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 02-08-2014, 09:33 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
34,371 posts, read 43,131,712 times
Reputation: 43994

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
It sounds like a Tea Party plan for the rich to get out of paying taxes. While we are at it, lets have a flat tax, and make the guy working at McD's for $7.00 an hour pay the same tax rate as a billionaire. Because that is "fair".
Most of the proponents I've met have been a bit to the Left of Karl Marx.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,754 posts, read 60,801,765 times
Reputation: 54770
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
It sounds like a Tea Party plan for the rich to get out of paying taxes. While we are at it, lets have a flat tax, and make the guy working at McD's for $7.00 an hour pay the same tax rate as a billionaire. Because that is "fair".
Exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,139 posts, read 9,039,182 times
Reputation: 7741
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Most of the proponents I've met have been a bit to the Left of Karl Marx.
Yes, you are correct. I was misled by the inaccurate title of the article. All the proposal really does is a close a tax loophole that is causing some vacant land to be under-taxed.

A more balanced article on it.

De Blasio tells lot owners to put up or pay up
Bill de Blasio's bid to close a tax loophole could force landlords to build new housing on their vacant plots or sell out to those who will.

BY JOE ANUTA
NOVEMBER 24, 2013 12:01 A.M.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...t-up-or-pay-up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:26 AM
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
45,997 posts, read 42,823,760 times
Reputation: 14825
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Yes, you are correct. I was misled by the title of the article. All the proposal really does is a close a tax loophole that is causing some vacant land to be under-taxed.

A better article on it.

De Blasio tells lot owners to put up or pay up
Bill de Blasio's bid to close a tax loophole could force landlords to build new housing on their vacant plots or sell out to those who will.

BY JOE ANUTA
NOVEMBER 24, 2013 12:01 A.M.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...t-up-or-pay-up
Yes, it's not regressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:27 AM
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
45,997 posts, read 42,823,760 times
Reputation: 14825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Exactly.
How so? What makes it more regressive than usual local tax systems?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:43 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
34,371 posts, read 43,131,712 times
Reputation: 43994
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
Yes, you are correct. I was misled by the inaccurate title of the article. All the proposal really does is a close a tax loophole that is causing some vacant land to be under-taxed.

A more balanced article on it.

De Blasio tells lot owners to put up or pay up
Bill de Blasio's bid to close a tax loophole could force landlords to build new housing on their vacant plots or sell out to those who will.

BY JOE ANUTA
NOVEMBER 24, 2013 12:01 A.M.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...t-up-or-pay-up
This is where a lot of the issues are:

I referenced farmland in Ag Preservation earlier being taxed at a lower rate (in MD it actually means the assessment is lower, the tax rate stays the same) as opposed to farmland being subdividable, which is assessed at a higher value.

What that means is that land in Preservation is assessed at $3000 to $5000/acre. Farmland that can be subdivided can be assessed as high as $200 to $300000/acre (water access with riparian rights). That is the incentive to sell. But, if there's no demand (as for the last few years), then what? That's why forcing developers to build or sell is a recipe for disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,636 posts, read 3,820,790 times
Reputation: 1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post


This part is interesting . . . and where it gets confusing. So here is a sort of hypothetical -

My family lives (mostly) in a small-ish NJ borough and the surrounding townships. My grandparents always lived in the borough. They could walk to the bakery, the barber, the pharmacy, hardware store, for basic grocery items, etc but they have to drive to a supermarket, movie theater, department store, etc. They're also within walking distance of a train station with hourly off-peak service to NYC. I'm mixing up my tenses here because when my grandfather died my grandmother moved into a new-ish townhouse down the street.

So my uncle has a big house on 1 acre about 4 miles out from the center of town. Let's just say he pays about $10k per year in property taxes. My grandparents old house was on ~1/8 of an acre and would probably be about $7k per year in taxes. My grandmother's townhouse was probably on .05 acres and we'll say the taxes are $6k. Everyone is paying taxes on the improvements to their property. My uncle's house was at least twice the size of my grandparents house and maybe 3x the size of the townhouse. But my grandparent's land was a lot more valuable per sq. ft. than my uncle's is.

