Would abolishing fees and borrowing more money be better?
Koszulium on
Why would cities increase the fee if they need dense housing units at a good clearing price
Do they not know how tax incidence works
vaguelydad on
Still better and less hidden than a lot of anti-affordabilty urban planning. It’s very easy to pull up this graph and say “really… you’re charging over $100,000 just to build an apartment? What a regressive city. I will vote for better politicians than those assholes.” With a fee you make people stick to an ugly truth.
You can achieve the exact same results with: environmental restrictions, union construction requirements, non-scalable infrastructure, “inclusionary zoning,” height maximums, etc. These things are much less obviously destructive and some people don’t even see that they can hurt the poor and marginalized. Indirect tools are much harder for democracy to parse and organize against.
3 Comments
Would abolishing fees and borrowing more money be better?
Why would cities increase the fee if they need dense housing units at a good clearing price
Do they not know how tax incidence works
Still better and less hidden than a lot of anti-affordabilty urban planning. It’s very easy to pull up this graph and say “really… you’re charging over $100,000 just to build an apartment? What a regressive city. I will vote for better politicians than those assholes.” With a fee you make people stick to an ugly truth.
You can achieve the exact same results with: environmental restrictions, union construction requirements, non-scalable infrastructure, “inclusionary zoning,” height maximums, etc. These things are much less obviously destructive and some people don’t even see that they can hurt the poor and marginalized. Indirect tools are much harder for democracy to parse and organize against.