Friday Round Up: Tropically-Depressed Edition…
Ah, Ernesto, we hardly knew ye. From storm to depression in only a few short hours, you’re now just a little breezy and (hopefully) a lot rainy. Which is fine. We need the rain more than we need the wind. Anyway, here are a few stray thoughts before the dog and I go play in the rain.
This is a good idea: Giving tax credits to those who conserve energy by installing solar or geothermal systems.
Wisely, a developer hoping to build senior housing near the Columbia Medical Campus in Thunder Hill has withdrawn his plans after strong neighborhood opposition.
What?!? Is General Growth seriously even contemplating demolishing the Rouse Company building? Don’t they know what happened last time they tried to take down a Frank Gehry-designed building in Columbia? Do they really want to open up that can of worms again?
4 comments:
I think Guzzone has a good idea, if the goal is to garnish votes. If the goal is help the environment, I think a better idea would be to earmark $250,000 worth of property tax revenue each year to purchase wind credits, similar to what the grocery chain Whole Foods has done recently. Home solar units can cost upwards of $50,000, and still require you to be connected to the power grid. Thus, the technology is still pretty inefficient on a cost basis, so new investment in better technology is needed. Purchasing wind credits subsidizes Corporations that invest in new technologies and build large facilities of windmills that have economies of scale.
Regarding the Rouse Building (I mean GGP building- old habits die hard), I think we should let the owners of the building do what they want with their property. They have shareholders they are responsible to, so they will use their property in the most economically efficient way possible, even if that means tearing down the old and building anew. I work right next to the GGP building, and I love to look at it, but the land it is on is worth a fortune, and we have a responsibility to respect the rights of those who own the capital.
Mary, I understand where you are coming from. However, the GGP building is on commercially zoned property, and the folks at GGP are determining what to do with it in the ordinary course of business. Of course their decision will impact the people in the community who are not a party to the decision. That kind of thing happens everyday. Economists call those effects externalities. Sort of like, in some totally hypothetical example, if we were to pay for and fight a war so that oil companies can make record profits.
If you believe that the Rouse building (I like that name better than GGP) makes Columbia unique and successful, then start a non-profit entity to purchase the building. You could solicit donations from locals who wish to preserve the character and attractiveness of their community. I will be the first to contribute. Let us refrain from implying that the GGP Corp. has some moral obligation to Columbia residents. They do not.
Freemarket: Shouldn't externalities factor into the decision about what to do with a building? After all, isn't the free market only truly free when entities pay the entire costs of their actions? If those costs aren't factored in, is it our responsibility to impose them?
There are better ways to preserve something than having every citizen chip in several hundred dollars to buy it. Namely, quid pro quo, which it sounds like GGP is angling for here.
Anyway, I think we might work in the same building.
Hayduke: I agree 100% that government should step in to make sure externalities are not passed to the taxpayers. If GGP Inc. was dumping chemicals in the lake or tearing down the building to build a chicken farm, that is an externality that should be stopped. However, I don’t think that means the government can weigh in on every decision a company needs to make.
Mary- Just because you have an economically sound plan, does not mean that you have the most economically sound plan. But don’t get me wrong- I agree some level of preservation is good.
Post a Comment