flamehead2k1

flamehead2k1 t1_j5h41m2 wrote

> First off, it's shitty that the PPA puts the onus on citizens to opt into enforcement, but that would only even work for the block you live on.

I think it makes sense to be opt in. For better or worse, people generally don't want parking enforcement outside commercial adjacent areas.

1

flamehead2k1 t1_j4n1gt9 wrote

I've lived in Brewerytown for about 4 years and for the most part haven't had issues.

Of course you need to keep your head up but you should really be doing that in any city.

Philly is a very block- by- block city. One block could be clean and safe while another block only a quarter mile away could be a shitshow. Before signing a lease check out the block both during the day and around 10pm.

6

flamehead2k1 t1_j3skex3 wrote

That early you'll be fine. Worst case your specific terminal is full and you go to the one next to it.

Each terminal has a sign indicating how many spots are available when you drive up as does each floor of the garage.

8

flamehead2k1 t1_j2b5ki2 wrote

A lot of countries are increasing protected areas.

If you look at the past, you're going to see large portions of the northern hemisphere deforested but no one can change that. We can only try to repair the damage done and protect remaining wilderness.

Brazil is fortunate enough to be able to focus on the latter and it doesn't need to do so at the expense of its development. Sure, agribusiness will take a hit but that industry doesn't benefit the average Brazilian all that much. It keeps food prices low but also has shit wages and working conditions.

2

flamehead2k1 t1_j28do57 wrote

>I mean.. yeah.. no one ordered him to dump it. He normal buyer didn't want it because their normal buyers weren't buying.

No one ordered him to but dumping was an option in the table

>It would make sense to make milk, cheese and other milk products out of it for home or farmers market sale's.

Sure but adding all the additional work necessary to make that happen is a big stress vs selling in bulk to a few customers.

Dairy farmers usually don't have a lot of free time and those cows still need to be attended to.

3

flamehead2k1 t1_j19r8wz wrote

>Remember that everyone in the building will presumably be paying city wage taxes and sales taxes, it's not like they are free-riding.

That's true but I don't think we should further rely on city wage tax. It has seriously hurt our development and I don't think lower property taxes on high density housing is going to offset that enough.

The 10 year tax abatement is a temporary land value tax because it only includes the improvement portion.

I think between keeping this and encouraging the city to get rid of lots they are holding, we could do a great job infilling the city.

2

flamehead2k1 t1_j19mjsb wrote

>I think the city would function better if people who can't afford to develop their undeveloped properties sold those properties to people who can afford to develop it.

The biggest holder of unproductive property in the city is the city itself.

Don't need to dramatically change the tax code, just get those sheriff sales moving!

1

flamehead2k1 t1_j19m9e8 wrote

I'm ok with tweaking the rates to tax land more but complete removal does shift a burden.

It isn't a punishment for developing a property the same way it isn't a punishment getting taxed on each additional dollar you earn.

Larger buildings with more occupants will require more services and should pay tax to help cover that.

Something like taxing land at X and taxing improvements at .25-.5X would motivate landholders to put that land into productive use but also raise revenue as the city takes on new residents who need services.

3