[Under georgism,] there will be more pressure to use [land] in an economically viable way.
And then later you say:
If you want to reduce rents, all the usual methods apply – remove restrictions on land use, encourage higher density housing, and all that jazz.
I think that in my mind (and that of many Georgism advocates), one of the many benefits of Georgism would be that the increased pressure to use land in economically-optimal ways, will probably create increased incentives to build higher-density housing and increased political motivation remove economically-destructive land-use restrictions. This admittedly is a more convoluted path to YIMBYism than just advocating for YIMBYism directly. Nevertheless, Georgism & YIMBY-ism seem like natural complements, where each encourages the other.
I”m not sure about that as I think a lot of the land value is driven entirely by network effects related to the density of economic and social activity.
Why wouldn’t Georgism drive more “NIMBY” to keep the rents down—and so possible drive up various externalities (e.g., factories locating in low rent areas resulting in high travel for both workers and products?
[Edited to put the scare quotes in—I don’t think Georgism would be a strong driver or NIMBY activism by locals but could create the incentives to produce a pattern of activity that looks very similar. ]
You say:
And then later you say:
I think that in my mind (and that of many Georgism advocates), one of the many benefits of Georgism would be that the increased pressure to use land in economically-optimal ways, will probably create increased incentives to build higher-density housing and increased political motivation remove economically-destructive land-use restrictions. This admittedly is a more convoluted path to YIMBYism than just advocating for YIMBYism directly. Nevertheless, Georgism & YIMBY-ism seem like natural complements, where each encourages the other.
I”m not sure about that as I think a lot of the land value is driven entirely by network effects related to the density of economic and social activity.
Why wouldn’t Georgism drive more “NIMBY” to keep the rents down—and so possible drive up various externalities (e.g., factories locating in low rent areas resulting in high travel for both workers and products?
[Edited to put the scare quotes in—I don’t think Georgism would be a strong driver or NIMBY activism by locals but could create the incentives to produce a pattern of activity that looks very similar. ]