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.
That's not a counterpoint, which is status quo for you. Mudslinging and name calling and misdirection instead of thoughtful discussion.
Actually it was an observation about proponents of these and similar schemes. They are not owners but rather want to place burdens on everyone else in order to achieve personal aesthetic and similar preferences. Lots of them in urban planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
There's nothing that says a person who cares isn't also a business or property owner in the concerned area.
And it is in the best interest of residents, business, and property owners--none of which are mutually exclusive from the others--to ensure that their cities are as generally prosperous as possible.
Not really. That would be the dream of people that want to go work for the city government, not the taxpayers. You need to distinguish between the cities and the people that live or own property there. They are not the same thing. Under your theory everyone would be happy being fined and taxed to oblivion because the city would be prosperous under such a regime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
These properties and businesses do not exist in a vacuum, but are part of a larger community; the choices of one can raise up or drag down others. To that end, we use zoning, permitting, and fees; these are not a new invention and are the rule, not the exception.
"Larger community" does not mean rule by mob nor rule by tyrannical minority (city council). I invite you to go back and read the thread. The proponent was suggesting imposing fines against business property owners who did not improve their properties as commanded by local government. The fines would then be the basis for "taking the property away from the owner", i.e., a euphemism for foreclosing on the owner. "Zoning, permitting, and fees" illustrates you did not read the thread nor the schemes promoted by the OP. This was not a zoning, permitting, or fee issue whatsoever. Last time I looked, government needed to PAY money, namely just compensation, when it wanted to take property for alleged public purpose.
Curious about how a town can raise taxes only on vacant property. Could you explain further, cab591?
That was a proposal by some economist about 15 or 20 years ago. I don't remember what it was called but the idea was to squeeze the owners of vacant property so they'd develop it. The idea was that as the property went through the process of site plan approval, permitting, etc. that the tax rate would decrease as the property value went up.
I don't know of any jurisdiction adopting it and I haven't heard any more about it for 10 years or so.
OP:
You have a chicken/egg situation. You want to attract tourists to your town and you need businesses to do so. But businesses won't open up because there are no tourists.
One thing all businesses look at (or should) is if the local area can support the business year round to at least a minimal level when the tourists aren't there.
"Larger community" does not mean rule by mob nor rule by tyrannical minority (city council). I invite you to go back and read the thread. The proponent was suggesting imposing fines against business property owners who did not improve their properties as commanded by local government. The fines would then be the basis for "taking the property away from the owner", i.e., a euphemism for foreclosing on the owner. "Zoning, permitting, and fees" illustrates you did not read the thread nor the schemes promoted by the OP. This was not a zoning, permitting, or fee issue whatsoever. Last time I looked, government needed to PAY money, namely just compensation, when it wanted to take property for alleged public purpose.
You ignored the gist of what I was saying: zoning, permitting, fees, and fines are the very things enacted because properties don't exist in a vacuum and the community, inevitably, wants a say. No way around that.
We have, and have had for some times, such systems for fining property owners in place in local governments and in HOAs. And these aren't takings--the city isn't taking your property, but its actions--fines and liens--lead to the bank foreclosing on it. Do I agree with these systems? No, I find their use to be more for petty grievances and personal power than anything else. But, they do exist and there's no point in denying it.
That was a proposal by some economist about 15 or 20 years ago. I don't remember what it was called but the idea was to squeeze the owners of vacant property so they'd develop it. The idea was that as the property went through the process of site plan approval, permitting, etc. that the tax rate would decrease as the property value went up.
I don't know of any jurisdiction adopting it and I haven't heard any more about it for 10 years or so.
OP:
You have a chicken/egg situation. You want to attract tourists to your town and you need businesses to do so. But businesses won't open up because there are no tourists.
One thing all businesses look at (or should) is if the local area can support the business year round to at least a minimal level when the tourists aren't there.
Do you mean land value taxation? If so, this has been promoted by economists to deal with developers who hold on to empty lots and parking lots in cities (of all densities, low and high) because it is cheaper for the owner to pay low, low assessed property taxes and wait for right moment to cash out. Holding out makes sense to the property owner--taxes are cheap on undeveloped properties and the payoff will be huge--but this is generally harmful to the health of the city, both as a tax-collecting (property and sales) government unit and as a collection of residents and business owners. IE, a downtown with too many empty and parking lots may not have the "interest" to generate meaningful business activity.
Who is going to attend these, assuming we're talking about small towns in rural areas? I don't mean that rural people don't like cultural events, but there has to be a critical mass to make such an undertaking worthwhile.
It may depend on if this community is a regional hub and "cultural" events could be in relation to the area. So, if this Oklahoma town has a Native American presence, why not have a festival in the Downtown area of this town? That is just an example, but that is what I meant in terms of in relation to that town.
You ignored the gist of what I was saying: zoning, permitting, fees, and fines are the very things enacted because properties don't exist in a vacuum and the community, inevitably, wants a say. No way around that.
We have, and have had for some times, such systems for fining property owners in place in local governments and in HOAs. And these aren't takings--the city isn't taking your property, but its actions--fines and liens--lead to the bank foreclosing on it.
