Comments on: Selling the Rights to Greater Density

By: Tchat voyance gratuit en ligne

Tchat voyance gratuit en ligne — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:34:24 +0000

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More Infos here: marketurbanism.com/2012/08/15/selling-the-rights-to-greater-density/ […]

By: Penny Stock Trading Strategies

Penny Stock Trading Strategies — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:18:39 +0000

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More: marketurbanism.com/2012/08/15/selling-the-rights-to-greater-density/ […]

By: Alex B.

Alex B. — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:41:00 +0000

Or to simply pay for the needed upgrades that denser development requires – new transit lines, additional utility capacity, etc.

Sure, a city could just upzone and then finance those things after the fact with general tax revenues, but that’s the whole point – this is a financing mechanism for infrastructure.

By: Emily Washington

Emily Washington — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 02:35:00 +0000

Not to channel recent SCOTUS decisions, but I think you could interpret it as a tax on development or as a tax on the expanded rights attached to the land ownership. On the amenities, while you and I would see increased development as an amenity I think the tax is supposed to make up for the loss of amenities like open space, light, air, etc.

By: Emily Washington

Emily Washington — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:14:00 +0000

It is similar to a density budget. I’m not super familiar with Schleicher’s recommendation. Does it involve selling bonds, or setting a desired number of new housing units to put a limit on restrictions?

By: MarketUrbanism

MarketUrbanism — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:15:00 +0000

Uh oh… Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Let me see what’s causing that.

By: Alex B.

Alex B. — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:12:00 +0000

Is there a reason I’m not seeing this post on the main page – or is that merely an issue on my end?

By: John Michael McGrath

John Michael McGrath — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:44:00 +0000

I agree that it’s a second-best solution, but (a) if it gets density actually built as opposed to not, that’s a big deal and (b) it seems like a natural compliment to Schleicher’s “density budget”, no? Issue enough certificates to meet the budget, make some money off of it, give a chunk to buy off local NIMBYs, and move on?