I appreciate the effort to frame Georgism in many contexts to organize a broad coalition. It seems like it’ll be sometime until it reaches mainstream level discussions in each of these communities. I fear that the current trajectory of the LVT in American politics follows that of the carbon tax a decade or two ago. Seeing attempts to combine YIMBY objectives with the LVT is a great way to prevent that type of fate.
Check out the A.C.T. down here in Australia. They are moving to a bigger land tax over a 20 yr time frame (to avoid older people having to sell). There were proposals to do it in NSW (Sydney's state) as well but the new state govt have canned that unfortunately
The urbanists are so much more active than our armchair economists. The Georgist research studies are great. The Georgist e-journalism is great. We're even getting into the technological side of things. But it feels like we've been educating and writing letters to reps for a long time. It's not like we have nothing to show for it, but we haven't set up that political machine for some reason -- that pipeline for activism. The enthusiasm for Georgism can fizzle pretty quickly when it feels like everyone is working in isolation.
If we understand the secrets to passive income, we should be able to leverage that to our advantage. We should not be lacking in resources whatsoever.
To YIMBYs, Georgism just makes sense. It seems like they hear it and don't even think of it as a big deal. I've found other groups which are receptive if you say just enough to let them figure it out ("independently derive it") themselves.
Great post. Zoning reform and land value taxes form both prongs of my solution to the "housing theory of everything." They must go together, they reinforce each other like a double helix.
Most opposition to Yimbyism and LVT seem to be knewjerk reactions of incredulity. LVT and Georgism require a level of thinking most are unwilling to undertake.
If we were starting from a blank slate, I'd prefer Japanese-style zoning. The Japanese system tells you what you /can't do/ in a given area and anything else goes. It's also generally permissive and also has by-right permitting.
Realistically, at least in the states, the future looks like a reformed version of the euclidean system we already have (except in Houston, cause Houston is special). The big improvements we need to -- and def can -- make in the coming years is by-right approvals and a massive expansion of areas designated for mixed use.
To what extent is Japanese zoning only as permissive as it is because Japan lacks ethnic minorities seen as "undesirable" (such as black Americans for example) as well as having strict gun control (easily enforced as Japan is an island nation) and a very low rate of violent crime overall?
It is notable that most ethnic groups have a higher murder rate in the US than in their ancestral homeland: white Americans are more murderous than Europeans, black Americans are more murderous than Africans, and Asian Americans are a LOT more murderous than East Asians.
The only major exception are Latinos, which may be because Central and northern South America are the worst region in the entire world for criminal violence -- perhaps because of extreme inequality inherited from Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule, and perhaps because of the region's centrality to the global cocaine trade.
Hi George, I'll answer a slightly different question than the one you asked.
The reason the U.S. *does* have the land use regime it does is largely because of the country's history of racism and classism. Some of the earliest examples of zoning in the U.S. include patrician families in old New York attempting to create physical distance between themselves and Shepardic textile merchants. Other examples include Berkeley CA using zoning to shut down a black owned dance hall as well as a Chinese laundry. I sometimes find the 'everything is just the result of race / classism' line a bit overplayed, but in the case of American land use it's underappreciated. For more details, see Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law.
With respect to assertions you may be making in your comment, inter or intra-group violence is not a strong historical factor here. *Fear* of violence, oftentimes, yes, but that's not the same. Ultimately, the story of land use planning is one of people in power rearranging the built environment to better suit their preferences and externalizing the costs therein onto people without power.
Japan's mono-culture probably means there's one less political headwind blowing against the type of land use regime they have, but mono-culture is not an automatic unlock. The lack of a mono-culture is also not a blocker for implementing any particular kind of land use.
Final note, I don't agree with your characterizations re: levels of violence attendant to different groups in the states, but that's a much longer conversation and not necessary to resolve for purposes of this conversation.
Oct 25, 2023·edited Oct 26, 2023Liked by Jeff Fong
Jeff, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I absolutely agree that YIMBYs and Georgists are on the same side. I've been YIMBY for a while, and I only just discovered just how deeply broken the financial incentives in landownership are, and how this fuels NIMBYism in the first place. Zoning regulations are not preordained laws of nature. They were invented by people to protect the financial interests of landowners.
To illustrate: When you develop the city center, demand for space is pulled away from other locations, like the suburbs. This decreases the anticipated land rents in these other locations and makes present-day land values fall, destroying homeowner wealth and throwing people underwater on their mortgages. Because land/location value is fractured, speculatively inflated, and bet on in a highly leveraged manner, it will always be difficult to develop anywhere because development is always a local thing, and will literally hurt landowners in other neighborhoods. As a result, we get stuck in a deadlock where development is halted city-wide.
I do agree that, as far as social organizing goes, YIMBYism is a path to Georgism. It was for me! When we look at how messed up our cities are, it's easiest to identify the tangible regulatory barriers that don't allow city development to proceed in a healthy manner. And we should definitely be pointing to their harmful effects to win over people's hearts and minds.
However, I worry that if we only hack away at the tangle of NIMBY regulations without addressing the root of the problem, the zero-sum fight over location value, we will always face an uphill battle.
