That’s an interesting idea… increase the tax on the value of the land itself and decrease the tax on assets ON the land.
Theory being people don’t want to put a multi-story building on their land because now they have to pay property taxes on a (potentially) multi-million dollar structure.
Similarly people don’t want to improve their property because of potential tax implications.
It SEEMS like a good idea, but I think the problem with it is tax burden is likely not the only reason for a lack of development.
So if they reduce the taxes and development STILL doesn’t come?
It SEEMS like a good idea, but I think the problem with it is tax burden is likely not the only reason for a lack of development.
Look at it this way. Say you own land now that you’re paying, for example, $1000 per year in taxes on. Next year, because of this law, it’ll be $2500. The hope is that you will either develop or yourself or sell it to someone who will.
Even if the owners just keep sitting on that land, the tax increase on it should make up for the revenue lost on property where taxes have dropped. If it works though, then the tax base should grow as should the economy due to the new construction, homes, and businesses.
But the article mentions several other examples of where this has worked. Not sure if this is survivor bias or not. But dense housing and mixed residential/commercial neighborhoods lead to more community and more desirable housing.
That’s an interesting idea… increase the tax on the value of the land itself and decrease the tax on assets ON the land.
Theory being people don’t want to put a multi-story building on their land because now they have to pay property taxes on a (potentially) multi-million dollar structure.
Similarly people don’t want to improve their property because of potential tax implications.
It SEEMS like a good idea, but I think the problem with it is tax burden is likely not the only reason for a lack of development.
So if they reduce the taxes and development STILL doesn’t come?
Look at it this way. Say you own land now that you’re paying, for example, $1000 per year in taxes on. Next year, because of this law, it’ll be $2500. The hope is that you will either develop or yourself or sell it to someone who will.
Even if the owners just keep sitting on that land, the tax increase on it should make up for the revenue lost on property where taxes have dropped. If it works though, then the tax base should grow as should the economy due to the new construction, homes, and businesses.
But the article mentions several other examples of where this has worked. Not sure if this is survivor bias or not. But dense housing and mixed residential/commercial neighborhoods lead to more community and more desirable housing.
I’d guess parking requirements and zoning laws (to a lesser extent.) fuck things up more then just taxes.
Can’t build that multi story building without another chunk of land for a multi story parking structure next door.