- Jun 1, 2006I agree wholeheartedly, but would like to point out that *part* of the
problem is allowing landowners to collect the benefit of public
infrastructure (transit, schools, public safety, utilites, etc.) in the form
of increased rents or increased land values. Each of these public
investments increases the value of land in it's cachement area, and is not
necessarily recaptured in increased property, income, sales, or other taxes.
The one tax that does directly capture this increase in value, the
property tax (assessed against land values) is also, unfortunately, assessed
against building values - in fact punishing those who would build more.
I believe zoning is still necessary, to some degree, though I think that if
the majority of such value increases were collected, the zoning would be
much more 'understandable' to people like us: creatign public greenspace in
the form of parks, in the right amount, would create more value adjacent to
the parks than would be lost from being tax-exempt. I believe a similar
effect would occur adjacent to agricultural zoning areas.
I do believe that maximum density laws, when not done for agricultural
purposes, are merely to keep the riff-raff out.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>