Organized Labor

[Renton]

The example of central park is fitting here, I think it's pretty obvious that if it were sold to private interests it would cease to exist because it would be more profitable to develop the land than keep it as is.

National parks were created because it was obvious what private interests were doing to the land, and (some) people felt that the unique features and ecosystems of these vast chunks of land were more important than money. Tourism to these areas isn't even close to as profitable as exploiting the resources contained within, so I can't see how the private sector would preserve these areas.

Yellowstone and Central park are VASTLY different land values. I don't think you can say with certainty that a big plot of beautiful nature in the middle of the most population-sparse part of the country would get knocked down for cul de sacs. Being in the middle of the central business district of the largest and richest city in the world is a different thing entirely.

[d0zer]

Yellowstone and Central park are VASTLY different land values. I don't think you can say with certainty that a big plot of beautiful nature in the middle of the most population-sparse part of the country would get knocked down for cul de sacs. Being in the middle of the central business district of the largest and richest city in the world is a different thing entirely.

Cul de sacs aren't the most cost-efficient use of the land, which is why you only really see those in the suburbs where land is cheaper. It would be large apartment buildings and/or office buildings like everything else around it.

The free market is pretty clear where greenspace belongs: outside of major metropolitan areas where land is cheap. There currently doesn't exist a business model for greenspace being more profitable than developed land. The economic demand for developed land in major centers is just so much higher than greenspace.

Wuf, your scenario of the free market creating parks because of new demand for them isn't realistic because of the skewed demands. There is simply a higher economic demand for developed land than there is public parks. If there is an increased demand for greenspace after the public parks shut down, maybe some developers will include some greenspace in development plans, but they'll have to recoup the money they're "wasting" by charging more, creating a climate where only the rich can afford any local greenspace at all.

This brings us back to the idea of welfare, that we want a society that has a decent/ok base standard for all, instead of the super rich and the 3rd world all in one society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_open_space

[Renton]

This brings us back to the idea of welfare, that we want a society that has a decent/ok base standard for all, instead of the super rich and the 3rd world all in one society.

A really basic critique of government is that the value we get from it comes at a very high cost. It does things inefficiently, often grossly so. The decent/ok base standard that it attempts to provide for all comes at a cost many times that of the actual benefits received. For example, governments usually attempt to provide for the poor and infirm by putting up very harsh barriers to capital accumulation, the very thing that needs to happen to third world shitholes as quickly as possible, and the very thing that enables standards of living to skyrocket. The level of capital accumulation is really the only thing differentiating rich countries like Canada from the newly-industrializing third world shitholes like Cambodia (my current location).

[wufwugy]

There is simply a higher economic demand for developed land than there is public parks.

In certain places. There is absolutely no demand for developed land at Northwest Trek. This wildlife preserve/tour/zoo/whatever is pretty awesome. I've been there a couple times. It's run in a sort of public-private way, I think. I think in a free market where the government doesn't guarantee parks, places like this would arise in the hinterland, would have far better attractions and services and better transportation to and from. I think if nature preserves/attractions were purely private, we would see all sorts various things like giant Disneylands of nature for vacations, small parks in residential areas, preserves for various outdoor activities, etc.

The issue is that networks naturally organize in a certain way, and Central Park is an affront to how NYC would organize itself if people weren't forced to pay for it. In the long run, I think fixing this would give more people better access to parks because it would allow supply to more adequately represent demand. Central Park isn't exactly that great for people in NYC. I haven't been there, but I bet that it's far more difficult to access a park in the city center than if there were ones outside the city

[d0zer]

A really basic critique of government is that the value we get from it comes at a very high cost. It does things inefficiently, often grossly so. The decent/ok base standard that it attempts to provide for all comes at a cost many times that of the actual benefits received.

It's hard to defend inefficiency for obv reasons, but I guess some things are just important enough to overpay for just so you make sure everyone gets some, like the american military.

In certain places. There is absolutely no demand for developed land at Northwest Trek.

That quote is talking about urban public parks given the context, there's no need to bear grillz me.

[wufwugy]

It's hard to defend inefficiency for obv reasons, but I guess some things are just important enough to overpay for just so you make sure everyone gets some, like the american military.

Well, part of my point is that "everybody getting some" is improved by the markets. I don't know for certain, but it appears that Central Park decreases accessibility to parks in aggregate. Being that it's in the middle of urban congestion, not that many people have easy access to it relative to population and costs and other factors. How networks organize themselves isn't unique to markets. City topology suggests that access and quality for parks would increase if they're somewhere on the perimeter of the urban center. I imagine that a lot of people who don't live or work that far from Central Park still have to commute forever to get there, and that if the city didn't subsidize a park, there would be more accessible and higher quality parks elsewhere. And even if the city stopped collecting taxes for the park, if people still valued it, those people could pay for it, which would distribute capital more reasonably, in a fair manner, and ultimately benefits everybody

[wufwugy]

That quote is talking about urban public parks given the context, there's no need to bear grillz me.

A city is more than just the urban area. I think the way the markets organize cities would create parks and reserves in the hinterland that are more accessible and of higher quality to those who live and work in the urban areas than Central Park is to its urban area.

I think we take for granted things like traffic congestion, but the truth is that in a market-organized city, there would be very little congestion for a variety of reasons that boil down to the need for efficiency. We already know one way to do this logistically, but governments would never implement it due to the regulatory capture by voters who don't want change or don't understand the issues. I think in a market-organized city, it would be far easier to commute to a Northwest Trek sort of place for far more people than commuting to Central Park for the same number of people. And the same would apply to all sorts of parks, with all sorts of attractions that the companies implement that tax-funded parks don't have