Hacker News Reader

> One thing major cities could do to stave off cheap, cookie cutter expansionism is to buy up large swaths of land for city or state parks, and also cultivate those parks for high quality outdoor recreation. Such a policy would increase land price pressure

I think you underestimate the scale of what you're proposing. You mention 200,000 acres. To buy up enough land to curb suburban development, you'd be looking at buying all the land in at least a 15 mile radius, probably much more (people "happily" commute 15+ miles into every major city), so well north of 700,000 acres. Your 100MM suggestion seems laughable, at $500/acre. Maybe you can get land for that price in the middle of nowhere, but certainly not on livable land within 15 miles of a major city. A quick search indicates farmland costs north of $3000/acre across the US.

Maintaining the land would now be a major expense on the city. It would be a political nightmare (yeah, we could fund basic infrastructure, or we could bankrupt ourselves trying to buy every livable plot within an hour's driving distance). And of course then there's the problem that people would be unwilling to sell and eminent domain attempts would likely fail in court.

> 40 acres and a mule commutes

I have no idea what you mean by this but I would suggest you not. 40 acres and a mule has a very specific context and it's not suburban spawl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

> Your 100MM suggestion seems laughable, at $500/acre.

Shhhhh.... We're fudging numbers to raise capital to monopolize land around an urban center. You just don't get it.

Just my opinion, but I really hate any message created from the template "Shhhh... I'm making a snarky remark against the guy you replied, not contributing to the discussion constructively."

Do better next time.

This is a remarkably uncharitable description of a fairly mundane land-use policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt

> Maybe you can get land for that price in the middle of nowhere, but certainly not on livable land within 15 miles of a major city

That land gets its value from the city. One can imagine border taxes (tolls, employment taxes, et cetera) funding those land purchases.

Initially it will be slow. But as the city buys and razes the writing will be on the wall. If that starts pushing down prices, a prisoner's dilemma will emerge whereby neighbors compete and further drive down prices. In the end there will be holdouts. But they'll be sustaining the infrastructure that supports them, a prospect that only makes sense for the rich and eccentric.

This would only work, however, if cities dramatically ease their effective ban on new development. Though that would largely obviate the need for a green ring in the first place.

> That land gets its value from the city.

Land in the middle of bumblefuck costs more than $500/acre. But this doesn't matter anyway because that high value for land around cities exists presently. An acre of developable land 5 miles outside of Seattle proper is probably worth at least half a million dollars even if there's no infrastructure running there.

> One can imagine border taxes (tolls, employment taxes, et cetera) funding those land purchases.

One can imagine many things that are unrealistic. Cities cannot tax people outside their incorporated territory so this idea that they'll just tax people to death for living outside the city is unrealistic. They could certainly add tolls, but not at the volume that would be needed for this. And if they tried, the state legislature would doubtless swoop in and make it illegal. e.g., In Washington, road tolls can only be applied to road improvements (indeed only to improvements to the road being tolled). Any city that goes overboard trying to tax outsiders aggressively will just get shut down by the state.

> But as the city buys and razes the writing will be on the wall. If that starts pushing down prices...

This is pretty ridiculous. If the city starts reducing supply, costs will go up, not down.

The purchasing scale needed to achieve this is insane. This would absolutely require many billions to achieve. Even if a city could manage to get their citizens to agree, and the state to allow it, and structure the burden so it falls on outsiders, it would still take decades to fund and execute, and in that time land value would go up due to the squeeze, making this more and more difficult for the city.

> Though that would largely obviate the need for a green ring in the first place.

This I agree on. City density won't be improved by preventing suburbs but by allowing more density.

My reference on the 40 Acres comment is clearly off base and not what I intended, thanks for correcting. I thought it was primarily an American Dream relating to Manifest Destiny, but per the wiki it was a lie presented to African Americans after the American Civil War.

