[dragonwriter]

> I'd argue that the problem is the existence of red zones, and we can fix that by helping green zones prosper and redistributing some of their productivity.

The problem is when the socialized cost of “helping green zones to prosper” exceeds the redistributed benefits.

Given that green zones map pretty well to outsized political influence, there is a lot of incebtive to use that kind of language to sell a policy that focuses much more heavily on helping them prosper than on redistributing benefits. Especially since that reibforces their already outsized political influence.

EDIT: I'd go farther and argue that the existence of red zones already is a direct and deliberate outcome of policies directed at helping green zones prosper, because the manner in which that is done is to make sure that poor people, crime, and facilities which adversely impact land values are redirected out of green zones to somewhere else. Those other places become the red zones.

[closeparen]

Hmm. It seems more complex than that. The neighborhood-destroying infrastructure that's being dumped by rich neighborhoods onto poor neighborhoods (high density housing and public transit) appears to be turning them into green zones, not turning them darker red.

I agree, there's not nearly enough redistribution. Finding a way to raise taxes from wealthy longtime residents commensurate with the region's present needs would be a start. Relying primarily on newly sold homes (prop 13) and newly signed luxury apartment leases (BMR) to provide the necessary subsidy isn't working.

It would also be great if we could compel the suburban governments that sign on for the benefits of growth (office space) without the costs (housing) to direct some of the funds they raise this way to the municipalities that really need them.