3 ms·

How do you connect the policy with the intended effect without magic or lying? Time is money and taxes are already amortized into any potential developer's mat

How do you connect the policy with the intended effect without magic or lying? Time is money and taxes are already amortized into any potential developer's math, regardless of what the rate nominally is. If the properties aren't economically developable in a "it costs us pennies to sit on them so we'll take our sweet time" paradigm then they're sure as shit not developable in a "I'm paying the same tax rate no matter what so I gotta put something up ASAP so I can a)get income b) sell" paradigm.

stetrain 1y ago
Not everyone who owns a vacant or condemned lot is a developer or has the capital to develop it. Those people are potentially treating it like an investment. If the cost to hold onto it for longer is very low, why not sit and wait until the value appreciates and a developer offers you more money in the future? Increasing the cost to hold the investment might encourage sales at today's prices instead of waiting for years. I'm not sure that helping developers buy land cheaper is the right solution or a complete one, but I do think increasing the cost of holding property as an investment would have an effect.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >Increasing the cost to hold the investment might encourage sales at today's prices instead of waiting for years. Or they double down and hold longer to "make it back" later when conditions are more favorable. >I'm not sure that helping developers buy land cheaper is the right solution or a complete one, but I do think increasing the cost of holding property as an investment would have an effect. We are all developers, comrade. The more you increase costs the more you'll squeeze out the little guys leaving BigCos that DGAF and are copy pasting the same things everywhere with no regard because they're operating at the statistical level.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    > The more you increase costs the more you'll squeeze out the little guys leaving BigCos that DGAF I don't mind taxing the BigCos more and more money to hold land.
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      You missed the important part of the sentence you quoted.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      BigCos can offset things against taxes; regular people can't, and will just sell.
- sroussey 1y ago
  People don’t hold land to just wait it out. The holding costs are high and there is really only one time when this works well (when a city is expanding and you get some land in that path). When you own land, you have taxes, insurance, mortgage perhaps, upkeep etc. Easier to invest in stocks. Anyhow, you have land with the idea that when the conditions warrant you can develop. Hopefully soon. But conditions may not develop quickly and you have to bear high holding costs.
s1artibartfast 1y ago
I dont think that is necessarily true. a disuse tax is effectively lowering the property value/price. At some point, it becomes free land for anyone willing to use it.
bandofthehawk 1y ago
> How do you connect the policy with the intended effect without magic or lying? Assess the empty properties to their actual value, and then lower the overall rate.

stetrain 1y ago

Not everyone who owns a vacant or condemned lot is a developer or has the capital to develop it. Those people are potentially treating it like an investment. If the cost to hold onto it for longer is very low, why not sit and wait until the value appreciates and a developer offers you more money in the future? Increasing the cost to hold the investment might encourage sales at today's prices instead of waiting for years. I'm not sure that helping developers buy land cheaper is the right solution or a complete one, but I do think increasing the cost of holding property as an investment would have an effect.

potato3732842 1y ago
>Increasing the cost to hold the investment might encourage sales at today's prices instead of waiting for years. Or they double down and hold longer to "make it back" later when conditions are more favorable. >I'm not sure that helping developers buy land cheaper is the right solution or a complete one, but I do think increasing the cost of holding property as an investment would have an effect. We are all developers, comrade. The more you increase costs the more you'll squeeze out the little guys leaving BigCos that DGAF and are copy pasting the same things everywhere with no regard because they're operating at the statistical level.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > The more you increase costs the more you'll squeeze out the little guys leaving BigCos that DGAF I don't mind taxing the BigCos more and more money to hold land.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    You missed the important part of the sentence you quoted.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    BigCos can offset things against taxes; regular people can't, and will just sell.
sroussey 1y ago
People don’t hold land to just wait it out. The holding costs are high and there is really only one time when this works well (when a city is expanding and you get some land in that path). When you own land, you have taxes, insurance, mortgage perhaps, upkeep etc. Easier to invest in stocks. Anyhow, you have land with the idea that when the conditions warrant you can develop. Hopefully soon. But conditions may not develop quickly and you have to bear high holding costs.

s1artibartfast 1y ago

I dont think that is necessarily true. a disuse tax is effectively lowering the property value/price. At some point, it becomes free land for anyone willing to use it.

bandofthehawk 1y ago

> How do you connect the policy with the intended effect without magic or lying? Assess the empty properties to their actual value, and then lower the overall rate.