I am, however, aware of the scale of what I am proposing. A lot of the land to be controlled ends up being junk land, be it hazardous flood plain or otherwise challenging to develop, but it creates large buffer zones that constrains private development effort. Farmland is relatively expensive land because it has economic output. But that fine, call it $3000/acre. Dont buy high value farmland. Do buy un-farmable floodplain or wetlands. A lot of the land gets donated or conveyed via easement. Bigger cities will have bigger budgets to work with. You dont have to buy all the land, just strategic lands that apply pressure and create value in other forms, namely that a state park is available for all to use, a ranch is available for none.

It is not laughable, it is currently being done in many cities. Probably not viable in major cities, if your frame of mind is NYC or SFO, this process will not make as much sense because its too late.

> My reference..

No worries. I assumed you must have meant something like that.

> I am, however, aware of the scale of what I am proposing…

For smaller cities I could see how this might work if it’s done before they really develop. I was thinking in terms of existing large cities, where it seems intractable in part due to the existing sprawl. I can’t imagine how this would play out in Seattle (where I live) because the sprawl is already well outside the control of the city. Even if Seattle wanted to do this, all of the land is under the control of the surrounding towns (Bellevue, Kirkland, Shoreline, etc.) at this point.

> My reference on the 40 Acres comment is clearly off base and not what I intended, thanks for correcting. I thought it was primarily an American Dream relating to Manifest Destiny, but per the wiki it was a lie presented to African Americans after the American Civil War.

I had this exact same misconception as well until a few weeks ago. I wonder how common it is! And where it comes from. Also worth noting that UT-Austin has a "40 acres scholarship" as their ultimate tier of endowment, which is a reference to UT-Austin originally receiving 40 acres on which to found their University (from the government as a land grant).

What major cities should do is legalize housing construction in them, and the US would urbanize very quickly, with enormous benefits for the entire country, including much less sprawl construction pressure.

Instead you seem to propose that cities try to expand their no construction zone to rural areas.

Boulder, CO did this: https://aboutboulder.com/blog/why-does-boulder-have-a-greenb... There's a fund to buy up farms and ranches around the city when they come up for sale, and develop them as open-space for hiking or wildlife preservation.

Which, when coupled with building height and density limits means Boulder has housing prices like those of a city 10x its size. I live in a subdivision in a small town just on the other side of that greenbelt. Since the bus service is terrible, when I was commuting into the city it took an extra 5-10 minutes of driving through that open space to get to my office.

So while I personally love having the open space, its not a panacea that solves all the problems.

> Aren’t you doing exactly what everyone else wants to do? Mansion in the Sticks for me, but City Shacks for thee?

I'm hoping to be one of these people one day, but I'm also hoping to be taxed appropriately for it. Make people who cost society so much pay taxes to cover their costs.

And until then, stop taxing my condo in the city as if I'm the same as the 4 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre lot down the street.

> And until then, stop taxing my condo in the city as if I'm the same as the 4 bedroom house on a 1/4 acre lot down the street.

Taxes are based on ability to pay rather than actual cost to the city (land value is just a proxy for ability to pay). Otherwise poor people literally could not live in the city.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to impose higher taxes on residences that have outsized infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure I see it as likely. (Or necessary, given that a city willing to do this could just as easily change zoning and suddenly there would be lots of pressure for those single family homes to turn into condos.)

I can't imagine poor people affording what would presumably be higher taxes in sprawling suburbs (though perhaps the issue is that there are suburbs in the middle of your city?).

Of course, taxing people based off their cost while also forbidding densification would just be a sick joke.

surburbs are low tax because they are built using bad debt for future generations to bankrupt on.

One is taxed too low, but it's not the condo.

Oh yeah, I guess I didn't feel the need to spell it out in my original post but I'm trying to move. The problem is all my family is in the states, so my options are limited and expensive. I don't think we have a truly walkable city besides New York, and I love New York but that's as far away from my western and Hawaiian family members I can get while staying in the US.

Ottawa Canada did exactly this, creating a green belt in 1956. It appears to still be there. I wonder if anyone has done a benefits analysis?

Green belts are common in the UK too, they're very popular with the people who live in them and unpopular with people who don't on the whole!

what do you think "40 acres and a mule" means? It's not about commuting.