[s1artibartfast]

I think it is interesting in concept.

It would basically hold the government and public accountable for the negative externalities of zoning decisions.

This is obviously attractive if you already think free use of private property is the natural state.

Eg if the state says you can't live in or rent your property, they should compensate you for the value they get.

Obviously, I think it would be ripe for corruption

[nikanj]

As a landlord, I could rent to a tenant for $2k/mo with all the risks and wear/tear from that lease - or I could hijack the rent to $20k/mo, let the property sit empty for the predetermined time, and then force-feed the lease to the city.

[s1artibartfast]

No, you couldn't, your list price near comes into it the way it was written up

[andrewjl]

How does a valid range of list prices get determined?

[s1artibartfast]

In the parent post, they said:

>80% of the then-current local rental rates for similar spaces.

That is to say, you benchmark it. If someone across the street is renting their place for $1000, and the city says you cant rent yours, they would have to pay you $800 to keep it empty.

Benchmarking sounds complicated, but is extremely common. My city reassesses my property value using benchmarks every year to determine property taxes. Of course, they use totally unrealistic numbers, and I have to call them out on it, and then they back down because they are indefensible.

[cyanydeez]

it'd just buy more regulatory capture.

zoning is not driving high density problems. it's capitalism and the fear of "socialism"

[RecycledEle]

I assume you are trolling?