3 ms·
Okay. Does that interrupt their point though? It seems like what would happen with a land tax in this case is that if an area got rezoned to allow buildings 20x
by TulliusCicero 5y ago
Okay. Does that interrupt their point though? It seems like what would happen with a land tax in this case is that if an area got rezoned to allow buildings 20x the height, the land value would skyrocket and thus so too would the land tax. That would then incentivize actually building a really tall building on that land, which is probably what you want (both in the sense of what land tax proponents want, and what you'd want if you just did that rezone).
- midasuni 5y agoThe problem comes with the city then deciding to rezone as a punitive measure. Rezone 10-19th street to make it unaffordable for the existing 3 story houses and you get rid of that community. Meanwhile 20-29th street isn’t, and they get to stay.
- TulliusCicero 5y agoDoing that only works if the land becomes super valuable. Whoever owns that space gets rich. You’re right, but you can use almost any city policy to punish some group if you wanted. It’s not reason to avoid otherwise sound policies.
- thesausageking 5y agoDevelopment rights are made up by cities and don't have a fixed supply like land, so can't be taxed in the same way. For example, cities often grant development rights over highways, creating them literally out of thin air. This gets even messier in cities like SF or Boston where the zoning rules are basically never followed and instead development rights are granted a on per-project basis, often based on how hard various groups lobby for or against a project. That makes a land tax not make any sense in large cities.