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, 09:38 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,726,416 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

Tax land, not buildings, to help cities thrive - Opinion - The Boston Globe

"Property taxes today generally consider both land and the buildings on them. But George understood something important: that taxing buildings to some degree discourages new building. Under a land tax, in contrast, a developer pays the same amount if the land is used for a parking lot, a single-family house, or a soaring skyscraper."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2014, 09:50 AM
 
10,991 posts, read 9,388,061 times
Reputation: 6679
Buildings create income. Income pays taxes. You can't get blood from a stone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,432 posts, read 60,007,647 times
Reputation: 54097
What a dumb idea. Next ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:06 AM
 
4,250 posts, read 9,742,525 times
Reputation: 3788
This used to be called the "Harrisburg Plan." (which was actually a two-rate tax with land weighted much more heavily than buildings Land value tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) I guess they don't call it that since Harrisburg went bankrupt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,482 posts, read 11,987,213 times
Reputation: 10579
Pittsburgh was the largest municipality to have a modified Georgist model of property taxation, using the system from 1913 to 2001, where property was taxed at 5.77 times the value of improvements. It was abandoned because it was found to basically result in poor homeowners subsidizing the rich.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:23 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,726,416 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Buildings create income. Income pays taxes. You can't get blood from a stone.
And vacant lots produce nothing. That's the point - encourage land to be developed to its highest and best use instead of land banking and super low intensity parking lots that return nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:26 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,870,275 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
And vacant lots produce nothing. That's the point - encourage land to be developed to its highest and best use instead of land banking and super low intensity parking lots that return nothing.

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:34 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,726,416 times
Reputation: 2538
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.
setting aside issues of blight - a surface parking lot provides a de minimis amount of value. In fact, it's hard to imagine something that would return less value other than simply abandoning the lot altogether.

If you want to encourage development of a higher order, re-write the rules to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:40 AM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,870,275 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
setting aside issues of blight - a surface parking lot provides a de minimis amount of value. In fact, it's hard to imagine something that would return less value other than simply abandoning the lot altogether.

If you want to encourage development of a higher order, re-write the rules to do so.
Nope, surface parking is what attracts customers to stores which in turn generates revenue. People are willing to pay for surface parking in downtown and other places because driving is sometimes the best option for the day. Oak park, a burb has parking lots that generate revenue and the City of Chicago used to own them before they privatized them.

Parking lots near Metra station in one or two burbs of Chicago can have wait lists and people also pay for parking there. Heck there is paid parking for an Metra station not far from where I live and my area isn't that dense. Parking can generate plenty of revenue in the right instances.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:42 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,972 posts, read 42,293,666 times
Reputation: 43459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
And vacant lots produce nothing. That's the point - encourage land to be developed to its highest and best use instead of land banking and super low intensity parking lots that return nothing.
You don't develop anything without there being a demand for it. Owners don't usually sit on empty property for the fun of it, they sit on it because there's no demand for "highest, best use".

This plan is one which, if implemented will result in the total devastation of any green space, setbacks or bulk limits, totally destroying any sense of perspective in smaller towns (which are the locales George aims at). We've had elected officials here propose this a few times. They've all lost the next election.

The idea, which isn't feasible, is that owners will build-anything- to avoid high tax rates. Just as a note, this idea is one contributor to sprawl-tax farmland at developed rates to encourage the farmers to sell out to developers.

Don't you get tired trotting out discredited ideas with no grounding in reality?
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