3 ms·

I don't think the issue is taxing land per se, or even property, it's making illegal and taxing practices that are seen as immoral or not in societys best inter

I don't think the issue is taxing land per se, or even property, it's making illegal and taxing practices that are seen as immoral or not in societys best interest. This gets dangerously vague, but it has always been puzzling to me why actually blighted properties, essentially abandoned by owners not living anywhere near the area, werent taxed at ridiculously high rates. The other side of the coin is municipalities abusing power to disenfranchise legitimate landowners. It seems like rules around all of this could be made clearer. Sometimes it seems like you can go so far in avoiding a slippery slope that you're nowhere near one, but also nowhere near where you need to be.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
> it has always been puzzling to me why actually blighted properties, essentially abandoned by owners not living anywhere near the area, werent taxed at ridiculously high rates. Because the governments don't want to take possession o the houses. If you tax them high, the owners default, because taxes exceed the property value. Then the government is the owner of a low value deteriorating asset that nobody wants. This is beside the point that such high taxes would essentially be justifying government taking property from those unable to pay because of aesthetics.
- derbOac 5y ago
  Yes that has crossed my mind. However, I'm also aware of very publicized cases in my area where there was serious interest in a property from several serious, large buyers, it was sitting unused, like as an empty unused parking lot, but the owner, out of state and region, wouldn't sell and also wouldn't develop it (why this is the case no one could tell). These cases went on for decades, with the government eventually attempting to take over the property by eminent domain (there were concerns about economic effects of the property, which actually has relevance to some nationally publicized news stories the last couple of years), only to have them rebuked in court. I don't even remember how they resolved anymore because I got tired of trying to pay attention. Anyway, to be clear, I'm not advocating for land taxes per se. I have also seen many, many examples of corrupt seizure of, or valuation of, property by the government and that's its own set of problems. What I'm saying is it should be possible to codify into law some "red line" circumstances where properties do get taxed or seized. Someone who is living on the property would be exempt, for example. Neglected property in an area that is targeted for renewal, with multiple serious offers that economists agree are more than fair, being refused by a party who resides in another region, over long periods of time, seems like a different issue. Maybe this is all more difficult than I think. It just seems to me there are some cases that are so clearly egregious that the vast majority of the population agrees there are problems (in either direction: with government overreach or private overreach) that you could define those circumstances. Right now it seems to me a lot of time is wasted on controversial land use issues and not enough on addressing things where there is more consensus.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    >Maybe this is all more difficult than I think. I think you basically get it. It all comes down to property rights vs public good. Take the extreme case of someone with a vacant lot in downtown Manhattan. On one hand, the development could help the city and improve general prosperity. On the other hand, someone owns it and is free to use it (or not) as they see fit. My understanding is that the current state of eminent domain is that public good is necessary, but not sufficient to justify the forced sale of the land. The city can not take it because someone else could develop it for the public good. The city could take it in very narrow cases, like if they wanted to put in a metro station and there were no viable alternatives. Whether this is a feature or a bug is really a matter of perspective. Is the goal of the government and law to optimize for the greater good, or protect individuals against the greater good as long as they aren't harming anyone (and opportunity costs don't count!). I tend to land on the latter side, but get that others don't feel the same way.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

> it has always been puzzling to me why actually blighted properties, essentially abandoned by owners not living anywhere near the area, werent taxed at ridiculously high rates. Because the governments don't want to take possession o the houses. If you tax them high, the owners default, because taxes exceed the property value. Then the government is the owner of a low value deteriorating asset that nobody wants. This is beside the point that such high taxes would essentially be justifying government taking property from those unable to pay because of aesthetics.

derbOac 5y ago
Yes that has crossed my mind. However, I'm also aware of very publicized cases in my area where there was serious interest in a property from several serious, large buyers, it was sitting unused, like as an empty unused parking lot, but the owner, out of state and region, wouldn't sell and also wouldn't develop it (why this is the case no one could tell). These cases went on for decades, with the government eventually attempting to take over the property by eminent domain (there were concerns about economic effects of the property, which actually has relevance to some nationally publicized news stories the last couple of years), only to have them rebuked in court. I don't even remember how they resolved anymore because I got tired of trying to pay attention. Anyway, to be clear, I'm not advocating for land taxes per se. I have also seen many, many examples of corrupt seizure of, or valuation of, property by the government and that's its own set of problems. What I'm saying is it should be possible to codify into law some "red line" circumstances where properties do get taxed or seized. Someone who is living on the property would be exempt, for example. Neglected property in an area that is targeted for renewal, with multiple serious offers that economists agree are more than fair, being refused by a party who resides in another region, over long periods of time, seems like a different issue. Maybe this is all more difficult than I think. It just seems to me there are some cases that are so clearly egregious that the vast majority of the population agrees there are problems (in either direction: with government overreach or private overreach) that you could define those circumstances. Right now it seems to me a lot of time is wasted on controversial land use issues and not enough on addressing things where there is more consensus.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  >Maybe this is all more difficult than I think. I think you basically get it. It all comes down to property rights vs public good. Take the extreme case of someone with a vacant lot in downtown Manhattan. On one hand, the development could help the city and improve general prosperity. On the other hand, someone owns it and is free to use it (or not) as they see fit. My understanding is that the current state of eminent domain is that public good is necessary, but not sufficient to justify the forced sale of the land. The city can not take it because someone else could develop it for the public good. The city could take it in very narrow cases, like if they wanted to put in a metro station and there were no viable alternatives. Whether this is a feature or a bug is really a matter of perspective. Is the goal of the government and law to optimize for the greater good, or protect individuals against the greater good as long as they aren't harming anyone (and opportunity costs don't count!). I tend to land on the latter side, but get that others don't feel the same way.