> This is how small businesses like local cafes, delis, bookstores, and "mom and pop" stores are able to survive in cities.
Nonsense. Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land - hell, a lot of the best of those are run by people who live above the store, meaning the extra land use is zero. The businesses that benefit from a lack of land value tax are parking lots, drive thrus, distribution centres, that sort of thing.
How about starting with the actual argument to make it less rude?
>Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land
Which is neither here, not there. They are still types of businesses gravely affected by high property taxes and land value taxes (the parent even spells it out: "low property taxes and generous loan terms" (...) primarily benefited small businesses, individuals, etc"), and are also what the parent calls "low-value business" (low monetary value, of course).
> They are still types of businesses gravely affected by high property taxes and land value taxes
Don't conflate two very different things. A business is affected by land value taxes to the extent that it uses expensive land (that's the point). A business that takes up zero land, such as one that can be run from the same building you live in, ipso facto pays zero land value tax.
>A business that takes up zero land, such as one that can be run from the same building you live in, ipso facto pays zero land value tax.
Local bookstores, delis, cafes, specialty shops, and so on, (a) use "expensive land", and (b) are not, usually, run "from the same building you live in".
I'm not talking about rural shops (those are a whole other thing, and die due to other reasons, like the economic decline and abandoment of rural areas).
I'm talking about beloved shops in major cities, replaced by expensive real estate getting them demolished to build whatever luxury mega-crap, and driving up rents contributing to gentrification.
> Local bookstores, delis, cafes, specialty shops, and so on, (a) use "expensive land", and (b) are not, usually, run "from the same building you live in".
Living over a shop like that is normal where I live, which is far from rural; I've been to many small cafes and similar that were clearly someone's (barely) converted home. Of course if you have dumb zoning it may make that impossible, but, uh, don't do that then.
> I'm talking about beloved shops in major cities
So what's over those shops if not living space?
> replaced by expensive real estate getting them demolished to build whatever luxury mega-crap, and driving up rents contributing to gentrification
"gentrification" is a spook. Making a place nicer is a good thing. The only reason nice places are unaffordable is because you build too few of them.
Nonsense. Those aren't the businesses that take up masses of land - hell, a lot of the best of those are run by people who live above the store, meaning the extra land use is zero. The businesses that benefit from a lack of land value tax are parking lots, drive thrus, distribution centres, that sort of thing.