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

local optimization

Expand Messages
  • Sean Brooks
    I agree wholeheartedly, but would like to point out that *part* of the problem is allowing landowners to collect the benefit of public infrastructure (transit,
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I 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.

      Sean
    • Richard Risemberg
      ... Land-value taxation--the Henry George type of thing--encourages building by taxing the values that accrue to property from both private and public
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        >From: Sean Brooks <seanbrooks@...>
        >Sent: Jun 1, 2006 8:15 AM
        >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [carfree_cities] local optimization
        >
        >
        >I 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.
        >
        Land-value taxation--the Henry George type of thing--encourages building by taxing the values that accrue to property from both private and public improvements to the neighborhood. A vacant lot gets taxed as much as a built one, because it's value is increased by the value of the neighborhood as a whole.

        RR
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.