4 ms·

It’s bad news for farmers that are farming in the middle of a city, yes. But farms in rural areas will hardly get taxed at all, because the land couldn’t be use

It’s bad news for farmers that are farming in the middle of a city, yes. But farms in rural areas will hardly get taxed at all, because the land couldn’t be used for much else, so has very little intrinsic value. Land value taxes adjust based on how desirable a plot is: basically, you get to keep any value you generate above and beyond the value the society surrounding the land gave it. If you leave a plot of land empty in downtown, you’re preventing someone else from using that plot productively, and adding a net negative cost to the surrounding properties. So you should be taxed accordingly.

skybrian 5y ago
I’m wondering how this is supposed to interact with zoning? There is a lot of agriculturally-zoned land in California that would turn into housing developments pretty quick if it weren’t illegal. It’s typically in a nice-looking area near some water or a park, not in the middle of a city. If you keep the zoning then maybe the land isn’t worth that much, but if property taxes were based on the “true” land value then it would mean farmers sell out faster to create sprawl.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Agricultural-zoned land would be cheaper. I would rip up urban zoning with an LVT to ensure density, but keep the agricultural zoning because we can't eat skyscrapers.
  - dodobirdlord 5y ago
    There is no actual tradeoff between availability of food and availability of skyscrapers. Even if we actively tried, we couldn’t run out of agricultural land in the US by building on it.
- nybble41 5y ago
  The only reasonable way to account for zoning would be to require the zoning board to actually buy the property and pay the associated taxes. Then they can lease out their own property with whatever restrictions they want. Without the benefit of subsidies or eminent domain, naturally—if they want to expand their reach they'll need to raise that money through the revenues from leases (less income tax and other overhead), with restrictive zoning rules limiting their revenues.

skybrian 5y ago

I’m wondering how this is supposed to interact with zoning? There is a lot of agriculturally-zoned land in California that would turn into housing developments pretty quick if it weren’t illegal. It’s typically in a nice-looking area near some water or a park, not in the middle of a city. If you keep the zoning then maybe the land isn’t worth that much, but if property taxes were based on the “true” land value then it would mean farmers sell out faster to create sprawl.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Agricultural-zoned land would be cheaper. I would rip up urban zoning with an LVT to ensure density, but keep the agricultural zoning because we can't eat skyscrapers.
- dodobirdlord 5y ago
  There is no actual tradeoff between availability of food and availability of skyscrapers. Even if we actively tried, we couldn’t run out of agricultural land in the US by building on it.
nybble41 5y ago
The only reasonable way to account for zoning would be to require the zoning board to actually buy the property and pay the associated taxes. Then they can lease out their own property with whatever restrictions they want. Without the benefit of subsidies or eminent domain, naturally—if they want to expand their reach they'll need to raise that money through the revenues from leases (less income tax and other overhead), with restrictive zoning rules limiting their revenues.