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 02-07-2014, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,762,451 times
Reputation: 1616

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
They're usually not empty. Parking lots are big money.Take the parking lot that just sold last year in downtown Seattle for $16.5 million.

$30/day to park, about 50 parking spots = $390,000 per year in weekday daily parking. You'll probably pick up another 30 cars for nights/weekends @$10/day which is another $182,000 a year. No employees and the things grossing $500,000 a year. I mean, you're not going to turn down $50 million/acre if it comes a knocking on your door, but for something that doesn't cost you much of anything to operate, $500,000 a year is pretty nice money.

Also makes suburban living mighty appealing. I can buy a a nice wooded acre in Des Moines, about 15 miles out, for $100-200k.
I think the fact that it sold at $16.5M is proof that the value of the parking lot is related to development potential and not parking revenue. Interest rates on the $16.5M only need to be 3% to erase any parking revenue, and that's not including the property tax, and maintenance. I guess ticket vending is automated?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:35 PM
 
15,545 posts, read 13,536,591 times
Reputation: 21297
They should eliminate all property taxes on a person's primary residence, or at least drastically change it from its current system, which makes no sense at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:38 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 drive carephilly View Post
People land bank all the time. I held on to a vacant lot in Philly for 4 years. Eventually I built a house on it but in the interim 4 years my property taxes ranged from $60-$90. That's ludicrous. There are plenty of developers and parking companies sitting on relatively large tracts of land that they pay maybe $2-$3000 per year in taxes on. They're speculating, plain and simple. No one in the business hesitates to call a parking lot of strip mall on the edge of the downtown core "an interim use." Not even the owners themselves.





First of all it's not a matter of parking or no parking. It's a question of surface parking vs. structured parking but still if you're in a big city where any of this stuff becomes relevant, well . . .

Telephones have been around for +100 years. The internet is pretty well developed at this point. You can get just about anything delivered to your door including kegs of beer. Amazon and a host of other companies are now experimenting with delivery drones.
Minnesota brewing company successfully delivers drinks with drones - The Daily Athenaeum Online: Opinion

Even if you were so impulsive that you decided, "I have to paint my apartment right now!" and ran out to the store for 5 cans of paint there are these things called taxis. You step to the curb, stick your hand in the air, they stop, you get in. They'll take you wherever you want to go.
Did you actually read the article in your link? It's about some brewery delivering beer to ice fisherpeople in MN who most assuredly drove to the lake.

Your snark is duly noted. So what of telephones? Yeah, I can call whoever I want and chat with them. So what? You'll pay extra to get things delivered to your door. Sometimes it's worth it, sometimes not. As for taxis, I agree with chirack. That's not how you get a cab in my town. It isn't even how you get one in a residential neighborhood in Denver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Maybe in yuppie land you can step to the curve and get a taxi. Where I live you will have to call the taxi first wait 20-30mins for it to arrive, pay for the trip, pay while he waits for you in line at home depot, and pay on the way back that is going to get mighty expensive over time.

List of U.S. cities with most households without a car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If I read this list right less than 30% of the households in town lack a car. Any business that has a lot has the potential to be attractive to 70% of the households and do you know how expensive structured parking can be to build? Much cheaper to have a lot unless the lot is really making money.

Public transit is great for going to work, school maybe for some fun things but I would hate to depend on the bus.
I note Denver is not on the list. What a surprise, not! Atlanta, which is being blasted on another thread, for its sprawl, is on the list at #25, 23.58% of the households being carless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,762,451 times
Reputation: 1616
I don't think anyone believes a land value tax would eliminate all surface parking everywhere, but it would probably lead to parking lots getting developed faster in areas with high land values (downtowns) and to be built in less excessive quantities in areas with lower land values (ex autocentric suburbs).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 07:00 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,715 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Maybe in yuppie land you can step to the curve and get a taxi.
It's called a curb but really? Yuppie Land? Seriously?
http://goo.gl/maps/tNyO3 here's where i get my paint. Just down the block from the Family Dollar store. Where all the yuppies shop. If you pan around you can see taxis parked on either side of the street.

Philly has big box stores too. Walmart, Target, Home Depot, PetSmart, etc. Taxis hang out there too because they know people take the bus to go shopping then sometimes buy too much and need a lift home.

If you want to argue for the status quo because it's the status quo - just be honest and say "I like it this way because that's all I know."

Quote:
Where I live you will have to call the taxi first wait 20-30mins for it to arrive, pay for the trip, pay while he waits for you in line at home depot, and pay on the way back that is going to get mighty expensive over time.
Huh? Maybe you've never heard of the expression "if the shoe fits . . . "?

If you live in a place where people have to drive everywhere then your comments are largely irrelevant because they don't apply to parking lots in dense urban centers. The OP linked an article in the Boston Globe - about taxation in cities

If you live in a place where home depot is your only option, where you couldn't take a bus or train there then taxi back, where you couldn't get it delivered within 48 hours, and where you have to wait a half hour for a cab then I don't know what to tell you? Move? Buy a car?


Quote:
If I read this list right less than 30% of the households in town lack a car. Any business that has a lot has the potential to be attractive to 70% of the households and do you know how expensive structured parking can be to build? Much cheaper to have a lot unless the lot is really making money.

Public transit is great for going to work, school maybe for some fun things but I would hate to depend on the bus.


