| I will focus on your last three points as I think it summarizes the above examples. Generally, I have two criticisms. 1) The claimed purpose of sate to allocate resources to the "Highest and Best Use" seems in conflict with the purpose of the state to protect individual autonomy and freedoms. Placing economic development and growth above the latter is essentially economic utilitarianism, and carries all of the baggage that goes along with it. 2) It models the state as a sovereign to the people, with overlying claims to any positive externalities of development, opposed to the servant of the people, who retain the rights to these externalities. I think this is apparent in the idea that the three value streams are unearned, and therefor belong to the government. >Land and its value is the joint product of at least three things: • nature, which created it; -I see this as neutral, as this predates both the existence of the government and the people. • government, which acquired it from other sovereigns and protects it from other powers and extends public works for the public's benefit -As the servant of the people, the government is not entitled to the benefits of public works. These belong to the people, who commissioned the public works. By analogy, If a city builds a train terminal, the citizens pay for it once in taxes and bonds. The city should not be able to extract further value beyond upkeep. After investment costs are covered, the entirety of the benefit should belong to the people. How many times over is it equitable to expect citizens to pay for a project? • synergism, which is the increment to value that spills over from social and economic activity in the neighborhood of each parcel of land. -As I understand it, incremental value is generated by the social and economic activity of the people. It is the result of the labors, improvements, and collaboration with the community. It seems that the people have more collective claim than the government. In summary, the people and the government have a working relationship. Is the model one where government behaves like a employer which entitled to the excess value after services rendered, or is the government the employee and the people entitled to the excess value after services rendered. I prefer the latter, and it seems LVT assumes the former. |