3 ms·

> Property tax has a low tax value for the land itself and a high value for the improvements on the property. This is not true in cities like NYC or Boston; al

> Property tax has a low tax value for the land itself and a high value for the improvements on the property. This is not true in cities like NYC or Boston; also likely not true in many parts of LA. This is why people tear down houses to build new houses.

eightysixfour 3y ago
Do you have examples from any of these cities we can look at? I am in Seattle, for example, and the land my property is on is 1/10th of the total taxed value. The real value is inverted.
- ejstronge 3y ago
  I don’t have examples but in my coastal city, land values (for homes) are near 20% of the improvement. Edit: I'm seeing 40% land value compared to total assessed value for homes in my neighborhood, incidentally
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  Look at bcassessment for a great website that shows the property values of British Columbia with land and improvements broken out. It’s updated annually as the assessments are updated Looking at Vancouver for an example it’s easy to see how often the houses themselves are insignificant when compared to the value of the underlying land.
busterarm 3y ago
The vast majority of the neighborhood in question is 4-8 story buildings. A lot of them being walkups. The tax system allowed a developer to take a 30-year speculative bet that eventually they would build their skyscraper. Their plans almost completely fell through the year before construction started because they were planning an even bigger building than they built but couldn't lock up enough tenants. They settled on a 40-story, 1 million square foot tower that stands there today and dwarfs all of the buildings at its feet.
- ejstronge 3y ago
  I hear you, and I can sympathize as someone who has lived in cities that have changed rapidly. However, I can see a long-term venture fund taking the exact bet you suggested. If the value of the new building that combines parcels is high enough, there is no way a land value tax would address your desire to stop landlords from waiting for opportune development projects. What you would like is a punitive vacancy tax, perhaps combined with a required sale after a certain amount of vacancy. My ultimate question is why you might want this. A land value tax is supposed to encourage the highest and best use of a parcel. This developer recognized that the highest and best use of a parcel might actually include the use of adjacent parcels. Shouldn't we encourage this?
  - userinanother 3y ago
    The problem is that it’s too difficult to get rid of tenants. The incentive should be to hold the building in a non vacant state until it’s time to combine the lots and build the mega tower. The reason it was vacant is because New York tenants have unreasonable rights.

eightysixfour 3y ago

Do you have examples from any of these cities we can look at? I am in Seattle, for example, and the land my property is on is 1/10th of the total taxed value. The real value is inverted.

ejstronge 3y ago
I don’t have examples but in my coastal city, land values (for homes) are near 20% of the improvement. Edit: I'm seeing 40% land value compared to total assessed value for homes in my neighborhood, incidentally
Tiktaalik 3y ago
Look at bcassessment for a great website that shows the property values of British Columbia with land and improvements broken out. It’s updated annually as the assessments are updated Looking at Vancouver for an example it’s easy to see how often the houses themselves are insignificant when compared to the value of the underlying land.

busterarm 3y ago

The vast majority of the neighborhood in question is 4-8 story buildings. A lot of them being walkups. The tax system allowed a developer to take a 30-year speculative bet that eventually they would build their skyscraper. Their plans almost completely fell through the year before construction started because they were planning an even bigger building than they built but couldn't lock up enough tenants. They settled on a 40-story, 1 million square foot tower that stands there today and dwarfs all of the buildings at its feet.

ejstronge 3y ago
I hear you, and I can sympathize as someone who has lived in cities that have changed rapidly. However, I can see a long-term venture fund taking the exact bet you suggested. If the value of the new building that combines parcels is high enough, there is no way a land value tax would address your desire to stop landlords from waiting for opportune development projects. What you would like is a punitive vacancy tax, perhaps combined with a required sale after a certain amount of vacancy. My ultimate question is why you might want this. A land value tax is supposed to encourage the highest and best use of a parcel. This developer recognized that the highest and best use of a parcel might actually include the use of adjacent parcels. Shouldn't we encourage this?
- userinanother 3y ago
  The problem is that it’s too difficult to get rid of tenants. The incentive should be to hold the building in a non vacant state until it’s time to combine the lots and build the mega tower. The reason it was vacant is because New York tenants have unreasonable rights.