Car sharing has been in most US cities for at least a decade. Car rentals have been around forever. Home delivery has been around forever.

Unless you're a super-niche retailer like Apple you don't cater to a percentage of households in your region. You cater to a certain percentage of households within a certain radius of your store.

This place doesn't need a sea of parking because 275,000 people live within a mile of it http://goo.gl/maps/rKXv2

But no one here ever said to build a big box store in the suburbs with no parking so your argument thus far is a string of non-sequiturs which, even on their own, are misinformed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 07:06 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,834,426 times
Reputation: 9769
Oh, here we go again. The basic problem with the land value tax is actually one of the desired results. It pretty much requires (by ruinous taxation) that land owners put their land to a very high-income use. Surface parking lots can do quite well in some places... the big losers are vacant lots and single family homes.

Consider a fictitious town which has a mixture of 1/4 acre parcels. Half have 60-unit apartment buildings on them, half have single family homes. A property tax which taxes land and improvements is going to result in the lion's share of the taxes coming from the apartments, obviously. However, a land value tax will result in the building owners and the homeowners paying the same tax. Assuming revenue-neutrality, that's going to be a massive increase in the tax on the homeowners.

Now consider the expenses to the town. Schools and municipal salaries for things like police and fire departments are the big ones. All of these are much more closely related to the number of people served, not the amount of land. So the land value tax ends up transferring the burden caused by all those people in the apartments, onto the single-family homeowners. The more intense a use a land owner puts his property to, the more everyone else in the town has to pay. So low-intensity uses are taxed out.

As I said, this is considered a desirable result by land-value taxation proponents. To me, it appears to make a mockery of the concept of property ownership in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,378 posts, read 59,846,787 times
Reputation: 54025
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Wage taxes and sales taxes are already highly regressive.
As is the concept of taxing land and not the improvements to that land. Next ...

Quote:
I shouldn't be punished (in the form of higher taxes) for fixing up my house - and indeed I recently had my house pointed and had a bit of work done to fix some of the brownstone and my property taxes went up 25%. That makes no sense.
That's because your taxes didn't go up because you repointed the masonry. That's not how property assessment works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
#7 - Why do people respond to an idea, by just stating, "that's a dumb idea", without saying why?
Because it's yet another regressive tax that is just too stupid for serious discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 07:46 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,715 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
As is the concept of taxing land and not the improvements to that land. Next ...
I'd be happy to hear you expand on this (or anything) or, you know, offer up an any explanation for anything that has a little more rationale behind it other than "no it isn't."

Quote:
That's because your taxes didn't go up because you repointed the masonry. That's not how property assessment works.
It's amusing that you think you know why my taxes went up.

I made improvements to my house - on the outside - that the tax assessor could see. He assessed my house at a higher value because, well, now it looks a heck of a lot nicer than my neighbors' houses do.

I know this because I appealed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 07:52 PM
 
1,879 posts, read 1,863,149 times
Reputation: 1462
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Oh, here we go again. The basic problem with the land value tax is actually one of the desired results. It pretty much requires (by ruinous taxation) that land owners put their land to a very high-income use. Surface parking lots can do quite well in some places... the big losers are vacant lots and single family homes.

Consider a fictitious town which has a mixture of 1/4 acre parcels. Half have 60-unit apartment buildings on them, half have single family homes. A property tax which taxes land and improvements is going to result in the lion's share of the taxes coming from the apartments, obviously. However, a land value tax will result in the building owners and the homeowners paying the same tax. Assuming revenue-neutrality, that's going to be a massive increase in the tax on the homeowners.

Now consider the expenses to the town. Schools and municipal salaries for things like police and fire departments are the big ones. All of these are much more closely related to the number of people served, not the amount of land. So the land value tax ends up transferring the burden caused by all those people in the apartments, onto the single-family homeowners. The more intense a use a land owner puts his property to, the more everyone else in the town has to pay. So low-intensity uses are taxed out.

As I said, this is considered a desirable result by land-value taxation proponents. To me, it appears to make a mockery of the concept of property ownership in the first place.
But a lot of places that do charge land tax aim it at investors, eg you get an exemption for your primary home. Thus, using rules in my state here in Australia (see post #30 on this thread) the people who live in single family homes in your fictitious town would not pay the land tax but the investors who owned the land with the apartments on them would. And if it is just one person owning all those blocks of apartments, they would have to pay the landtax on the accummulated value. However, if they are owned by separate owners and the value of the land is less than the threshold (which in our state is $406,000), then those owners who own just one block of apartments might not have to pay much tax at all. So small investors pay much less land tax than big investors. Farmland used for primary production would be exempt as well.

Also, it is not like everybody has planning permission to build a block of flats on their land, obviously they have to have the right zoning. Many people who are on the edge of a zone often hold onto their land in the hope of their land being rezoned, eg if you are near the middle of a big city and you have an empty half acre block which can only be used for a single dwelling but there is a high probability that in a few years time your half acre block may be rezoned for apartments, then obviously you are going to hold out until the rezoning changes and sell your land for a much higher price.

Last edited by susankate; 02-07-2014 at 08:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 08:22 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Because it's yet another regressive tax that is just too stupid for serious discussion.
And it's seriously implemented and discussed outside this forum. It's not obvious to me why it's so stupid without giving any reasons, and giving no why doesn't add anything to the thread.

I don't see how it's more regressive than current local taxes, either.
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