4 ms·

Land value taxes are generally set arbitrarily high. Localities are incentivized to set values as high as they can attempt to justify. They end up modeling what

Land value taxes are generally set arbitrarily high. Localities are incentivized to set values as high as they can attempt to justify. They end up modeling what they think could be the most profitable or valuable development on the land then tax you as if that were already done. Eventually the land ends up in the hands of the few willing and able to abuse the land to that level, prioritizing profit above all else.

snapplebobapple 3y ago
your first paragraph applies pretty much equally to taxing land+developments. Also, in the context of a city building to the maximum of the zoning is a good thing in nearly all instances because higher density means you need less land to provide shelter for the inhabitants and it's way, way easier to provide most services to higher density.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  Property taxes that factor in existing improvements doesn't leave the owner as far behind chasing potential value that they are already being taxed for. When your tax burden is a factor of expected market value of the land plus permanent improvements they're taxing you on what you already have. When it's based on an expected optimal value of the lad they're taxing you on what *they* think your land *should* be worth if fully developed. Assuming that higher density is always better ignores the externalities required to maintain such a system. Higher density cities require more outside inputs brought in from outside the city. Those inputs strip resources from other lands, require input to process the raw materials, and require fuel and vehicles to transport the goods into the city frequently. The city's waste must be transported and processed somewhere, again adding impacts to the environment even if those impacts aren't directly felt within city limits. If the goal is to minimize impact, cities would only be as large and as dense as they can reasonably be self sufficient. That doesn't preclude trade between cities, states, and countries, but it does mean the city isn't entirely dependent on a constant churn of bringing in resources from elsewhere and shipping out waste.
  - InspiredIdiot 3y ago
    > Higher density cities require more outside inputs brought in from outside the city. Surely, it can't possibly be that simple. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it is not. If I want fiber to my house in the country I might be paying $30k to get that line all the way to my one house whether I want 100MB/sec or 10GB/sec. In the city it might be shared with hundreds and only need to run a few yards. Same for sewage. Same for police and fire.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Oh it's definitely not simple, I don't mean to input that. Your examples only really touch on one relevant example though, sewage. Sewage isn't really an issue in rural areas, off grid seltic systems process waste on site and more compelling systems can even compost human waste with very little effort. Modern central sewage system only exist because of dense cities, they weren't needed before that. High speed internet is purely a convenience and really shouldn't be a concern if there's any meaningful environmental impact from it. Police and fire similarly are conveniences that may turn into necessities in highs density areas. I live in a rural area where police may show up tomorrow if I call them now and our fire is mostly volunteer. I've never heard of anyone having real issues from either. Volunteer fire still respond quickly enough and it's amazing how much less import policing is when people are more spread out and the expectation of turning to police for every problem isn't the norm.
      - developer93 3y ago
        Your environmental footprint for transport is higher though right unless you're cycling everywhere, because you need to travel further? Which involves everything you need that you don't produce yourself. Or you're all entirely self sufficient and never leave your smallholdings? I don't mean to sound like a dick, just trying to engage :-)
        bombcar 3y ago
        Many “rural” people actually live in small towns where it is entirely possible to drive less or not at all. I certainly put less miles on our vehicles even though we have more of them and kids now vs living in “the big city”. However if all you ever do is drive to the big city I can see how that would take more time and distance.
glompers 3y ago
If that were true it would not be the case that Detroit will be the first to do it. Land Value Taxation is a concept with a history going back to the Gilded Age when someone realized that NY's prosperity was in fact related to its higher levels of homelessness, and that that was due to the land rents that were free-riding on the economic production of the urban area, as they do to this day.
- developer93 3y ago
  I didn't completely understand that, could you elaborate or rephrase maybe with an example? If you have time. Sounds interesting.
jimnotgym 3y ago
Like some other comments, I am intrigued to hear other examples where LVTs have been set arbitrarily high.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

your first paragraph applies pretty much equally to taxing land+developments. Also, in the context of a city building to the maximum of the zoning is a good thing in nearly all instances because higher density means you need less land to provide shelter for the inhabitants and it's way, way easier to provide most services to higher density.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
Property taxes that factor in existing improvements doesn't leave the owner as far behind chasing potential value that they are already being taxed for. When your tax burden is a factor of expected market value of the land plus permanent improvements they're taxing you on what you already have. When it's based on an expected optimal value of the lad they're taxing you on what *they* think your land *should* be worth if fully developed. Assuming that higher density is always better ignores the externalities required to maintain such a system. Higher density cities require more outside inputs brought in from outside the city. Those inputs strip resources from other lands, require input to process the raw materials, and require fuel and vehicles to transport the goods into the city frequently. The city's waste must be transported and processed somewhere, again adding impacts to the environment even if those impacts aren't directly felt within city limits. If the goal is to minimize impact, cities would only be as large and as dense as they can reasonably be self sufficient. That doesn't preclude trade between cities, states, and countries, but it does mean the city isn't entirely dependent on a constant churn of bringing in resources from elsewhere and shipping out waste.
- InspiredIdiot 3y ago
  > Higher density cities require more outside inputs brought in from outside the city. Surely, it can't possibly be that simple. Sometimes that's true, sometimes it is not. If I want fiber to my house in the country I might be paying $30k to get that line all the way to my one house whether I want 100MB/sec or 10GB/sec. In the city it might be shared with hundreds and only need to run a few yards. Same for sewage. Same for police and fire.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Oh it's definitely not simple, I don't mean to input that. Your examples only really touch on one relevant example though, sewage. Sewage isn't really an issue in rural areas, off grid seltic systems process waste on site and more compelling systems can even compost human waste with very little effort. Modern central sewage system only exist because of dense cities, they weren't needed before that. High speed internet is purely a convenience and really shouldn't be a concern if there's any meaningful environmental impact from it. Police and fire similarly are conveniences that may turn into necessities in highs density areas. I live in a rural area where police may show up tomorrow if I call them now and our fire is mostly volunteer. I've never heard of anyone having real issues from either. Volunteer fire still respond quickly enough and it's amazing how much less import policing is when people are more spread out and the expectation of turning to police for every problem isn't the norm.
    - developer93 3y ago
      Your environmental footprint for transport is higher though right unless you're cycling everywhere, because you need to travel further? Which involves everything you need that you don't produce yourself. Or you're all entirely self sufficient and never leave your smallholdings? I don't mean to sound like a dick, just trying to engage :-)
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Many “rural” people actually live in small towns where it is entirely possible to drive less or not at all. I certainly put less miles on our vehicles even though we have more of them and kids now vs living in “the big city”. However if all you ever do is drive to the big city I can see how that would take more time and distance.

glompers 3y ago

If that were true it would not be the case that Detroit will be the first to do it. Land Value Taxation is a concept with a history going back to the Gilded Age when someone realized that NY's prosperity was in fact related to its higher levels of homelessness, and that that was due to the land rents that were free-riding on the economic production of the urban area, as they do to this day.

developer93 3y ago
I didn't completely understand that, could you elaborate or rephrase maybe with an example? If you have time. Sounds interesting.

jimnotgym 3y ago

Like some other comments, I am intrigued to hear other examples where LVTs have been set arbitrarily high.