4 ms·
Solid idea. Have you considered the additional carrying cost of treating two tracts of land thr same despite having massively different structures on top? For
by IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
Solid idea. Have you considered the additional carrying cost of treating two tracts of land thr same despite having massively different structures on top?
For example, higher capacity for roads congestion, sewage, electricity connection etc.
At some point it almost seems like the tall building is freeriding on taxpayers.
Curious how you would address that?
- epistasis 3y agoI would think that the vacant lots are the ones freeloading, keeping people from living in, working in, or otherwise being able to access an extremely high value area. The expenses of running roads and sewer are completely dwarfed by the gain in economic activity. Dense, high land value areas are the tax bases that subsidize the far less utilized and more-expensive-per-connection sprawl.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> For example, higher capacity for roads congestion, sewage, electricity connection etc. But what does this have to do with property tax? Roads can be funded by fuel taxes or car taxes, if not income taxes. Sewage and electrical systems are billed monthly to their users. Presumably a larger building will have a higher electric bill and if it doesn't it will be from devising a way of not using more electricity.