet want to “banish” or regulate anything.

Every metropolis, after hundreds of years of liberal planners, is still radically dependent on personal transit systems like the car (PTS).

Every modality of public transport has been tried and retried and cannot serve the public the way a PTS does.

By: T. Caine

T. Caine — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:53:00 +0000

I actually find it kind of similar to the incentives we give for renewable energy systems. I am working with a client that manages a low income housing complex (HUD) and we wanted to explore PVs given that the incentive cocktail in New York is amazingly attractive. In about 2 minutes it became clear that most of the incentives couldn’t really apply because these guys don’t pay taxes.

In lieu of a cash-credit based system, the highest percentage of tax dollars are funding the systems for the wealthiest people who arguably need cheaper power the least. However low-income housing folk who could materially benefit from a lower power bill every month, can’t take advantage of the incentives as a non-profit entity. The system seems a bit backwards.

As an aside, I have no problem representing that stereotype–I am more familiar with Manhattan than other cities, but ultimately having cars off the island would only make the place better. The only vehicles that need to be here are cabs, delivery, service/municipal and buses. After that, cars can live in a garage somewhere on the mainland.

By: Stephen Smith

Stephen Smith — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:10:49 +0000

Out of curiosity, what urbanism-related things do you think Yglesias gets wrong? Or were you referring to non-urbanism stuff?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:51:00 +0000

Although Yglesias frequently gets things wrong, what he says about the mortgage tax credit has been echoed by mainstream economists. Under both Reagan and Bush II, government-sponsored committees of economists studying tax reform recommended dropping the mortgage tax credit; both times, the President overruled their recommendation. I believe expert consensus is that the credit does not increase home ownership (the US has the same home ownership rate as Canada and Britain, where the credit is absent), but instead causes people to spend more money on better housing and less on anything else.