In Praise of the Park Bench
lithub.com
lithub.com
They also incur maintenance burdens.
Park and garden staff can be very helpful finding locations. We've had suggestions made which went directly to need, over beauty. If the beautiful spot you want is taken do think about need: older people and mums with kids value park benches everywhere. (As do rough sleepers)
(Have been there, have park benches memorialising family arranged by others)
Contemplating that, the love this person felt to motivate that, I was overcome with emotion and had to sit for a while.
https://mama-arbeitet.de/gestern-und-heute/dieses-haus-stand...
Because, as it says above, "the human will can move anything."
People have been known to do "guerrilla installs"; if you do it right and quietly and well everyone assumes it was official.
it is the only model that mentions comfort, most all new benches are over-enineerd and anti-social nowadays.
The city also benefits because they get some usage data, so they can estimate how much foot traffic there is, which helps with planning around city services, such as garbage collection.
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/profiles-strategie...
<vomits>
It doesn’t have to be used for advertising. And when it is, it’s local. Usually for small businesses or even the city itself. Most of them don’t have any ads at all though.
Even socialism sees leisure equipment as part of the system.
The Soviet Union tried to solve homelessness by placing homeless people in other peoples homes by dictat. It didn’t work, so they made homelessness a crime for refusal to contribute productively to society, rounded them up and put them in detention centres. It still didn’t work and by the 80s there were hundreds of thousands of homeless people on the streets of Moscow, all criminalised and subject to arbitrary harassment and detention.
The market for land is created in law, it can be changed in law. This is different to cars or corn or bricks, - if you invest of those the world is richer one brick, car or bit of corn. IF you invest in land the money just sits there and that piece of paper means you can call the police if challenged. The question of land distribution is a social and legal question independent of the real economy. The beginning of land rights is only about 400-600 years old and began with enclosure in the UK. Meanwhile there's other parts of the world that sustained a larger population that didn't have them yet. e.g China. I'm not saying to get rid of land rights but perhaps the worst excesses of people subsidizing the rights of a 1% to own like 30% of land is a bit radical. Less radical would be "people can invest to 3 houses max" For instance Germany caps the size of corporations with inventives for smaller and medium size corporatinso - this makes a large ecosystem of mutually independent compannies that also reduce existential risk in supply chains - also allow for the highest productivity per hour in the world. Also the cost of housing is relatively lower so it has quite a high proportion of part time workers.
Imagine if we had some "instrument" such as a "repossession lottery" where 1/100 land assets of individuals who own more than 3 properties were siezed at random each year. Have the rate controlled by the federal reserve or reserve bank of respective countries. Change the charter to ensure the goals of each is 100% housing. We can still have the free market and competition in the world of commodities.
Unfortunately to the american imagination to make some crique of capitalism the way the education system works is they assume you are advocating the soviet union. There's many situations where the state can make laws that are on the socialist end of the spectrum and it contributes to economic growth so businesses and investors are happier too. The US already does this with the military, military assets are publicly owned "socially owned" if you want to put it that way, there's no reason education or health or housing couldn't also be the cash cow.
I don't quite agree on land value. Real investment in land means capital improvements such as building accommodation, offices, factories, retail premises, etc. These can be highly productive. It's why I favour the idea of a land value tax, to actually encourage investment in productive uses for land and penalise passive rent seeking.
I'm surprised you mention China positively in this regard, regional Chinese local governments have been largely funding themselves though massive land sales to private owners for decades. This often involved throwing off collectivised farmers with no or nominal compensation because the land belonged to the state. Arbitrary confiscation and abrogation of property rights with no appeal. Right up your street. Ive seen it happen in my wife's home town. With the recent collapse of property markets in China this is grinding to a halt.
I agree the US view on these things seems to almost cartoonishly polarised from a European perspective. They do have an incredibly flexible and dynamic economy, but a bit red in tooth and claw for my liking.
Apologies, I meant historically China, not china of the last 50 years. Just for context "the west" has sort of existed since renaissance only a few hundred years. Before that it had more common with some religions theologies and warring states. Meanwhile in arabia, china, persia and india there were huge cultures and civilizations far more advanced. They all had markets. Land rights however have always been a social question. For instance in britain it was all owned by the crown - a shepard for instance was naturally limited by how many sheep they could look after, a trade person limited by how many people they could see with their craft. Enter the corporation and enclosure and you can have flocks of 10,000 sheep etc. It doesn't necessarily mean there's more sheep it means "possession" now has some formalism governed by paper and the state, rather than some direct proximity and socially designated responsibility or custodian ship for a flock or area. etc. The later is how a great deal of cultures functioned and they had markets (what was the silk road?) Capitalism has always claimed "it's the market" ideology, but what actually distinguishes capitalism from all other societies is the creation of capital and the creation of false commodities in law (land, patents, etc)