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.
So (and, I'm in no way an expert, just a casual observer), I'd say first look at the demographics of your community, and determine what they would need and use -- not what's necessarily going to be "exciting".
I was going to say the same thing. It really depends on the community. Some people like small towns because there isn't really an "exciting" vibe going on. It's a quiet, relaxing place. Some, not all, of those people say that because the city is where all the "exciting" stuff happens (and that also brings crime). They like the idea of going out of the city and the "exciting" areas to relax at home, or maybe they're visiting this small town on the weekend because they want a relaxing day, not some "exciting" thing going on.
I think taxing long-term vacant spaces is a great idea. Vacant lots are a blight that crowds out investment and lowers property values for the entire city, speculators shouldn't be allowed to sit in the middle of downtown and waste space.
??? and what is the point of higher property values from the perspective of a city? Not everyone has a goal of paying higher taxes just cause. Just because you have a problem with open space does not mean that the open space constitutes 'blight' nor has it "crowded out investment". The property owner should be entitled to do exactly what they want to do with the property - not fulfill someone else's dreams of congestion and hamster-style living.
BTW the city hasn't lost anything tax-wise. The city gets to decide what it needs and it knows what the aggregate appraised value is. It's not hard to come up with a percentage that results in the tax yield the city seeks irrespective of whether a particular lot is developed or not.
Downtown housing. Turn those vacant spaces upstairs from the vacant downtown stores back into apartments, and suddenly there's a customer base for the downtown stores that haven't closed yet.
That doesn't bring other people into downtown, though.
??? and what is the point of higher property values from the perspective of a city? Not everyone has a goal of paying higher taxes just cause. Just because you have a problem with open space does not mean that the open space constitutes 'blight' nor has it "crowded out investment". The property owner should be entitled to do exactly what they want to do with the property - not fulfill someone else's dreams of congestion and hamster-style living.
BTW the city hasn't lost anything tax-wise. The city gets to decide what it needs and it knows what the aggregate appraised value is. It's not hard to come up with a percentage that results in the tax yield the city seeks irrespective of whether a particular lot is developed or not.
Lots of low-value property (which blighted or empty lots are) means much higher tax rates to produce the tax yield the city needs.
Which means anyone owning a functional property winds up paying much higher taxes than they'd pay in a town where there were less blighted/empty lots.
And that becomes a death spiral, no one will move into the nice properties because the taxes are double what they are in the developed town, so values keep going down and tax rates keep going up.
Lots of low-value property (which blighted or empty lots are) means much higher tax rates to produce the tax yield the city needs.
1. It's not the objective or duty of property owners to pay higher taxes. If you are going to have an ad valorem tax then the deal is you pay taxes on the appraised value of the property - not that you have an obligation to add structures in order to create a tax liability.
2. "Much higher"? Maybe one should question exactly what the 'need' is. Certainly it is not to serve the property you wish to discriminate against. It's doubtful the tax rate is that much higher. Property owners have no obligation to build structures on their property solely so that they can then be taxed for the benefit of an entity that really doesn't represent their interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerm277
Which means anyone owning a functional property winds up paying much higher taxes than they'd pay in a town where there were less blighted/empty lots.
Causation is problematic. Doubtful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerm277
And that becomes a death spiral, no one will move into the nice properties because the taxes are double what they are in the developed town, so values keep going down and tax rates keep going up.
A case of sounds logical but doesn't reflect reality. Certainly it hasn't reflected reality anywhere I've ever been. For starters, the taxes don't end up being "double" what they are in the "developed" town because the developed town real estate prices are already stratospheric compared to the smaller town. People will live in the smaller town because they prefer it financially or otherwise. Home prices are a fraction of what they would be in the "developed" town. The smaller town or less developed area doesn't have near the number of people trying to tax everyone either. For example, you don't find urbanophiles trying to add taxes to create rail projects in small towns/less developed areas. It may be hard to believe but not everyone wants to live in density, high tax areas, or to have hamster-style living.
??? and what is the point of higher property values from the perspective of a city? Not everyone has a goal of paying higher taxes just cause. Just because you have a problem with open space does not mean that the open space constitutes 'blight' nor has it "crowded out investment". The property owner should be entitled to do exactly what they want to do with the property - not fulfill someone else's dreams of congestion and hamster-style living.
