From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 21:53:44 MDT
Spike,
> Right but remember, in Palo Alto almost no one rents.
> That place is for owners. In nearby East Palo Alto,
> nearly everyone rents.
In that case property values take the place of rents. Increased security
leads to higher property values, which means higher property taxes and
higher mortgage payments in reduced-crime areas.
In reality we're all ultimately renters thanks to the law of Eminent
Domain which gives gov't power to levy the rental fee known commonly to
us as "property tax." I object vehemently to all property taxes, on real
estate or otherwise. In my state I must pay property tax on my privately
owned vehicle! Why should I pay rent to the government on something I
own outright?
But this discussion isn't about the evil of property taxes. My point is
that housing costs including rent, home prices, and property taxes rise
when security against crime rises. This is true for owners as well as
renters.
> OK, I follow your argument and I want to agree. Looks
> to me like the currently-available webcams are a good
> investment in both good and bad neighborhoods...
I'm not sure I agree. However for the sake of your own argument I think
you should note the importance also of surveillance by employers of
employees in the work-place (as opposed to neighborhood surveillance in
residential areas). Corporations are our wealthiest "citizens." I
believe there are tremendous economic benefits to be gained by society
from preventing white-collar crimes such as those that occurred at Enron
Corporation, for example. Whether the costs outweigh the benefits is a
different question.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:52 MST