3 ms·
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 spe
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.