4 ms·

"Your land is for sale at the price you put, but you can change up the price if you don't want to sell it, and thus pay up extra tax." This is how you end up w

"Your land is for sale at the price you put, but you can change up the price if you don't want to sell it, and thus pay up extra tax." This is how you end up with homeless seniors and disabled people. In my opinion, we shouldn't be working up schemes to force people out of their property. Otherwise you get a developer that comes in and offers you a price you literally can't refuse, pushing the market entirely in favor of the wealthy.

WillDaSilva 1y ago
If they sell their land, then presumably they'd receive a substantial windfall with which they could buy a new cheaper place, or rent. If they don't receive a substantial windfall, then the amount they were paying for the LVT must've been low.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "If they sell their land, then presumably they'd receive a substantial windfall with which they could buy a new cheaper place, or rent." Not really. You might be forcing someone out of a 2.5% mortgage into a 6% mortgage on a new property, incurring property transfer taxes, moving costs, loan underwriting, and other fees. You very well could lose money in some situations. Your argument also assumes they are not in the cheapest homes already. If they are, they could be forced out of the geographic area altogether if there are no cheaper homes (and inherently rents will be more expensive than the cheapest mortgages under that system).
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  Land is worthless under LVT. Its entire revenue stream is captured by the tax, an asset without revenue is definitionally worthless.
beeflet 1y ago
seniors and disabled people can't just live somewhere cheaper? I think they should be pushed out by the wealthy. If you're holding onto residential land in a developing city, and someone wants to build a skyscraper there they should be able to buy you out at a reasonable price. You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax
- snarf21 1y ago
  Serious question: What about when you are old? Okay being forced to live in a one room shack in the middle of nowhere just because you are retired?
  - ty6853 1y ago
    I live in the middle of nowhere where lots of people build one room shacks in the desert, because we allow that here. You can build whatever the fuck you want. Some are living in mud huts (yes in the USA). They shouldn't be forced to do it, but they seem to love it. You'd be suprised how many people would prefer a one room shack given the option, lots of people don't actually want the kind of houses zoning and codes require in more dystopian parts of the US, they would rather spend that money on leisure or their children, or their own health.
    - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
      That's great for everyone who likes asceticism, but what about everyone else?
  - rcpt 1y ago
    How about being forced to stay put forever in the same two story 4 bedroom house in a busy job center?
- giantg2 1y ago
  It sounds like you want to just move the undesirables to a ghetto (in the real sense of the word). Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Redevelop the land as the population turns over instead of marginalizing people. "You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax" What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you?
  - beeflet 1y ago
    >Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Because the taxes aren't reasonable. Land is a limited resource. Imagine a regulation that limited factories by taxing them on the amount of smog they produce. Your argument is like saying "old factories should be able to produce smog at the same tax rate as when they started, it's unreasonable to expect companies to just rebuild factories around new technology" >What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you? I don't own any property. But if I did, you would be free to liberate it for a pretty penny. Parting with friends is a sadness. A place is only a place.
detourdog 1y ago
My experience is that if a community feels that land is underutilized they will simply tax at the value the community would like to see the land used. We had a family farm that had our taxes go from under $4,000 to around $25,0000 in a single year. There was no warning it just happened. We ended up selling the farm in a few years at a value it was being taxed. I also think that NIMBY/YIMBY is a strawman argument used to keep the conversation from developing.
- firejake308 1y ago
  > NIMBY/YIMBY is a strawman argument designed to keep the masses distracted Distracted from what? I do in fact view NIMBYs as the biggest roadblock to expansion of housing supply, so I must be part of the distracted masses you're referring to. What am I missing?
  - detourdog 1y ago
    I live in a small New England town that definitely faces housing shortages. Our planning board (which I have served on) has occasionally blamed NIMBYism for poorly thought out housing plans. People trying to point out the short sighted thinking are easily dismissed as NIMBYs. One example would be allowing mobile homes with HUD certification. Advocates for this idea would argue that it would provide affordable housing which is true if one looks at initial costs of just shelter. The problem is that currently HUD divides their housing standards by geography and north west Massachusetts and Virginia are considered the same region. This causes the insulation requirements are really inadequate for our winters. This was further complicated by mobile home providers supplying air sourced heat pumps as the heating and cooling. The mobile home was then able to marketed as energy efficient. The problem was that heating system would be completely inadequate without intense insulation upgrades. The HUD certification comes along with the inability for any local building codes to be enforced. In 2006 as a town we voted to impose "Stretch Codes" for energy efficiency. We voted for that knowing it was going to add at 25% for any building project in town. My opinion was that the result would unsustainable electric bills and inadequate heating for our vulnerable population. I believed that we would create a two tiered housing system and our vulnerable population would have inadequate housing. I have nothing against mobile homes and believed we could use mobile homes as housing under the current building codes if they had permanent foundation and were sheathed in an extra layer of insulation. I saw the label of NIMBY as dismissive and distracting from actual issues and the conversation never developed. I have experience with both air sourced heat pumps and insulation in our area. I have developed an abandoned school into studio apartments that use heat pumps exclusively for heating. I find catchy labels like NIMBY and YIMBY close to meaningless and hamper dialog and the development of ideas. Thank you for the comment I updated it to sound less conspiratorial. Your mileage my vary.
rcpt 1y ago
Wait you don't have homeless seniors where you live? Here in California they are everywhere. This is despite Prop 13 and all the laws on top of it that are designed to keep seniors in their forever homes. Feels like maybe handouts to real estate investment is not the way to give people a roof over their head.

