🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <781lpn$p93$3@news1-alterdial.uu.net>,  <aloe@rev.net> wrote:
>henryj@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>
>>   Planners limit land use and drive up prices.  That is
>>their main occupation.
>
>One purpose of zoning is to keep the value of real estate at an
>adequate level to pay enough taxes to provide services to it. If a
>building stands vacant, its value drops. The owner files tax
>certiorari to reflect the reduced value. The tax revenue falls below
>the cost of services. Empty buildings still demand police patrols and
>snow plowing. They can be a drain on the rest of the community,
>increasing taxes for everyone else. In some cases, they contribute to
>crime.
>
>--Buster <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/geography>

   Your doctrine is interesting:  if a building was ever
used for anything, it has a right to exist forever.  I hear
a lot of that from planners.  It seems to me to be
anti-planning, because planners want nothing to change.
Carried to its extreme, cities like Syracuse would benefit
because they could say that the NY State Barge Canal was
there, and we need to support its viability too.