Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
ETA: Lemme 'splain. . . .
|
I think we're speaking at cross-purposes, but, if I could articulate exactly how, we'd probably be in agreement.
One more example to show what it is I'm saying:
Imagine a Neighborhood with six lots, with NO zoning whatsoever. Guys 1 through 5 build single family homes on theirs. Mine sits empty. The value of their lots is a function of what a willing buyer will pay. Everyone knows that I remain free to build whatever I want on my lot. Their value will be affected by this knowledge - as long as my lot sits empty, and I could start a VOC landfill there if I wanted, their values will reflect this. I could also build a single family home, and their values would then rise because of the end of uncertainty and the presence of a compatible use. But, since I can live at my landfill AND make a $10 per year profit, I decide to go with the VOC's.
Introduce zoning before I get my first VOC shipment. Now, I lose that $10 per year profit. The other five people, however, no longer face uncertainty as to what I will do - I can only build that single family home. Their values rise as a consequence - the uncertainty is no longer a factor in their valuation. So, that lost (to me) $10 per year of profit has gone into their pockets.
That's how I get to the wealth transfer. I think that maybe we're looking at different scenarios, in that I posit the individual transaction, while you are looking to the abstract mass effect. In your view, I don't face that uncertainty either, so it's a wash, but, in my view, each transaction must be valued. I am held to "the average" use, by governmental coercion, and must forgo profit that I could derive from my ownership. For me, in that situation, money has gone from my pocket to other people.