WillDaSilva 1y ago

If they sell their land, then presumably they'd receive a substantial windfall with which they could buy a new cheaper place, or rent. If they don't receive a substantial windfall, then the amount they were paying for the LVT must've been low.

giantg2 1y ago
"If they sell their land, then presumably they'd receive a substantial windfall with which they could buy a new cheaper place, or rent." Not really. You might be forcing someone out of a 2.5% mortgage into a 6% mortgage on a new property, incurring property transfer taxes, moving costs, loan underwriting, and other fees. You very well could lose money in some situations. Your argument also assumes they are not in the cheapest homes already. If they are, they could be forced out of the geographic area altogether if there are no cheaper homes (and inherently rents will be more expensive than the cheapest mortgages under that system).
HDThoreaun 1y ago
Land is worthless under LVT. Its entire revenue stream is captured by the tax, an asset without revenue is definitionally worthless.

beeflet 1y ago

seniors and disabled people can't just live somewhere cheaper? I think they should be pushed out by the wealthy. If you're holding onto residential land in a developing city, and someone wants to build a skyscraper there they should be able to buy you out at a reasonable price. You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax

snarf21 1y ago
Serious question: What about when you are old? Okay being forced to live in a one room shack in the middle of nowhere just because you are retired?
- ty6853 1y ago
  I live in the middle of nowhere where lots of people build one room shacks in the desert, because we allow that here. You can build whatever the fuck you want. Some are living in mud huts (yes in the USA). They shouldn't be forced to do it, but they seem to love it. You'd be suprised how many people would prefer a one room shack given the option, lots of people don't actually want the kind of houses zoning and codes require in more dystopian parts of the US, they would rather spend that money on leisure or their children, or their own health.
  - BeFlatXIII 1y ago
    That's great for everyone who likes asceticism, but what about everyone else?
- rcpt 1y ago
  How about being forced to stay put forever in the same two story 4 bedroom house in a busy job center?
giantg2 1y ago
It sounds like you want to just move the undesirables to a ghetto (in the real sense of the word). Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Redevelop the land as the population turns over instead of marginalizing people. "You shouldn't be able to hold land hostage while also paying low property tax" What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you?
- beeflet 1y ago
  >Why shouldn't someone be able to buy a home and live there until they die if they can pay reasonable taxes? Because the taxes aren't reasonable. Land is a limited resource. Imagine a regulation that limited factories by taxing them on the amount of smog they produce. Your argument is like saying "old factories should be able to produce smog at the same tax rate as when they started, it's unreasonable to expect companies to just rebuild factories around new technology" >What property are you holding hostage that I can liberate from you? I don't own any property. But if I did, you would be free to liberate it for a pretty penny. Parting with friends is a sadness. A place is only a place.

detourdog 1y ago

My experience is that if a community feels that land is underutilized they will simply tax at the value the community would like to see the land used. We had a family farm that had our taxes go from under $4,000 to around $25,0000 in a single year. There was no warning it just happened. We ended up selling the farm in a few years at a value it was being taxed. I also think that NIMBY/YIMBY is a strawman argument used to keep the conversation from developing.

firejake308 1y ago
> NIMBY/YIMBY is a strawman argument designed to keep the masses distracted Distracted from what? I do in fact view NIMBYs as the biggest roadblock to expansion of housing supply, so I must be part of the distracted masses you're referring to. What am I missing?
- detourdog 1y ago
  I live in a small New England town that definitely faces housing shortages. Our planning board (which I have served on) has occasionally blamed NIMBYism for poorly thought out housing plans. People trying to point out the short sighted thinking are easily dismissed as NIMBYs. One example would be allowing mobile homes with HUD certification. Advocates for this idea would argue that it would provide affordable housing which is true if one looks at initial costs of just shelter. The problem is that currently HUD divides their housing standards by geography and north west Massachusetts and Virginia are considered the same region. This causes the insulation requirements are really inadequate for our winters. This was further complicated by mobile home providers supplying air sourced heat pumps as the heating and cooling. The mobile home was then able to marketed as energy efficient. The problem was that heating system would be completely inadequate without intense insulation upgrades. The HUD certification comes along with the inability for any local building codes to be enforced. In 2006 as a town we voted to impose "Stretch Codes" for energy efficiency. We voted for that knowing it was going to add at 25% for any building project in town. My opinion was that the result would unsustainable electric bills and inadequate heating for our vulnerable population. I believed that we would create a two tiered housing system and our vulnerable population would have inadequate housing. I have nothing against mobile homes and believed we could use mobile homes as housing under the current building codes if they had permanent foundation and were sheathed in an extra layer of insulation. I saw the label of NIMBY as dismissive and distracting from actual issues and the conversation never developed. I have experience with both air sourced heat pumps and insulation in our area. I have developed an abandoned school into studio apartments that use heat pumps exclusively for heating. I find catchy labels like NIMBY and YIMBY close to meaningless and hamper dialog and the development of ideas. Thank you for the comment I updated it to sound less conspiratorial. Your mileage my vary.

rcpt 1y ago

Wait you don't have homeless seniors where you live? Here in California they are everywhere. This is despite Prop 13 and all the laws on top of it that are designed to keep seniors in their forever homes. Feels like maybe handouts to real estate investment is not the way to give people a roof over their head.