Encourage Property Reuse

December 24, 2007

The article of my last post also says that we need to stop building new houses.

My idea is that new construction should be taxed.  Not reconstruction or reuse of existing property but of new construction should be taxed to encourage the reuse of land and vacant buildings and to raise the value of existing structures as the article says is needed.  It would also ease environmental burden and slow down suburban sprawl where everyone wants a new house at the edge of town.  All of the pavement is not a good thing.  We need to encourage higher population densities in order to have sustainability

Higher population density will 1) encourage mass transportation and discourage solo driving 2) have a sociological effect and discourage reproduction 3) have a general increase in the recognition of the problem of over population.  Because of the sprawl too much of America ignores the environmental impact of overpopulation and selfish living.  This needs to be stopped.  The market has taken care of this on the coast and other high density regions (think roughly of the Red/Blue state maps or better yet Red/Blue County maps).

Powered by ScribeFire.


2 Responses to “Encourage Property Reuse”

  1. dsncln said

    instead of taxing an already overtaxed industry,a more enlightened and progressive thought would be to offer incentives to developers to encourage goals that are beneficial to the populace.either way dwellings must be built and oftentimes older buildings that are remodeled or demolished to be inhabited will create much more waste that has to be dealt with.also depending on the age of the structure these materials can be very hazardous to humans and the environment.population density has never led to discouragement of reproduction.quite the contrary,birthrates are high,coupled with the fact that high percentages of these children are at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to becoming themselves productive members of society due to the very real obstacles that are in their paths because of overcrowdedness.humans ,especially children,in your utopia,are reduced to not only a number,but also a burden to society because of their very existence.we cannot allow this.sprawl is only to be despised if it is chaotic, without a plan for the common welfare in place.sprawl does not create overpopulation, quite the opposite.maybe the biggest contradiction you’ve made is saying the market has taken care of selfish-living.in your world the “market” will be dominated by much fewer people than is now possible.the purchasing power of the average person will be so diminished as to be non-existent.your only “hope”would be in the benevolence of these few people.eastern europe in the early forties would be a close comparison.

  2. bigew said

    To offer incentives you need to have money. I think you would create disincentive for creating new construction and use the proceeds to provide incentives to re-use old.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: