--- Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... libertarians are
sure hostile to the public goods scene, because there the emphasis is on
things that *need* to be solved publicly.
Public goods means collective goods, used simultaneously by some group.
This is a completely different meaning from
On 2004-08-03, Fred Foldvary uttered:
Public goods means collective goods, used simultaneously by some
group. This is a completely different meaning from public as in
public sector.
Precisely what I meant.
Solved publicly is ambiguous because it can mean solved by a group or
solved by
Why not? So many other people do; it makes me wonder what it is they
dislike so much about these communities. Is it political?
What many of the people I have talked to tell me they want is a house in a
neighborhood where they (or their kids) can walk or ride a bike to at least some of
the
Economists are not hostile to public goods.
I guess I did overstate it a bit. Among my more conservative, pro-market economist
friends, there is a general suspicion of the public goods argument. I think that
mostly, this comes from a distrust of government. Fair enough. Anyway, that is where
--- Jeffrey Rous [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do think that a lot of times, economists are hostile the the idea
of a public good like a park if there is some way to make the good
excludable (fenced parks in London, country clubs, etc.).
-Jeff
Economists are not hostile to public goods.
Public
On 2004-08-01, Fred Foldvary uttered:
Economists are not hostile to public goods.
Still, knowledge of economics tends to make you more receptive to the
idea of the invisible hand and the possibilities of private economic
organization. Hence, it makes you more libertarian. And libertarians are
In a message dated 8/1/04 3:45:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Economists are not hostile to public goods.
Still, knowledge of economics tends to make you more receptive to the
idea of the invisible hand and the possibilities of private economic
organization. Hence, it makes you more
today I had a discussion with a friend about urban planing and the
necessity of public provision of urban green space (parks etc.). Do you
know cases of private provision of urban green space and in that case,
how do they make money out of it.
Steffen
Many residential associations provide
Look at almost any condo complex, Disney World, or any
private development. Almost all provide some degree
of common greenspace mixed in. The large scale
private development best known for its green space is
Sea Ranch in California.
Ben
--- Stephen Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are
As a topic, I am more interested local parks and other local greenspace rather than
golf courses and Disney World. It seems that to have parks provided by private
developers requires the type of sprawling enclave development that many city planners
(and most of my homebuying friends) are
That's simply not true. Many, if not most, are open to the public. It
might be most courses by now... more and more private courses have
moved to either a fee system, open to the public, or a combination of
being open to the public, but selling memberships that are little more
than bulk discounts
You have to pay to use them, but not necessarily to enjoy them. There
are positive externalities all over the place.
On Jul 30, 2004, at 5:08 PM, Mikhail Gambarian wrote:
Anyway, you have to pay for using them.
Most public parks and green areas are free to use.
If you have to pay for using green
12 matches
Mail list logo