I appreciate the effort to frame Georgism in many contexts to organize a broad coalition. It seems like it’ll be sometime until it reaches mainstream level discussions in each of these communities. I fear that the current trajectory of the LVT in American politics follows that of the carbon tax a decade or two ago. Seeing attempts to combine YIMBY objectives with the LVT is a great way to prevent that type of fate.
Check out the A.C.T. down here in Australia. They are moving to a bigger land tax over a 20 yr time frame (to avoid older people having to sell). There were proposals to do it in NSW (Sydney's state) as well but the new state govt have canned that unfortunately
I couldn't agree more.
The urbanists are so much more active than our armchair economists. The Georgist research studies are great. The Georgist e-journalism is great. We're even getting into the technological side of things. But it feels like we've been educating and writing letters to reps for a long time. It's not like we have nothing to show for it, but we haven't set up that political machine for some reason -- that pipeline for activism. The enthusiasm for Georgism can fizzle pretty quickly when it feels like everyone is working in isolation.
If we understand the secrets to passive income, we should be able to leverage that to our advantage. We should not be lacking in resources whatsoever.
To YIMBYs, Georgism just makes sense. It seems like they hear it and don't even think of it as a big deal. I've found other groups which are receptive if you say just enough to let them figure it out ("independently derive it") themselves.
This is our time. Let's not miss this boat.
Great post. Zoning reform and land value taxes form both prongs of my solution to the "housing theory of everything." They must go together, they reinforce each other like a double helix.
Most opposition to Yimbyism and LVT seem to be knewjerk reactions of incredulity. LVT and Georgism require a level of thinking most are unwilling to undertake.
I am curious if you see an alternative to euclidean zoning? Form based codes seem promising: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-housing-theory-of-everything
Hey J.K., thanks for the read!
If we were starting from a blank slate, I'd prefer Japanese-style zoning. The Japanese system tells you what you /can't do/ in a given area and anything else goes. It's also generally permissive and also has by-right permitting.
Here's the classic English language explainer if you're interested: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
Realistically, at least in the states, the future looks like a reformed version of the euclidean system we already have (except in Houston, cause Houston is special). The big improvements we need to -- and def can -- make in the coming years is by-right approvals and a massive expansion of areas designated for mixed use.
This is fantastic and exactly what I was looking for. I think I will do a write up on this.
To what extent is Japanese zoning only as permissive as it is because Japan lacks ethnic minorities seen as "undesirable" (such as black Americans for example) as well as having strict gun control (easily enforced as Japan is an island nation) and a very low rate of violent crime overall?
It is notable that most ethnic groups have a higher murder rate in the US than in their ancestral homeland: white Americans are more murderous than Europeans, black Americans are more murderous than Africans, and Asian Americans are a LOT more murderous than East Asians.
The only major exception are Latinos, which may be because Central and northern South America are the worst region in the entire world for criminal violence -- perhaps because of extreme inequality inherited from Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule, and perhaps because of the region's centrality to the global cocaine trade.
Hi George, I'll answer a slightly different question than the one you asked.
The reason the U.S. *does* have the land use regime it does is largely because of the country's history of racism and classism. Some of the earliest examples of zoning in the U.S. include patrician families in old New York attempting to create physical distance between themselves and Shepardic textile merchants. Other examples include Berkeley CA using zoning to shut down a black owned dance hall as well as a Chinese laundry. I sometimes find the 'everything is just the result of race / classism' line a bit overplayed, but in the case of American land use it's underappreciated. For more details, see Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law.
With respect to assertions you may be making in your comment, inter or intra-group violence is not a strong historical factor here. *Fear* of violence, oftentimes, yes, but that's not the same. Ultimately, the story of land use planning is one of people in power rearranging the built environment to better suit their preferences and externalizing the costs therein onto people without power.
Japan's mono-culture probably means there's one less political headwind blowing against the type of land use regime they have, but mono-culture is not an automatic unlock. The lack of a mono-culture is also not a blocker for implementing any particular kind of land use.
Final note, I don't agree with your characterizations re: levels of violence attendant to different groups in the states, but that's a much longer conversation and not necessary to resolve for purposes of this conversation.
Thanks for the read, appreciate the comment.
Jeff, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I absolutely agree that YIMBYs and Georgists are on the same side. I've been YIMBY for a while, and I only just discovered just how deeply broken the financial incentives in landownership are, and how this fuels NIMBYism in the first place. Zoning regulations are not preordained laws of nature. They were invented by people to protect the financial interests of landowners.
To illustrate: When you develop the city center, demand for space is pulled away from other locations, like the suburbs. This decreases the anticipated land rents in these other locations and makes present-day land values fall, destroying homeowner wealth and throwing people underwater on their mortgages. Because land/location value is fractured, speculatively inflated, and bet on in a highly leveraged manner, it will always be difficult to develop anywhere because development is always a local thing, and will literally hurt landowners in other neighborhoods. As a result, we get stuck in a deadlock where development is halted city-wide.
I do agree that, as far as social organizing goes, YIMBYism is a path to Georgism. It was for me! When we look at how messed up our cities are, it's easiest to identify the tangible regulatory barriers that don't allow city development to proceed in a healthy manner. And we should definitely be pointing to their harmful effects to win over people's hearts and minds.
However, I worry that if we only hack away at the tangle of NIMBY regulations without addressing the root of the problem, the zero-sum fight over location value, we will always face an uphill battle.