Skip to main content

Power to the Parasites: SF Bay Area Ballot Measures Will Penalize Property Owners for Undeveloped Land

The residents of Oakland, California, and other nearby Bay Area cities, are considering a ballot proposal which centers around the assignment of a $6,000 penalty per parcel to property owners whose property fails to satisfy the City’s arbitrary use standards for a period of no less than 50 days each year: the proposal applies to both developed and undeveloped properties, which equates to penalizing people for failing to build, when it is precisely the existing regulations, compliance costs and zoning laws which make it so prohibitively expensive and challenging to build in the first place. 

I know this firsthand, as I have worked closely with property owners on such developments in the housing space; the permitting and engineering fees are exorbitant for even basic projects, let alone something as considerable as homebuilding or the development of multi-unit complexes. 

As it turns out, the terms of the proposal may also prove too ambiguous to secure the desired ends or to be actionable at all, as they will reportedly make allowances for gardening, among other activities, to allow land owners to more easily satisfy that 50-days-of-use requirement. 

What's more, the cost of the relatively-diminutive tax simply pales in comparison to the existing property taxes and the perceived opportunity cost attending any sale or utility through development, which collectively means that the real costs of development serve as the principal obstacle here to the desired change. 

Essentially, this new tax will only join the already-expensive property taxes as an assault on the institutions of freedom and private property, to penalize owners who are already under pressure to offset the costs of ownership, but who apparently perceive no viable recourse through the prospect of property development. 

This amounts to insult to injury, and disproportionately so for the non-institutional investors and small property owners. 

This form of penalty also shackles property owners to the tempestuous whims of popular opinion, or realistically to those of the political juggernaut and blackmailing transients who threaten to blight and degrade the community if not coddled by the budding welfare state.

In a way, this is tantamount to extending legitimacy to the votes of parasites who wish to weigh in on how to use the host’s blood. 



This is truly the essence of Paradocracy, whereby careless and uninvested voices champion popularly-lauded measures hinged to institutions insulated from audit, passing muster in political process but failing standards of ethics and scientific or logical examination. 

In total, there will be far too many loopholes for this measure to effect any meaningful change, the proposal is unethical on the basis of persecuting (minority) land owners, and the economics are flawed by the failure to address the artificial limits on supply, the rising costs of real ownership, and the careless stimulation of demand: all else equal, this predictably amounts to higher prices and the incentivization of non-work at the expense of otherwise-accountable investment. 

This also amounts to a continued affront on private property and the freedom to be secure in one’s effects without penalty. 

If we live in a community where people are not free to leave their private property undeveloped, if those people instead face additional penalty in excess of those existing property taxes already leveled against the land, we can no longer parade around as if we live in a free society. 

What's more, these measures fail to appreciate the utility of deferred use and buffer space, both of which strike the impatient surveyor as deadweight when they exist alternatively in service to some other end. 

Finally, the last thing the Bay Area needs is higher taxes of any kind on property, where that raw monetary burden ranks among the highest in the nation. 

Don’t expect this to restrain the enthusiasm of the majority parasites, though, as the transients and the renters will take none of this into consideration when they cast their votes at the behest of their self-interest and their intellectually-dishonest consciences. 

In the end, that is the outlook of the parasite.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes