Posted on 04/09/2015 9:50:09 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Why are some American cities thriving, growing in population, investment, and incomes, while others are in decline with shrinking populations, crumbling buildings, and businesses fleeing?
For the answers, read Boom Towns: Restoring the American Dream by Stephen Walters, professor of economics at Loyola of Maryland. Based on years of study of cities, he concludes that the key to a successful city is to protect property rights and otherwise leave the people alone. “The record is clear,” he writes, “cities grow and prosper when they encourage the formation of capital in its many forms by securing the returns that flow from it.”
And what causes cities to go into decline is equally clear — it happens when government stops protecting property rights. People and capital don’t stay where they are poorly treated. Walters strongly argues his thesis with cases showing the various ways politicians, often in league with private interests, have turned growth into decay.
Probably the most widespread threat to a city’s continuing success is redistributive taxation. Accumulated wealth in the hands of business people and professionals is a tempting target for politicians who figure they’ll gain far more votes than they’ll lose by imposing high property taxes. The wealthy owners will have no choice but to pay and the increased revenues can be used for projects and programs most of the voters like and which also help to buy favor with important interest groups.
One of America’s most notorious practitioners of that strategy was Boston’s mayor Michael Curley. The masses adored this “man of the people” who kept increasing property taxes on the rich, but few could see the slow-motion decline of the city his redistributive policies brought about. High taxes repelled new investment and even maintenance of the existing capital.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Zoning one of the worst ideas that has come about.
bmp
1 reason to go back to the policy of only property owners having the vote.
I'd have to disagree. Would you like to live in a place where a paper mill is free to set up shop in your neighborhood?
Yes, and no. Store owners should be allowed to live upstairs with their store downstairs, as they used to do with the neighborhood candy store, neighborhood soda shop, and neighborhood magazine shop. Maintaining one address instead of two would give brick and mortar shops an edge over online and help restore small business. However, setting up an industrial site in a residential area is entirely different - one of the few areas in which restrictions on private property use are appropriate.
The perfect example is the hub bub over the bakery and gays. If property rights were respected, the owner could do what he chooses, including refusing to provide service.
Appropriate that this article is surrounded by others noting the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. No one wants to admit that the biggest single blow the U.S. government ever struck against private property was usurping the property rights of slaveowners without compensation for what they legally owned.
Was slavery wrong? Yes. Did it need to be ended? Yes. Should the government have paid for the billions of dollars in human property they essentially nationalized? Think about the repercussions we deal with today before saying No.
Zoning should be about the effect on neighbors and the neighborhood. Noise, pollution, traffic, etc. Not liberal theories about high density to deny people space to live and cram everyone into controlled virtual prison areas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