The bank foreclosing on it? No, the CITY foreclosing on it. Go back and read the OP's post. And HOAs are not governments by the way. The taking is the pretext of "fines" to force owners to improve property or a taxing system that somehow imposes a greater tax on properties of lower value because the tax is based on aesthetic preference. These are not normal in any sense of the word. "Community" is not a person, it is an abstract concept with no rights or standing whatsoever.
Sounds like a method of wealth transfer for socialists.
Instead of arguing this, how about I put a list of cities that do this exact same thing?
Oklahoma City, which is where I learned about the concept.
How about a few bigger cities - San Fransisco? That's right, it's called an anti-blight law. Pittsburgh? There's another - it's called the Vacant Property Recovery Program. Atlanta, Georgia? It's part of what is known as "Griffin's laws".
Here's a couple others from Georgia: Albany, Georgia has the Community Redevelopment Tax Incentive Program or “Blight Tax”. Perry, Georgia.. there's another.
All socialists, apparently.
How about some research papers done on it? The University at Albany did a large study on it in which they'll go over findings at the 2015 POP conference. Trinity College in HartfordSan Francisco
did a study named Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement reform. This was back in 1997.
Again, socialists? I highly doubt it.
The point is, this is a program that many, many cities across the United States have adopted for their deteriorating downtown districts. Each one of them is geared towards issues that are predominate in their particular region. The legalities are sound and most states have a clause in their constitutions specifically addressing the issue.
This is a good, solid program. Yes, it helps the aesthetics of a given downtown area, but that's not the primary reason for the law. The primary reason is to ensure that a building is structurally sound and properly maintained. As far as taking possession of the building, this is a better option than simply condemning the building and tearing it down. The revenue raised from the taxes is generally put in a specific fund to repair these buildings and bring them up to code. Once the building is fixed, if the owner wants to come back within a two year time frame and repay back taxes owed plus cost of repairs, then they can take possession of the building again. Once that two year term as passed, it goes out on a tax sale.
The bottom line: Look it up.. It's not a new trend, but it is having a substantial positive impact on towns that have adopted these types of tax ordinances.
You have a chicken/egg situation. You want to attract tourists to your town and you need businesses to do so. But businesses won't open up because there are no tourists.
One thing all businesses look at (or should) is if the local area can support the business year round to at least a minimal level when the tourists aren't there.
That's always been the problem with these small towns, it seems.
To lay out what we have done, simply..
First thing was first, we did a lot of research on the town. We found a lot of interesting historical facts that has helped us to bring in tourism.
For instance, we have a bank that was robbed by Bonnie and Clyde. It was one of those things that most people didn't know about. We found documentation and have been able to put the specifics together as to what happened.
We also learned that Belle Starr, the James gang, and the Younger gang used to frequent the "old" town. We also have the first Indian Territory federal courthouse.
Next, we cleaned up downtown. This meant painting buildings, pulling weeds, general type of stuff that is labor intensive, but doesn't require a whole lot of revenue.
Then we started promoting the history of downtown, and created a few events around that. We filmed a Bonnie and Clyde reenactment.. we did an old pioneer festival where we had the gangs "roam" through town. That started generating excitement - it got people curious.
Concurrently, we put together a demographics booklet to help market new businesses. We also talked to the building owners about reducing their rents to help get the buildings filled. With rent reduced to $200 and $300 a month, it helped a lot of new businesses get started. Our requirement was that they had to go through a training program where we taught them how to do business plans, financial plans, etc.. once they got "certified", then they were eligible for the lower rent.
We started off with a 72% vacancy rate. The number of vacant buildings was unreal. By using this approach, we now have over 80% of the buildings filled.
As more people moved in, we were able to raise more money to do more improvements. We just finished adding new ADA compliant sidewalks downtown and are 3/4 of the way through refurbishing the town square. We've seen property valuations increase.
Still, there's not a whole lot of tourism, but it is increasing.
You're absolutely right about sustainable businesses. We've taken the approach that downtown is a (very) large outdoor mall. We've tried to bring in unique businesses that fill a niche market that has been previously untapped. As an example, we had a motorcycle accessories shop move in last year. With the mountains in the region, we have a lot of bikers pass through. This is the only shop within an hours drive. It's unique enough to be interesting, but sustainable because of the amount of bikes traveling through.
It's been interesting, and certainly a challenge. But that's what has me curious as to what other towns have done.
What about having cultural events Downtown throughout the warmer months?
We have several of these. Our car show drew in 10,000 people last year from several states away. The problem is that these are single events - they don't increase excitement all throughout the year.
A thought may be to have more smaller events with only a couple larger events. Smaller events would be something like music in the park on Fridays.. But are people coming downtown to listen to the music only, or would they shop as well.
What about having cultural events Downtown throughout the warmer months?
Right.
I wonder what it is like in Sturgis, SD when the bikers are not there?
What is it like in Moab, Utah, after Easter Jeep Week, or during the winter?
What is it like in ANY small town near a tourist attraction, after the tourist season?
You want "culture"? Try the Black Hills Passion Play in Spearfish, South Dakota.
Oh, wait, you can't; it closed in 2008 after a 70 year run.
Somebody bought the amphitheater in 2012, but I haven't heard a thing about it since.
I wonder how Spearfish is holding up without those tourists...
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.
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.
