Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Why is no one talking abour Greece?

Expand Messages
  • jdk_maryland_atty
    ... I ve drafted and was able to persuade two different legislators In Maryland to introduce 6 different LVT bills in Maryland over a three year span in the
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:

      > The reason nobody on landcafe is talking about Greece is that the usual suspects prefer to have pettyfogging arguments about depreciation and difficulties of implementing LVT.
      >

      I've drafted and was able to persuade two different legislators In Maryland to introduce 6 different LVT bills in Maryland over a three year span in the mid 200s and persuaded an additional 20+ different legislator to co-sponsor. And I have no doubt I could do it again.

      But getting them out of committee, and actually passed by two houses and signed into law, requires answering some of the nitty gritty questions about whether the assessments are fair and accurate and how they would actually affect voters (primarily homeowners). If a Georgist comes by and tell a legislator that a good amount of improvements are really worth nothing because they've completely or nearly completely depreciated and that the 200K that a home could fetch is really almost all land value instead of the 50K that the assessment office has assigned, well then getting a bill pass into law will be really hard.

      The reality is that most Georgist don't know the first damn thing about how things actually get implemented, they don't know how the political process works, and have zero political "juice". Most have little idea of what data is available and how to use it. Most also can't organize their way out of paper bag.

      They devil is always in the details.
    • roy_langston1
      ... Why? The universal individual exemption ensures that almost all resident owners will be paying less tax. IMO we should not rely on inaccurate assessments
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty"
        <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

        > If a Georgist comes by and tell a legislator that a
        > good amount of improvements are really worth nothing
        > because they've completely or nearly completely
        > depreciated and that the 200K that a home could fetch
        > is really almost all land value instead of the 50K
        > that the assessment office has assigned, well then
        > getting a bill pass into law will be really hard.

        Why? The universal individual exemption ensures that
        almost all resident owners will be paying less tax.
        IMO we should not rely on inaccurate assessments to
        make our case, but rather place our reliance on
        fidelity to the truth, and make our case for justice
        and restoration of the individual right to liberty.

        > They devil is always in the details.

        How true...

        -- Roy Langston
      • John David Kromkowski
        ... I cannot remember who said it but: in God we trust all others bring data. If assessments are bad, first one must show that they are bad and second one
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 8, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:31 PM, roy_langston1 <roy_langston1@...> wrote:


          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "jdk_maryland_atty"
          <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

          > If a Georgist comes by and tell a legislator that a
          > good amount of improvements are really worth nothing
          > because they've completely or nearly completely
          > depreciated and that the 200K that a home could fetch
          > is really almost all land value instead of the 50K
          > that the assessment office has assigned, well then
          > getting a bill pass into law will be really hard.

          Why? The universal individual exemption ensures that
          almost all resident owners will be paying less tax.
          IMO we should not rely on inaccurate assessments to
          make our case, but rather place our reliance on
          fidelity to the truth, and make our case for justice
          and restoration of the individual right to liberty.


          I cannot remember who said it but: "in God we trust all others bring data."

          If assessments are bad, first one must show that they are bad and second one must provide an alternative model which may like the current assessments be tested for its accuracy.

          As Voltaire noted: "Perfection is the enemy of the good." 

          Surely there is some place where the assessments are sufficient to make the case.  Where is that, where is the data, where are the maps, what is the year one effect?

          And by what method do you make the shift of taxing land instead of labor and capital?  Every thing shifted on day one?  Likely, a recipe for quick repeal.  So if one is to gradually do the shift, what do you shift first:  off of improvement taxes, off of sales taxes, off of income taxes?  All a bit at the same time?

          It is long since past the time of general theoretical talking.  Details are required.
        • roy_langston1
          ... Compare transaction prices to assessments. ... BC s Assessment s numbers used to be very good, but in the last few years they have diverged more and more
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 8, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

            > If assessments are bad, first one must show that
            > they are bad and second one must provide an
            > alternative model which may like the current
            > assessments be tested for its accuracy.

            Compare transaction prices to assessments.

            > Surely there is some place where the assessments are
            > sufficient to make the case. Where is that, where
            > is the data, where are the maps, what is the year
            > one effect?

            BC's Assessment's numbers used to be very good, but
            in the last few years they have diverged more and
            more from transaction prices, almost always on the
            low side.

            > And by what method do you make the shift of taxing
            > land instead of labor and capital? Every thing
            > shifted on day one? Likely, a recipe for quick
            > repeal.

            True. It has to be done incrementally, with people
            seeing how they benefit more and more with each
            increment.

            > So if one is to gradually do the shift, what do
            > you shift first: off of improvement taxes, off of
            > sales taxes, off of income taxes? All a bit at
            > the same time?

