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, 10:02 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,859,209 times
Reputation: 1439

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post

My own property taxes, at present, are laughably low. I don't even like to talk to my suburban friends about it because they just get mad. But part of the reason my taxes are so low is because the city takes its pound of flesh out of my paycheck. Still, even if you took all of my wage tax and transferred it to my property tax my total bill would still be less than my suburban friends who have smaller houses than I do.

I'm glad that my taxes are so low but, big picture, it's kind of ridiculous to be as close to the subway as I am and as close to City Hall as I am and have everything within a half mile radius of the subway be zoned single-family residential - granted, it's all rowhomes so it's dense, and I certainly wouldn't want to see historic neighborhoods bulldozed to make way for towers but, at least in theory subways are a huge investment and cities should make the most of that investment by fully utilizing them (at present the subway is running at about 1/2 capacity).
Not everything in an city needs to be apartment buildings and some downtowns are hot for different reasons than being close to city hall. The subway was put in for use of the people of the city. How many people it caries is going to be driven by where it goes and how much demand there is for public transit to those locations.

Where I live burbs often have higher property taxes and better schools but it is an case of the well off voting for increased taxes on themselves because they know it will fund the schools. I don't think a land value tax is an smart move it seems to punish SFH owners to reward the land lords. The way to get density is for there to be a reason for that density to exist in the first place outside of taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2014, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,063 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Seattle is super centralized, especially for the the Western US. Sprawly Sacramento has about 20%. Seattle's really got an awesome downtown.

Quote:
a parking lot and garage yield far less land revenue per land in the current tax system. Does that make sense? It still takes up scarce land while paying much less tax.
Yes, it makes perfect sense. Property tax has always been a tax on the value of the land and a tax on improvements. More improved land typically generates more ability to pay for taxes as well as requires more services. As it is now, Amazon is sinking in several billion dollars into real estate: $1.1 From Phase I - VI, VII and VIII are ~$260, the new HQ will be several billion. Right now doesn't matter where they build, they're going to be paying property taxes on all those improvements. Under a land tax, all of a sudden you're not. The cornfields start looking might attractive. And remember, with a land tax alone it would have to be raised drastically over what it is now to be revenue neutral.

Desirable cities with high land prices don't have parking lot problems. Seattle is the land of disappearing parking lots as it is. Escala (across the street) opened in 2007? The next door neighbor is Avis and an abandoned building next to that. Amazon is buying up blocks at a time not far away. As a parking lot, the place was worth less than $7.5 million (presuming the bank wanted to better its position by selling, which is a pretty safe assumption). As a hotel, someone thinks it's worth at least $16.5 million. Previously someone though it was worth $30 million. That plan didn't fall apart because the parking lot owner refused to sell. It fell apart because the developer went belly up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:40 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
but like I said, land value tax proponents don't see it as a problem that single-family uses are taxed out.
Because they wouldn't be.

Not all land is taxed at the same rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 11:58 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,955,202 times
Reputation: 1953
[quote=Ohiogirl81;33388885]

Quote:
Your property taxes are so low because Philadelphia has mismanaged its property assessments for decades
You don't know what you're talking about and it would take more than skimming through one article to figure it out. The assessments have only become an issue in the last decade due to soaring property values. If you read my previous posts in this thread you'd understand why the city (mostly the mayor) is eager to change it.


Quote:
and because the Philadelphia school district is not financially independent of municipal government as are school districts in the suburbs. My school board can raise property taxes whenever it damn well pleases; yours cannot.

Philly lags other cities in school funding | Philadelphia Public School Notebook
The PSD isn't independent because it's run by the Commonwealth. PSD does levy its own taxes - all the city does is collect them and hand them over - but if you read the article you'd know that. The reason council is annoyed with Corbett and doesn't want to help is because the State has run the school system into the ground while they try to privatize it. The state broke it - why should the city bail them out?

