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

RE: Land-value capture in Washington

Expand Messages
  • Lloyd Wright
    Dear Dave, I completely agree with you that an annual location levy would be a preferred mechanism. It would provide a steady revenue stream as you point out,
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 15 12:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Dave,

      I completely agree with you that an annual location levy would be a preferred
      mechanism. It would provide a steady revenue stream as you point out, and it
      would also address certain equity issues.

      However, to make it happen, it seems like one would really have to reform the
      entire national property tax system. This would certainly be a positive
      development, but this would be an enormous undertaking (and well beyond any
      amount of political influence that most of us could achieve).

      The interesting aspect of the Washington example is that it does get around
      some of the previous problems with taxing an "event". And the revenue stream
      problem is not too bad in this case since the both the tax revenues and the
      infrastructure costs occur around the same time horizon. But I agree that
      reforming property tax to be more of a location levy would be a better

      Best regards,


      Lloyd Wright
      Gakushin Fellow
      Osaka University
      Osaka, Japan

      Bartlett School of Planning
      University College London
      London, UK

      ------ Original Message ------
      Received: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:12:03 AM EST
      From: Wetzel Dave <Davewetzel@...>
      To: 'Lloyd Wright' <lfwright@...>, "'worldtransport@yahoogroups.com'"
      <worldtransport@yahoogroups.com>, "'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]'"
      Subject: RE: Land-value capture in Washington

      Many thanks for this interesting example Lloyd.
      The reasons I give for an annual location levy on land values (see attached
      article from current issue of Estates Gazette), in preference to a one-off
      payment is that the levy will give a permanent income stream that not only
      helps pay for the building of the line but also pays towards the annual
      running costs and future refurbs of the line.

      Also, a one-off payment now will not collect future land value increases
      that the community is likely to be responsible for in the future.

      Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Lloyd Wright [mailto:lfwright@...]
      Sent: 14 March 2005 02:49
      To: Wetzel Dave; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Land-value capture in Washington

      An interesting twist on land-value capture in order to finance transit. The
      extension of the DC Metrorail is being partly funded by businesses in
      for changes in zoning laws. The private developers provide upfront project
      finance in exchange for being able to increase development densities.
      Washington Post article:


      The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
      intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
      addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability
      as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached
      transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you
      have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
      printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

      If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
      presence of computer viruses.

      > ---------------------------------------------
      > Attachment: Estates Gazette DW Mar 2005.pdf
      > MIME Type: application/octet-stream
      > ---------------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.