Under LVT, cetarus paribus, my uncle would stop paying income taxes but his property taxes would probably go up to ~$15k. My grandparent's house would drop to $5k and the townhouse to $3k or something like that. It gets tricky because my grandparent's land is more valuable and they have better access to everything so, in theory, that should be take into account.

My rowhouse is on a lot that measures ~16x60 so that's 960 s/f or .02 acres so if my house was around the corner from my grandparents I would be paying significantly less in property taxes than they would with an LVT. Under the current regime I'd probably be paying quite a bit more (if my house was in their town) because my house is three floors and ~2000 s/f whereas their house is ~1400 s/f.

But where my house actually is it's a quick walk to the subway (<12 minute service), half a dozen bus routes with good headways, a library, supermarket, playgrounds, etc, etc. So, really, my taxes should be quite a bit higher than my grandparents with LVT and perhaps close to what my uncle's would be. Of course, I wouldn't be able to afford that because I'm not that baller. So, in theory, if I wanted to stay in the same general vicinity I would move to a smaller lot, further from the subway or if I wanted to stay in a house of similar size I would move further from the center - maybe out to Mt. Airy or way out in West Philly or even across the river.

Those scenarios happen often anyway. It's not like no one has ever heard of "drive 'til you qualify" or, if you're in the city, "do you really need that 3rd bedroom?" They're just driven by house values rather than a land tax.
I'm not sure your rowhouse would have such high property taxes. Serviced outer suburban residential zoned land in the Toronto area is around $1.5-2.0 million/acre. In downtown adjacent lowrise zoned neighbourhoods it's around $10-15 million/acre. My guess is you'd only pay something in between your grandparents house and townhouse and still a fair bit less than your uncle. In order to pay as much property tax as your uncle, land values would have to be 45x higher...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,336 posts, read 16,461,689 times
Reputation: 12934
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Except a building that Microsoft would build be built on a highrise on a relatively smaller footprint of land, and it's likely that its parcel would be more improved than your average Seattle parcel. A downtown parcel that's as improved as an average downtown parcel won't see higher rates, it'd see no change. The losers would be besides surface lots but smaller, typically older buildings.
As I said, think macro not micro. If it's revenue-neutral, you're right. But you're ignoring the fact that most businesses already locate outside of downtown areas as it is. Microsoft's original 88 acre Redmond shopping center was chosen because it was much cheaper than doing the old IBM route of a big tower downtown. Maybe Microsoft would have stayed on its 88 acre shopping center instead of its current HQs which encompasses 500 acres and built up.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-08-2014 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,636 posts, read 3,820,790 times
Reputation: 1654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
As I said, think macro not micro. If it's revenue-neutral, you're right. But you're ignoring the fact that most businesses already locate outside of downtown areas as it is. Microsoft's original 88 acre Redmond shopping center was chosen because it was much cheaper than doing the old IBM route of a big tower downtown. Maybe Microsoft would have stayed on its 88 acre shopping center instead of its current HQs which encompasses 500 acres and built up.
Wouldn't staying in Redmond instead of a 500 acre HQ be a good thing (from the POV of most urbanists)? It's not downtown but it could be turned into a solid TOD.

Are you arguing that some developments would still happen outside downtowns or that they'd happen outside downtowns in greater amounts than without LVT?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 01:54 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,920,401 times
Reputation: 1445
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The only winner is the owner of the lot. Surface parking lots discourage activity on the streets and sidewalks. Blocks with surface parking do not encourage pedestrian activity.

A surface lot in the middle of downtown is terrible. A surface lot in a walkable Main Street area sucks too.

A surface lot blocks the space to people not in a car.

Raise you hand if you feel safe walking past an dark empty parking lot at night.
I would feel safer walking past or to my car than riding an hour or more on public transit or waiting at a bus stop in an strange area. It does not block the space to people, people walk right by them all the time the same way they walk by buildings.
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. The time now is 04:22 PM.

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