[conanbatt]

> This tax is not going to increase the cost of a new home 1:1 as markets still exist. It's going to reduce the profit of a new home construction and thus the value of existing land.

Reducing the profit of new construction increases the value of land, as it reduces the supply of housing. Study case, san francisco. It has a 0.1 supply elasticity: if rental prices went up 100%, construction units move by 10%.

Any tax that is put on construction reduces construction.

> The ideal amount of growth is where the total cost of new construction balances the demand for new construction. I am simply including externalities as part of that cost. Any other system makes some group richer at the cost of everyone else.

Your system makes local homeowners with very old large houses very rich: not for the house, but the land they have that appreciates because it is harder to build around it.

[Retric]

I think you are confused about actual housing prices and infrastructure costs in the US. In SF for example a ~30k tax per new home would be meaningless until the price of a new home crashed enough for it to become meaningful.

In small towns on the other hand the infrastructure cost would be much lower.

[conanbatt]

Its even more meaningless to increase property taxes on everyone than to focus the pain into the new construction. a 30k tax on any new unit might be like 10 dollar tax on all units.

The effect of concentrating a tax on something is to make it happen less, and less construction means higher home prices and higher rentals. San Francisco needs to build 1000 units to bring rental prices down 50 bucks. What you need is not to punish, but to make people responsible for the infrastructure they use, and everyone is responsible for the usage, and new construction even less so: until the building is used, the increased infrastructure usage is less. And once its built, all the dwellers pay sales tax and income taxes as well. They will be brining more than their fair share.

Perhaps you believe that the new construction represent a minority that can be exploited, after all, they found a way to profit from the city. But the ones that exploit it the most are the state and the current residents. SF has one of the highest budgets in the world, per city per inhabitant. It doesnt need more money, it needs more discipline.

But there you have the actual issue of SF and california, things like prop 13 that make it impossible to raise taxes on property owners but it makes it easy to apply sales taxes which are known and accepted to be regressive.

[Retric]

SF is not adding units because people are not allowed to add units. I am specifically saying you need to change that to build units. I am also saying that a portion of windfall from changing zoning should be used to offset the cost of new infrastructure. As long as building units stays profitable and people are allowed to build units then people are going to build units. Giving people building units even more profit is going to have minimal effect.

As it stands now anyone that can convince a zoning commission to change zoning get's a huge windfall from doing so as suddenly with zero other changes the land is more valuable. That's ripe for corruption on many levels and creates terrible incentives.

As to building infrastructure after people show up that's really does not work because building takes time. The lag between getting permission to build and someone moving in is not long enough to finish infrastructure but it is useful.