4 ms·
No mention of cities' disincentive to do things that reduce property values because of potential litigation, bad press, or reducing their income from property t
by 2ICofafireteam 4y ago
No mention of cities' disincentive to do things that reduce property values because of potential litigation, bad press, or reducing their income from property tax.
- nayuki 4y agoAt least in Toronto, it doesn't work that way. The amount of tax dollars the city wants to collect is set in advance. The value of each property only affects the share of that property's contribution to the tax base. If everyone's property price doubled, then the rate would be halved. https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/ https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to...
- chrchang523 4y agoYes, when I learned about this practice, that significantly changed my understanding of the NIMBY problem's solution space. Although high property taxes incidentally constrain NIMBY behavior, they're a cure worse than the disease. It is appropriate for a city like Toronto to be proud of being able to operate with low property taxes. (I'm not going to defend the way CA Proposition 13 distributes the property tax burden between longtime residents and newcomers; but low property taxes on longtime residents should not be considered a problem, ceteris paribus.)
- 2ICofafireteam 4y agoVery cool. I never thought about this approach and seems very fair and would prevent local governments experiencing a lifestyle creep of sorts.
- bombcar 4y agoThat’s how it works here - is it not the case everywhere!
- voisin 4y agoThe only nuance is that the city can push more or less of the tax burden onto commercial properties vs residential properties, and they often push a disproportionate amount onto commercial because commercial doesn’t vote.