The second paragraph of the article attributes the hot spots to abandoned buildings and parking lots; vacant lots with vegetation are not the problem.
Basically the real story is just that trees make shade (yes, we know already) and "vacant or abandoned" isn't much involved (yes, but we want to discuss zoning/taxes/urbanism things)
The main lesson I draw is that everything would improve by taxing externalities: the land is vacant because the property owners doesn’t have enough incentive to do something useful with it and we have a lot of inefficiency in our housing and transportation which a carbon tax would go a long way towards reducing.
Texas is bigger than that.
They have always taxed more carbon and more land in ways that make them rich as hell, at the average citizen's expense.
To the envy of other states' greedy taxing entities.
That wasn't so bad when there was still enough widespread prosperity for the average citizen to be able to afford it.
The land is vacant after they tore down the buildings because the taxes were already too high, and rising too fast.
No brag, just fact.
"How far up is the river now, Ma?"
"Six feet deep, and rising . . ."
Roger?
Well, if Roger's not here somebody's going to have to do the thermodynamics their own self, and it's good to take the initiative plus show it can be done wihtout scaring anybody by using equations or any of that complicated stuff :)
If not, you cannot make the land cold with air condition. You can just move heat around, with AC from the inside to the outside, but that costs extra energy -> more heat
Yes!
But only if your name is Roger :)
>you cannot make the land cold with air condition. You can just move heat around, with AC from the inside to the outside, but that costs extra energy -> more heat
Which is exactly what I've been saying since I was a teenager.
According to thermodynamics anyway . . .
It’s possible this land is subject to delinquent taxes that, in Texas, incur significant interest.
Also, I’d want to know about zoning to see if the city has restricted the use of the land. Zoning is a double-edged sword as well.
Why wouldn't this land immediately be forfeited to the city?
Yes, hence the point of a vacancy tax, but that’s not relevant in the scenario here where they’re not paying. Having a short period, especially for non-residential property, is a good way to discourage tax cheating and it also helps with cleanup: the best time to deal with toxic waste was when it was generated but the second best time is now and absentee owners aren’t going to volunteer to do that. Seizing the land at least lets the government plan to do something useful with in an orderly manner before it starts causing problems too big to ignore.
There is no zoning, that would be kind of dumb and self-defeating in Houston.
Houston was a planned industrial community.
Which is well recognized as even dumber.
You don't see anybody trying to point out when actual zoning was enacted, or that Houston was founded where it was when it was for any other reason than to be the industrial powerhouse of the independent nation of Texas.
Except to serve as the Capitol of the new Nation too, but those guys moved to higher ground one day, I wonder why.
No brag, just fact.
Enquiring minds wanted to know.
Remember what Davy Crockett said when he was going back to Texas that time?
To some people it applies more than others.
The map shows numerous parcels in metropolitan Houston classified as "Ag" property. The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection.
Wake me when you’ve been encouraged enough to complete your (justified) close inspection.