[anamax]

> If the LVT is causing the owner to not be able to afford parking lots the area needs more buildings and less parking lots, even if that's just a parking structure.

In what universe is "fewer parking lots" the solution to "not enough parking lots"?

As Orwell wrote, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

[colinmhayes]

I mean tbh we just have a paradigm difference. IMO there is no such thing as not enough parking lots. They're wasteful eyesores that encourage a horrible externality.

[anamax]

And yet, shopping centers with parking lots do more business than shopping centers without parking.

You may like a life where you're dependent on delivery services for anything you can't carry to where it needs to go but the rest of us aren't willing to wear that hair shirt.

[colinmhayes]

If a shopping center needs more parking and doesn't want to pay more LVT they can build a parking garage. That way the land next door can be used more productively. If building the garage is too expensive then the land was never that valuable to begin with and they can afford the lvt.

[anamax]

Why would they do that?

You've already stated that an essential part of your plan is eliminating parking lots.

You think that a world without parking lots, a world where people mostly carry stuff and otherwise rely on delivery services, is best. Aren't you going to at least followup with "people buy too much stuff anyway, so shopping centers that sell less are better."?

Surely you can defend your vision instead of just giving up when someone summarizes it.

[colinmhayes]

In the end my vision doesn't matter. If you can agree that land speculation is bad you can agree that LVT is good. People should not make money for owning empty land that they do nothing with, it's really that simple.

[anamax]

> If you can agree that land speculation is bad you can agree that LVT is good.

Why should I agree with something that is so clearly false?

Speculation is betting on a better tomorrow. That's clearly a social good.

> People should not make money for owning empty land that they do nothing with, it's really that simple.

Is it?

Suppose that I like looking at trees. (When a govt does that, it's called greenspace, parkland, etc, and everyone says how great it is. Feel free to argue that Central Park should be covered with high rises.)

Or, I'm waiting for Disneyland to be finished so I can put up a hotel if it pans out.

There are lots of great reasons to "do nothing" with land.

Note that Disneyland is an interesting case that disproves one of your core assumptions, namely that "the public" is responsible for the value of land, therefore it should get all of the "rent". "The public" in all of the nearby cities did just as much as "the public" in Anaheim, yet somehow the area around Disneyland is worth far more than pretty much any place in those cities. The public was, as is often the case, irrelevant.

Disneyland isn't an exception in this respect - I picked it because it's so blatant.

Let's come back to an essential point - why should your preferences regarding other people's property matter? Especially since pretty much every detail that you've used to support your position is wrong.

And it's not just the little details.

For example, you seem to think that efficiency is a goal. It's not. It's a tool. (Of course, your definition of "efficiency" is flawed.)

I get that you want to live in a cramped dysfunctional monoculture, but the rest of us don't. (I brought back monoculture because that's what your policies encourage.) Moreover, such a system is actually less valuable, which is a curious result given your repeated rants about maximizing value.