That only affects new construction. Most places aren’t growing anywhere near fast enough for such a quick change, nor are there anywhere near enough contractors or supplies
My town has most of it (but nowhere should accept individuals impacting road safety and maintainability) and is somewhat walkable but most of that was from being built out before cars.
We did have a recent zoning change to encourage more higher density housing near the center (up to six stories “as of right” == streamlined process) and have several new apartment blocks going up, but there’s no way that’s sustainable and doesn’t help the walkability of the rest of town
The land value and carbon taxes are key here. The carrot is people seeking better, happier lives and developers seeking to turn a profit - the lower bullet points serve to allow these carrots to be attained. But the taxes are the stick. And people tend to move a lot faster when you beat their asses.
A land value tax removes the incentive to speculatively hold onto land. Instead, it charges landowners a heafty fee to hold onto valuable land in or near walkable areas, which sends a clear message - build something (like housing or a business) that will make good use of this valuable land, or give it to someone who will.
Of course, this will light the fire under some asses. Owning valuable land is still valuable with a land value tax - it is just that the value is in the potential profit to be made, which is only realized if you build something. So expect land owners to be ready and willing to pay big sums to import the labor and materials necessary to get their land to a profitable state as soon as possible. And this would also be a strong incentive to use existing unused building space in walkable areas. All those luxury apartments with outrageous rents sitting empty would see steep price drops as owners scrambled to get someone in the door to make the building profitable. Same with all those empty storefronts which have been vacant as the landlord lazily searches for the “perfect” tenant. And all that office space in downtowns, unused since covid? Expect it to be rapidly retrofitted into affordable housing.
So while rents in walkable areas are screaming downwards, the carbon tax creates an additional incentive to move there. Of course, we pair the tax with a dividend, so an average person is actually making money from the tax - but the incentive is clear: the less carbon you emit, the more money you make. Which encourages people to choose less carbon-intensive forms of housing and transportation. Which means more apartments and cycling, and less detached homes and driving.
Looks like we live in very different areas. You’re describing issues that just don’t exist here. I bet we’re much farther along the path toward walkability (by virtue of being completely built out before cars) and may be looking at different priorities to drive the next phase
but there’s no way that’s sustainable
Why not?
When you make any change, such as zoning, you get new development where that particular change makes a difference. It can even be significant new development, but there’s not going to be a continuous pipeline of new stuff. There’s a bunch of development for things where that change makes a difference then such projects get completed and new work tails off back to steady state. Then you need to look at the next bottleneck in zoning/paperwork/process to free up the next batch of projects
That only affects new construction. Most places aren’t growing anywhere near fast enough for such a quick change, nor are there anywhere near enough contractors or supplies
My town has most of it (but nowhere should accept individuals impacting road safety and maintainability) and is somewhat walkable but most of that was from being built out before cars.
We did have a recent zoning change to encourage more higher density housing near the center (up to six stories “as of right” == streamlined process) and have several new apartment blocks going up, but there’s no way that’s sustainable and doesn’t help the walkability of the rest of town
The land value and carbon taxes are key here. The carrot is people seeking better, happier lives and developers seeking to turn a profit - the lower bullet points serve to allow these carrots to be attained. But the taxes are the stick. And people tend to move a lot faster when you beat their asses.
A land value tax removes the incentive to speculatively hold onto land. Instead, it charges landowners a heafty fee to hold onto valuable land in or near walkable areas, which sends a clear message - build something (like housing or a business) that will make good use of this valuable land, or give it to someone who will.
Of course, this will light the fire under some asses. Owning valuable land is still valuable with a land value tax - it is just that the value is in the potential profit to be made, which is only realized if you build something. So expect land owners to be ready and willing to pay big sums to import the labor and materials necessary to get their land to a profitable state as soon as possible. And this would also be a strong incentive to use existing unused building space in walkable areas. All those luxury apartments with outrageous rents sitting empty would see steep price drops as owners scrambled to get someone in the door to make the building profitable. Same with all those empty storefronts which have been vacant as the landlord lazily searches for the “perfect” tenant. And all that office space in downtowns, unused since covid? Expect it to be rapidly retrofitted into affordable housing.
So while rents in walkable areas are screaming downwards, the carbon tax creates an additional incentive to move there. Of course, we pair the tax with a dividend, so an average person is actually making money from the tax - but the incentive is clear: the less carbon you emit, the more money you make. Which encourages people to choose less carbon-intensive forms of housing and transportation. Which means more apartments and cycling, and less detached homes and driving.
Why not?
Looks like we live in very different areas. You’re describing issues that just don’t exist here. I bet we’re much farther along the path toward walkability (by virtue of being completely built out before cars) and may be looking at different priorities to drive the next phase
When you make any change, such as zoning, you get new development where that particular change makes a difference. It can even be significant new development, but there’s not going to be a continuous pipeline of new stuff. There’s a bunch of development for things where that change makes a difference then such projects get completed and new work tails off back to steady state. Then you need to look at the next bottleneck in zoning/paperwork/process to free up the next batch of projects