> The LVT also has an appealing underlying moral framework: The luck to own a piece of land that happens to appreciate — say, you bought a house in San Francisco before the tech boom — should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value.
This would put gentrification on overdrive. Did the author think this one through?
> should not come with it the ability to extract rents without providing value.
the owner of the land is part of a long transaction chain that started from the initial development and ownership of that land.
They provide value. The value is in allowing the existing owner exit. The fact that this exit is possible makes investment in the land less risky and therefore, investments happen.
A lot of poor families in the Bay Area have their house as their only asset. Take a drive through the Mission district for example and see how a lot of these people live; you’ll see a luxury house next to a house that was last maintained in the 80’s. Many of these families do want to sell their places at market price. However, with a land tax they would be forced to sell under market if they cannot afford the tax.
This would put gentrification on overdrive. Did the author think this one through?