Yesterday’s post describes a coming to terms between some neighbors over a paving project. It might seem like a one-off situtation because of how the properties were arranged along the road. And it is true that many blocks of homes are developped together and hence laid out with conformity. But when you think about it, the sheer number of miles of road make non-comforming layouts pretty common as well.
Which suggests that a bartering of tax payment in exchange for a road improvement happens frequently. You might say there is a matrix of possible solutions to who pays what based on some combination of property ownership and use-value. There could be other interesting variables as well like how much social time had to be contributed to initiate the process, and shepard it through, and even how much time went toward diplomacy so the individuals who thought things weren’t fair would still go along with the project.
And this is all assuming that the folks, as in the story, know enough about each other and their general alikeness to foster a degree of trust.
Things can get more complicated quickly when some parcels are owned by commercial entities and some by individuals. There can be divergence in the income levels of the various parties involved which contributes to an evaluation of who could carry the burden better. In other words the players can be grouped. In doing so an order may emerge that shows the bartering results in consistent outcomes.
Knowing some of these results could be helpful. It could help with planning, to be able to know in advance the most typical way the numbers all shake out. It could save some upfront hastles for those just starting out on a project. It also could help prevent fraud when the groups need to be subsisdized. In this situation the bartering is done by a bureaucracy which tends to take some teeth out of the trades.
There could be some benefit in knowing the final settling of cooeperative projects. As there isn’t just one mile of country road. There are millions.
Home Economics 