            IMO detaxing improvements comes first. That gives
            the accurate land assessments needed for subsequent
            steps. Also, there is a clear, simple explanation
            for why the shift is being proposed: property taxes
            are in fact two opposite taxes -- the tax on
            improvement value, which measures what the owner is
            contributing to the wealth of the community, and the
            tax on land value, which measures what the community
            is contributing to the wealth of the landowner. Once
            people get used to this idea, they may start to say,
            "Hey, wait a minute, why are we still giving all that
            wealth to landowners, again?"

            > It is long since past the time of general
            > theoretical talking. Details are required.

            Here's a start:

            http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/langston-roy_toward-rent-recovery.html

            -- Roy Langston
          • John David Kromkowski
            ... But the transaction in urban residential is like 90% of the time, is a land plus improvement transaction. So there are not enough data points without a
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 8, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM, roy_langston1 <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
               

              --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

              > If assessments are bad, first one must show that
              > they are bad and second one must provide an
              > alternative model which may like the current
              > assessments be tested for its accuracy.

              Compare transaction prices to assessments.


              But the transaction in urban residential is like 90% of the time, is a land plus improvement transaction.
              So there are not enough data points without a model for filing in gaps, that model must take into account known improvement value.

               
              > Surely there is some place where the assessments are
              > sufficient to make the case. Where is that, where
              > is the data, where are the maps, what is the year
              > one effect?

              BC's Assessment's numbers used to be very good, but
              in the last few years they have diverged more and
              more from transaction prices, almost always on the
              low side.

              Like all assessment they will be on lower side because no assessor likes to get appealed.

              But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers (not assessors).  They both agreed that for residential property not situated on waterfront, that land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.
               
              > It is long since past the time of general
              > theoretical talking. Details are required.

              Here's a start:

              http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/langston-roy_toward-rent-recovery.html


              What you have written are not really details, at all.

              "Establish site rents through free and transparent market bidding for exclusive use."  That would involve first taking the property from current owners and in the US providing compensation. Zero chance in hell that you could ever do something like that - you propose Washington, DC. Do you know how many lawyers are in DC?
              You have to start with the assessments as they exist.  Do you understand that DC has a class system of property taxation?

              "Local governments should buy up low-density land (especially land within easy walking distance -- 500m, say -- of public transit stations) at the current market price"

              WITH WHAT MONEY WOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BUY UP this land?

              What exactly do you do for a living?



            • roy_langston1
              ... Not really. There is first the ratio between assessed value and transaction price. Averaged over all transactions, it identifies any systematic bias in
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 8, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

                > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM, roy_langston1 <roy_langston1@...>wrote:
                >
                > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David
                > Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@>
                > > wrote:
                > >
                > > > If assessments are bad, first one must show that
                > > > they are bad and second one must provide an
                > > > alternative model which may like the current
                > > > assessments be tested for its accuracy.
                > >
                > > Compare transaction prices to assessments.
                >
                > But the transaction in urban residential is like 90%
                > of the time, is a land plus improvement transaction.
                > So there are not enough data points without a model
                > for filing in gaps, that model must take into account
                > known improvement value.

                Not really. There is first the ratio between assessed
                value and transaction price. Averaged over all
                transactions, it identifies any systematic bias in
                assessments. Then there is the ratio between assessed
                value and transaction price for vacant lots, lots where
                demolition permits have been issued, and lots where
                demolition occurs shortly after the transaction and in
                the absence of significant damage to the improvements
                (such as a fire) or a zoning change. This identifies
                the systematic bias to undervaluing land. Combining
                the two ratios results in a third ratio, the assessed
                land value correction factor, by which assessed land
                value is multiplied to get actual market value.

                > > BC's Assessment's numbers used to be very good, but
                > > in the last few years they have diverged more and
                > > more from transaction prices, almost always on the
                > > low side.
                >
                > Like all assessment they will be on lower side because
                > no assessor likes to get appealed.

                It's more complicated than that, but never mind.

                > But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers
                > (not assessors). They both agreed that for residential
                > property not situated on waterfront, that
                > land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.

                http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?pg=1&source=web&cmid=1104050#/pg-11

                Median listing price of SFD home in Lanham MD:

                $170K

                http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Lanham_MD/type-land?source=web

                Median listing price of SFD lot in Lanham MD:

                $70K

                Land value ratio, 70/170 or about 41%. And that's
                for a small town with a population of about 18K.
                The land value ratio in bigger centers where most
                of the US population lives is much higher. Your
                appraiser friends are just objectively wrong.

                > > > It is long since past the time of general
                > > > theoretical talking. Details are required.
                > >
                > > Here's a start:
                > >
                > > http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/langston-roy_toward-rent-recovery.html
                > >
                > What you have written are not really details, at all.

                I said it was a start. I wanted to provide a plan
                of general applicability that people in any given
                location could use to generate the details appropriate
                to their location.

                > "Establish site rents through free and transparent
                > market bidding for exclusive use." That would
                > involve first taking the property from current
                > owners and in the US providing compensation.

                No, it would not. You just were not reading very
                attentively. The sentence you have quoted is from
                the section devoted to jurisdictions where private
                landowning is not established or is under current
                challenge by government.

