Yeah you aren't wrong there. Figuring our a way to placated those groups is required to get it to be implemented.
Not necessarily the first as long as it's done in land efficient way and the second if they are unwilling to move but otherwise yes.
There's nothing that differentiates "affordable" apartments those at that aren't except the amount that are available. Maybe you aren't a NIMBY but a lot do use similar arguments and then start on about heritage protection.
It really depends on where the land is as it's based on value. If you are talking about replacing property taxes with land value taxes typically it's just a rate on the value but in this case it's just the land value so a higher rate but only applies to land. If you could figure out the total land value in your neighbourhood you could figure it out.
As for who is affected, single family homes on the outskirts probably see a drop in taxes while those in the inner city and vacant plots see a large increase.
No one is actually burying trees. What happens is that after the contract ends they can just cut down the trees, release the carbon and start again.
I do agree with better regulation but forrestry ones should just go.
paid a buddy of mine to plant trees.
It's actually worse than that they are paying people to not cut down trees. It's the same logic when my GF says she saved $200 because the dress was half price.
Don't people switch to using subscribed pretty soon anyway? All is full of junk for me.
Where do they do it otherwise? In Australia it's also yearly.
People might also get bonus so in some sense you get paid once a year.
@w2qw
@aussie.zone