4 ms·
> If a developer wants to sit on a parcels for 3 decades, they're still able to do so but they'll also need to pay up for keeping high-value land vacant. That m
by ejstronge 3y ago
> If a developer wants to sit on a parcels for 3 decades, they're still able to do so but they'll also need to pay up for keeping high-value land vacant. That money can then be reinvested into the community.
How is that different from what happens now?
It sounds like what you are saying is that you don't believe that property taxes are high enough since there exist vacant buildings.
That is a fine thing to believe but there is nothing about the current structure of property taxes that goes against this, in principle, besides the tax rate.
- ProfessorLayton 3y agoI'm not arguing for specifics in implementation, rather the outcomes: Better use of productive land and infrastructure. If the current structure isn't providing that, then perhaps LVT is the way to go over our current structure. If it turns out LTV didn't provide the desired outcomes, then let's try something else! The current status quo of letting developers speculate endlessly while holding back growth or even providing negative economic externalities doesn't seem to be working as well as it could be.