                > Zero chance in hell that you could ever do
                > something like that - you propose Washington, DC.

                Look in the next section for the recommended approach
                where private landowning is well established.

                > Do you know how many lawyers are in DC?

                I'm beginning to get an idea...

                > You have to start with the assessments as they exist.
                > Do you understand that DC has a class system of
                > property taxation?

                Let me know if you ever figure out which section of my
                article is relevant to Washington, DC.

                > "Local governments should buy up low-density land
                > (especially land within easy walking distance --
                > 500m, say -- of public transit stations) at the
                > current market price"
                >
                > WITH WHAT MONEY WOULD LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BUY UP this
                > land?

                That depends on local conditions. They have revenue
                from somewhere. Use a bit of it to buy up a low-density
                parcel near a rapid transit station, densify the zoning,
                then sell it back into the market, retaining the publicly
                created capital gain. Now they have lots of money to do
                the same thing again.

                > What exactly do you do for a living?

                I write and edit corporate communications.

                Don't bother telling us what you do for a living.
                That's easy enough to see.

                -- Roy Langston
              • John David Kromkowski
                ... Lanham, MD is a suburb of Washington, DC. I don t see where your links give you the median price. There are only 10 lots for sale. These are the asking
                Message 7 of 10 , Jul 9, 2011
                • 0 Attachment

                  > But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers

                  > (not assessors). They both agreed that for residential
                  > property not situated on waterfront, that
                  > land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.

                  http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?pg=1&source=web&cmid=1104050#/pg-11

                  Median listing price of SFD home in Lanham MD:

                  $170K

                  http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Lanham_MD/type-land?source=web

                  Median listing price of SFD lot in Lanham MD:

                  $70K

                  Land value ratio, 70/170 or about 41%. And that's
                  for a small town with a population of about 18K.
                  The land value ratio in bigger centers where most
                  of the US population lives is much higher. Your
                  appraiser friends are just objectively wrong.


                  Lanham, MD is a suburb of Washington, DC.
                  I don't see where your links give you the median price.  There are only 10 lots for sale.  

                  These are the asking prices.

                  650K  3.82 acres  which would be about 15 quarter acre lots so about 43K
                  90     7101   .16
                  69.9  .26
                  65     7500    .17
                  45     8606   .20
                  42.5  5600    .13
                  39    .26
                  35    .33
                  35    .49
                  29    .26

                  These are the asking prices.  I'd suspect that the sale prices are going to be less.  At least one of them is a foreclosure.  I don't see how you come up with 70K for the median and price.
                  It could be accurate, I just don't know.  It's kind of sloppy to include the 3.8 acre site to determine median.


                  You can get to the assessments from this cite. Lanham is in Prince George's County

                  You can also look at property sales.  In the last year, there haven't been any unimproved lots sold  for maps 44 or 45 which cover most of Lanham.  I just don't have the time right now to figure out and run all of Lanham.

                   
                • roy_langston1
                  ... I just took the middle value, but I can see this is a different set of properties from the one I was looking at before. I don t know how I got them mixed
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jul 9, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

                    > > > But I've just today talked to two Maryland appraisers
                    > > > (not assessors). They both agreed that for residential
                    > > > property not situated on waterfront, that
                    > > > land is usually around 20-35% of the total value.
                    > >
                    > > http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?pg=1&source=web&cmid=1104050#/pg-11
                    > >
                    > > Median listing price of SFD home in Lanham MD:
                    > >
                    > > $170K
                    > >
                    > > http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Lanham_MD/type-land?source=web
                    > >
                    > > Median listing price of SFD lot in Lanham MD:
                    > >
                    > > $70K
                    > >
                    > > Land value ratio, 70/170 or about 41%. And that's
                    > > for a small town with a population of about 18K.
                    > > The land value ratio in bigger centers where most
                    > > of the US population lives is much higher. Your
                    > > appraiser friends are just objectively wrong.
                    >
                    > Lanham, MD is a suburb of Washington, DC.
                    > I don't see where your links give you the median
                    > price. There are only 10 lots for sale.

                    I just took the middle value, but I can see this is
                    a different set of properties from the one I was
                    looking at before. I don't know how I got them mixed
                    up. Sorry, the median price here is $42.5K, which is
                    about 25%, and within the range your appraisers said.
                    My bad.

                    > These are the asking prices. I'd suspect that the
                    > sale prices are going to be less.

                    So are the sale prices of the houses.

                    > At least one of them is a foreclosure. I don't see
                    > how you come up with 70K for the median and price.

                    You're right, I have to eat some crow on that one.

                    > It could be accurate, I just don't know. It's kind
                    > of sloppy to include the 3.8 acre site to determine
                    > median.

                    I wasn't, the properties I was looking at before were
                    different. 3.8 acres is obviously not a SFD lot.

                    I will check some other areas and see what comes up.

                    -- Roy Langston
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.