3 ms·
A solution that seems novel to me may be assigning higher property tax rates for parcels further from core services. If the city’s cost basis is higher to maint
by reilly3000 5y ago
A solution that seems novel to me may be assigning higher property tax rates for parcels further from core services. If the city’s cost basis is higher to maintain services, why not align incentives to encourage infill?
- quickthrower2 5y agoNot sure about the US but normally your property taxes are linked to the property value or land value (I guess as an estimate of both how much you can afford and how much services you’ll use). This seems more progressive than saying “well you can’t afford to live centrally so we’ll charge you more for that sewer connection maintenance”
- mikewarot 5y agoActually, that is what happens. Initially you maintain your own water (well or cistern) and sewage system (a septic field), and when town grows out to you, you get hooked to the sewer/water systems.
- pseudo0 5y agoIt gets a bit tricky when those parcels also often have lower quality or fewer services. For example, no city water, 30+ minute fire and police response times, no local parks or libraries, etc. A fair formula would also have to take that into account somehow.
- dang_is_3r3ct3 5y agoIt’s not tricky at all. The fairness is already baked in. By choosing to live in a low density area far away from existing services, you’ll be paying more. A lot more.
- mikewarot 5y agoThe property will be less desirable, and thus have a lower value, and lower tax assessment. You'll lose some of those savings by having to drive everywhere any time you want goods or services.