| > I don't understand how this relates. I'm agreeing with you (along with the "heartstrings" comment) that all land is going to have both objective and intangible value, e.g. the view, and that someone grew up in that house. But I think you're imagining that any intangible interests in the land are going to favor the incumbent. I think for residential lots that's probably more true than not on average. But we can easily come up with examples where a prospective buyer has a stronger intangible interest. E.g. maybe you own it, and don't really care about the land or house per-se, but it saves you 1 minute on your commute v.s. the next lot. Whereas I used to live there, and was forced to sell the house during the last recession. I've got a deep emotional connection to the lot and house, and my dog's buried in the backyard. I'd like to buy the house back. You don't want to sell. Does my interest outweigh yours? Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that a self-assessed LVT with an auction mechanism (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37909570) will enable both of us to set a price on those intangibles. I agree that probably nobody's willing to try this out any time soon, for what it's worth the authors of "Radical Markets" suggest phasing in such a system by starting with commercial lots (and perhaps it would never go beyond that). |