Comment by judge2020

2 days ago

> p.s - a govt will never agree to such an arrangement because it will not favor them.

IDK, governments tend to align with what results in the most economic activity being created / moved into their country ("growth"). If you were able to convince that overall economic growth would be multiple times higher over a few decades with the system, it might just become appealing.

A problem I see with implementation in the US, though, is that local municipalities are who tax land and property value, so entire rural counties and cities would have their funding stunted. And asking the government to buy into that while subsidizing low-growth areas for a long time (decades / forever, if a rural area never develops) is a really hard sell.

>governments tend to align with what results in the most economic activity being created / moved into their country ("growth").

So explain the last ~50yr of state and local regulation of land development?