Quote:
When and if Philadelphia catches up to the 21st Century, you'll be singing a different tune.
Ha. Again, no clue about the past, present or future of the tax regime in Philly.

Quote:
Don't be so smug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,111 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
An LVT can only really work where there are strict land use controls. The theory is that urban land derives most of its value from infrastructure improvements. If you're next to robust infrastructure you derive more of the benefits, you should be paying for a bigger portion of the ticket.

Of course, it doesn't work when you're in a region with a shrinking population and/or when a homeowner or business can cross the street to a different tax regime in a different municipality. So indeed, in a place like Pittsburgh, where the population has been shrinking, where property taxes from homeowners are carrying the town in the first place and where most new office buildings are popping up out by the airport of course a shift to LVT is going to adversely impact homeowners.
Pittsburgh's population isn't shrinking. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 11:24 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,003 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
Pittsburgh's population isn't shrinking. Try again.
Pittsburgh and its metro area shrunk every census from 1970 to 2010. There are signs that the city is growing again, although very slowly.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 11:42 AM
 
3,438 posts, read 4,732,531 times
Reputation: 5402
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Not everything in an city needs to be apartment buildings and some downtowns are hot for different reasons than being close to city hall. The subway was put in for use of the people of the city. How many people it caries is going to be driven by where it goes and how much demand there is for public transit to those locations.

Where I live burbs often have higher property taxes and better schools but it is an case of the well off voting for increased taxes on themselves because they know it will fund the schools. I don't think a land value tax is an smart move it seems to punish SFH owners to reward the land lords. The way to get density is for there to be a reason for that density to exist in the first place outside of taxes.

Second paragraph.....last sentence of the post............BINGO !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
91 posts, read 147,111 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Pittsburgh and its metro area shrunk every census from 1970 to 2010. There are signs that the city is growing again, although very slowly.

Pittsburgh, PA MSA Population and Components of Change -- Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University Home
Not denying that the metro area shrunk every census from 1970 to 2010...just refuting the tired old notion that Pittsburgh isn't growing. The statement to be refuted was made by a poster who's a Philly booster and either has disdain for Pittsburgh or otherwise just hasn't been here in a long time.

Philly's metro area population grew 0.90% in the period between April 2010 and July 2012. Pittsburgh's grew 0.19% in that same period. Not a big difference. But the growth is there, unlike metro areas like Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo, which, with continued population losses, would have been better examples for the poster drive carephilly.

Pittsburgh has traditionally had an older population—and that of course means there's a high death rate, which leads to a loss of population—but the population is skewing younger again, in-part due to increasing migration to the area by younger adults. That's helping the upward trend that the city and metro area have seen since the mid- to late-2000s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 12:27 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,932,349 times
Reputation: 18050
In time you likely would face over development of land. Land with no development is not a bad thing. Too many cities have over developed IMO. Overall the population continues to age in US; western Europe ; Japan and China.In some ways the boomers moving out as they retire encourages younger people to move into cities at there cheaper cost especially older cities that loss a lot of population. Doesn't mean the money need comes with them to large degreewhich is one of problem in those who over developed infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 12:30 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,003 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
Not denying that the metro area shrunk every census from 1970 to 2010...just refuting the tired old notion that Pittsburgh isn't growing. The statement to be refuted was made by a poster who's a Philly booster and either has disdain for Pittsburgh or otherwise just hasn't been here in a long time.

Philly's metro area population grew 0.90% in the period between April 2010 and July 2012. Pittsburgh's grew 0.19% in that same period. Not a big difference. But the growth is there, unlike metro areas like Cleveland, Detroit, and Buffalo, which, with continued population losses, would have been better examples for the poster drive carephilly.

Pittsburgh has traditionally had an older population—and that of course means there's a high death rate, which leads to a loss of population—but the population is skewing younger again, in-part due to increasing migration to the area by younger adults. That's helping the upward trend that the city and metro area have seen since the mid- to late-2000s.
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.
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