U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2014, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,163 times
Reputation: 132

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Those are population estimates. If Pittsburgh had kept up with the US population growth rate since 1970, the metro would be about 4,000,000 people.
What's your point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2014, 01:37 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
What's your point?
Response to this statement upthread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
Pittsburgh's population isn't shrinking. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,163 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Response to this statement upthread.
And I said that Pittsburgh's metro population is no longer shrinking. Even if you choose not to look at statistics, that fact is blatantly obvious if you've lived here in the past decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 01:47 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
And I said that Pittsburgh's metro population is no longer shrinking. Even if you choose not to look at statistics, that fact is blatantly obvious if you've lived here in the past decade.
The only "statistics" are estimates, and IIRC, they had to decrease one estimate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,163 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The only "statistics" are estimates, and IIRC, they had to decrease one estimate.
If you are so mistrusting of estimates (not just from the Census Bureau but from other sources as well), then how would you even know, aside from the outdated 2010 Census that only happens every 10 years, that Pittsburgh's population is declining?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 01:58 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Again, please stick to the thread topic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,163 times
Reputation: 132
What could make a land value tax a feasible option for a larger number of people is to have it apply to all landowners at first but to have what is taxed (land or improvements) be redetermined after a certain probationary period.

For instance, after 5 years of ownership of a particular piece of land, the tax would change to a property tax if that parcel is over a certain size (say, 1/8 of an acre), while if that land is under that determined size the owner would continue to pay the land value tax.

Having the property tax phase-in for larger landowners would encourage the building of higher-density development, as a number of lower-density developers would be turned off by the 5-year land value tax. However, it would not completely discourage single-family or lower-density development, as some landowners would be willing to wait out the probationary period for a lower future tax rate. Additionally, suburban municipalities might continue to encourage some lower-density development so that they would still be able to reap the rewards of property tax revenue without having to set their land value taxes so high to maintain the same revenue, that they discourage the type of development that people who move out to these municipalities seek in the first place. That means higher-density development would flourish in cities and in suburbs that believe in increasing density, while farther-out suburbs (exurbs) would not be too adversely affected by the near-cessation of lower-density development that a land value tax might create.

Basically, a phase-in tax option would be an incentive to build on less land while still acknowledging different preferences. It won't solve sprawl, but it might help to lessen it. It will also incentivize higher-density development over a larger part of a metropolitan area and encourage higher-density development in urban areas that are underutilizing certain parcels of developed or vacant land.

Last edited by pwumavs; 02-09-2014 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,872 posts, read 13,554,924 times
Reputation: 29033
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Why do you think parking lots are not the best use of land? A paid parking lot can produce quite a bit of income if it is in the right area.
Huge parking lots also keep rainwater from being received into the ground, often causing disastrous flooding in areas sometimes FAR from the parking lot. Again, see Pittsburgh, where huge mall parking lots and other suburban development in both the North and South Hills send downpour from heavy rains downhill, creating terrible flooding in small riverside towns where the people causing the problems are NOT paying any taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 04:02 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
What could make a land value tax a feasible option for a larger number of people is to have it apply to all landowners at first but to have what is taxed (land or improvements) be redetermined after a certain probationary period.

For instance, after 5 years of ownership of a particular piece of land, the tax would change to a property tax if that parcel is over a certain size (say, 1/8 of an acre), while if that land is under that determined size the owner would continue to pay the land value tax.

Having the property tax phase-in for larger landowners would encourage the building of higher-density development, as a number of lower-density developers would be turned off by the 5-year land value tax. However, it would not completely discourage single-family or lower-density development, as some landowners would be willing to wait out the probationary period for a lower future tax rate. Additionally, suburban municipalities might continue to encourage some lower-density development so that they would still be able to reap the rewards of property tax revenue without having to set their land value taxes so high to maintain the same revenue, that they discourage the type of development that people who move out to these municipalities seek in the first place. That means higher-density development would flourish in cities and in suburbs that believe in increasing density, while farther-out suburbs (exurbs) would not be too adversely affected by the near-cessation of lower-density development that a land value tax might create.

Basically, a phase-in tax option would be an incentive to build on less land while still acknowledging different preferences. It won't solve sprawl, but it might help to lessen it. It will also incentivize higher-density development over a larger part of a metropolitan area and encourage higher-density development in urban areas that are underutilizing certain parcels of developed or vacant land.
Oh God! The more complicated you make it, the more people will game the system. Believe me, any system can be gamed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,163 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl View Post
Huge parking lots also keep rainwater from being received into the ground, often causing disastrous flooding in areas sometimes FAR from the parking lot. Again, see Pittsburgh, where huge mall parking lots and other suburban development in both the North and South Hills send downpour from heavy rains downhill, creating terrible flooding in small riverside towns where the people causing the problems are NOT paying any taxes.
ALCOSAN (the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority) needs to do a better job of encouraging and incentivizing pervious pavement, rain gardens, bioswales, and other green infrastructure to deal with stormwater in the North and South Hills communities. (For the sake of flooding in the river communities, yes, but it would just as importantly help ALCOSAN out, since they wouldn't need to deal with as much stormwater in their sewer systems.) Out of the South Hills communities, Mt. Lebanon has thankfully been somewhat proactive in doing some green infrastructure themselves, in partnership with non-government organizations that focus on that stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top