Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
casslin.eth
@casslineth
should cities be for profit institutes or public good?
5 replies
1 recast
10 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
Ideally a hybrid model (note: we have a hybrid model today, because of land ownership; I'm going to argue that we should have more opportunities for individuals to make profit from shares in the city, *and* weaker property rights in land!) I think both for-profit and non-profit models have advantages. The key advantage of having an investor class is that, if the economics are designed right, they represent the interests of the class that democracies perenially exclude: people who are not yet here. Existing residents often respond to newcomers with YIMBYism, at both national and local levels, while investors are aligned to welcome newcomers. In addition to the myopic question of "do we welcome new person X and let a developer build a bigger apartment to house them", this also covers bigger-picture questions like "do we make a big thematic pivot and reimagine San Francisco's Sunset district as a new Hong Kong?". Meanwhile...
2 replies
1 recast
8 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
.... we have goals for cities that don't align with making investors happy, or making people happy in proportion to their willingness to pay investors. We want public infrastructure to work well for all income levels, we want cities to be positive-sum for the nation and the world, we have humanitarian values, we don't want homelessness "solved" with "give them one-way bus tickets to other cities", etc. And I do think that democracy is good at achieving a lot of those objectives.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
So... I think it would be good for cities to have some kind of asset and even for that asset to have some governance power, and at the same time to adopt higher land value taxes, which reduces the property-ness of land ownership. The argument is that this creates better incentive alignment with the whole city's success, and land value taxes in particular give government the best incentives to affect what they can change (local public goods, which affect land value), while leaving the full value of anything built on the land in the hands of the local owner, who is the one who can affect that.
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Mitja
@futurizt
I think believing that higher taxes will give any incentive for governments to change anything is not realistic. Over time higher taxes lead to only one outcome — more spending on the government sector itself which inevitably leads to more election corruption —> more spending and more government debt etc
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Mr. Schober
@schober
Money (for profit and also taxation revenue) are the wrong metric for cities. This would be an incentive for growth over quality. I find the 15 minute cities an interesting concept in general, but 15-minute-cities shouldn't be neighborhoods of a large metropolis, but independent smaller cities. each a self-contained ecosystem of work, leisure, and community. Instead of profit/taxation, life quality must become the metric. success of a city is measured not in skyscrapers or GDP, but in the vitality of its citizens: life expectancy, air quality, and the time residents spend commuting versus connecting with their communities.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
