4 ms·

It's not just the land that is serviced though. Aren't the infrastructure and service needs (fire department for example) different for no building vs. a one s

It's not just the land that is serviced though. Aren't the infrastructure and service needs (fire department for example) different for no building vs. a one story building vs. a forty story building?

rocqua 8y ago
Perhaps, but thats an argument for occupancy based tax, not building-value based tax.
- tchaffee 8y ago
  How so? An empty 40 story building surely takes a larger fire department and more sophisticated city planning than an fully occupied one story average house?
huffmsa 8y ago
That should be covered in the land zoning code. Land where you're allowed to build a 40 story building should be more valuable than one where you can only build single story. As well, the taxes on sales in the increased number of stores / sales of leases / income tax revenue from the increased number of residents should cover the increase in service costs. If they don't, you're not running an efficient government. (Ha. Efficient government).
- tchaffee 8y ago
  So if I want to maintain a one story building on land that is zoned for a 40 story building, I have to pay extra taxes even though I'm not using extra services? Seems to me like the best policy would be taking both into consideration.
  - huffmsa 8y ago
    You're thinking like an academic in a glass tower and not a real human. You wouldn't buy the property unless you had plans to develop it into something. Unless you're the kind of fool who buys 128gb RAM and only uses 4gb of it. The price of an item should reflect it's use and probable ROI.
    - tchaffee 8y ago
      I own and develop property. Who looks like the fool now? Please keep it civil. Hacker News is not the place for put downs, two of which you've included in your short response.
  - zeveb 8y ago
    Yes, because that's the land's actual value. This is why land-value taxes are unpopular: small landowners (e.g. Mom & Dad) want to be able to hold onto their small single-family homes instead of being forced to sell to a developer who would build a multi-family dwelling. Cf. Prop 13 in California.
    - tchaffee 8y ago
      But why the insistence on taxing land at it's full value while ignoring what's on the land? High taxes on just the land force me to sell and to improve the property. High taxes on just the house can force me to not improve. Neither seems ideal. What would be ideal to me is a good balance that rewards improvements without punishing those who don't want improvements. Especially if the owner lives there.

rocqua 8y ago

Perhaps, but thats an argument for occupancy based tax, not building-value based tax.

tchaffee 8y ago
How so? An empty 40 story building surely takes a larger fire department and more sophisticated city planning than an fully occupied one story average house?

huffmsa 8y ago

That should be covered in the land zoning code. Land where you're allowed to build a 40 story building should be more valuable than one where you can only build single story. As well, the taxes on sales in the increased number of stores / sales of leases / income tax revenue from the increased number of residents should cover the increase in service costs. If they don't, you're not running an efficient government. (Ha. Efficient government).

tchaffee 8y ago
So if I want to maintain a one story building on land that is zoned for a 40 story building, I have to pay extra taxes even though I'm not using extra services? Seems to me like the best policy would be taking both into consideration.
- huffmsa 8y ago
  You're thinking like an academic in a glass tower and not a real human. You wouldn't buy the property unless you had plans to develop it into something. Unless you're the kind of fool who buys 128gb RAM and only uses 4gb of it. The price of an item should reflect it's use and probable ROI.
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    I own and develop property. Who looks like the fool now? Please keep it civil. Hacker News is not the place for put downs, two of which you've included in your short response.
- zeveb 8y ago
  Yes, because that's the land's actual value. This is why land-value taxes are unpopular: small landowners (e.g. Mom & Dad) want to be able to hold onto their small single-family homes instead of being forced to sell to a developer who would build a multi-family dwelling. Cf. Prop 13 in California.
  - tchaffee 8y ago
    But why the insistence on taxing land at it's full value while ignoring what's on the land? High taxes on just the land force me to sell and to improve the property. High taxes on just the house can force me to not improve. Neither seems ideal. What would be ideal to me is a good balance that rewards improvements without punishing those who don't want improvements. Especially if the owner lives there.