BTW the city hasn't lost anything tax-wise. The city gets to decide what it needs and it knows what the aggregate appraised value is. It's not hard to come up with a percentage that results in the tax yield the city seeks irrespective of whether a particular lot is developed or not.
To my mind, it's not about tax revenue, it's about encouraging development. A city is a community space where the value of each lot depends on adjacent lots, that's more or less the definition of a city. The general populace has every right to enforce standards on property owners.
And we're talking about small-town downtowns, right? That's nothing to do with congestion or hamster-style living. Don't conflate high density with good design; they're two separate concepts, notwithstanding the recent trend of sprawling low-density, low-quality developments. There are numerous rural and suburban communities that are well-designed, generally ones built a hundred years ago.
To my mind, it's not about tax revenue, it's about encouraging development. A city is a community space where the value of each lot depends on adjacent lots, that's more or less the definition of a city. The general populace has every right to enforce standards on property owners.
You have a strange definition of "city". A city is a political subdivision of the state. A city is NOT a "community space". The value of lots do not necessarily depend on adjacent lots. But even if they did there is no obligation on a lot owner to improve their lot for the benefit of non-owners or owners of adjacent properties. Indeed there is no reason why a property owner can't create an improvement that you believe would arguably devalue neighboring properties. "Higher values for others" is NOT a duty that a property owner has to fulfill. The "general populace" is not "the city" either.
A political subdivision of the state has no right to create a standard that demands that a property owner develop or place improvements on their property (outside of health/safety or in relation to an improvement that is already there such as requiring a fence around a pool). This is the United States of America cities not cities in the People's Republic of Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller
And we're talking about small-town downtowns, right? That's nothing to do with congestion or hamster-style living. Don't conflate high density with good design; they're two separate concepts, notwithstanding the recent trend of sprawling low-density, low-quality developments. There are numerous rural and suburban communities that are well-designed, generally ones built a hundred years ago.
If by "recent" do you mean on a geological timescale? Subdivisions with decent-sized housing, yards, and personal space have been being developed for many, many decades. Such development is not "recent".
The only "recent" movement has been by a vocal minority that promotes cramming more stuff into smaller places. Their objective does equate to congestion and hamster-style housing.
The term "general populace" is as ephemeral as "community" and it seems you are simply using another word for a non-existent entity. In any event, there is no right for a city much less the "general populace" to obligate a property owner to build something on his/her property to appease the city or the general populace.
This does seem like an illegitimate fee and unlawful tax.... Sounds like a law that is due for a challenge.
It's pretty much a standard property tax, and is pretty common. If you google vacant property tax, you'll find 100's of instances where this has been applied. Of course, there's a lot more to it than just the base mentioned above. For example, this tax would only be applied as a last resort and after all of the proper channels have been gone through.
Generally, these are combined with incentive programs. We have part of this process put in place locally; if a building becomes vacant, we have an organization that will help market it if the building is in good standing. If the building does not meet building codes, then we have a grant program that will help the owner get them up to code. They'll meet with code enforcement to develop a cost-productive plan.
The purpose of the vacant property tax is to force the "deadbeat" property owners to do something. Even if it's just opening up dialog, that would be better than nothing. However, even with the incentives, there are some property owners that refuse to do anything. The properties they own are not only a blight, but they also become a safety/fire hazard. Extra city resources are spent on these properties. Instead of having the public pay higher taxes for these, the owner should be wholly responsible.
To clarify as well, the properties are all commercial and part of the downtown area. I believe they have different things for residential properties and for commercial/industrial that are outside of the downtown area, but I've never looked in to those.
My small town (20,000 people within the Boulder/Greeley CO MSA) started a "Street Faire"... Most of the businesses downtown are restaurants and boutique-y type places.
This is something that we have been looking at doing. We started a farmer's market last year, which has done very well. With that success, we've talked about expanding it in to a block party.
For funding, I would imagine that they got a few of the local businesses to sponsor it, then probably a merchants fee. Maybe.. but it's a great idea!
We do festivals and such as well, but I'm looking more towards "constant" excitement downtown. We're just now starting to bring in the "trendy" type of shops and restaurants. Hopefully that will help.
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.
