5 ms·

The second paragraph of the article attributes the hot spots to abandoned buildings and parking lots; vacant lots with vegetation are not the problem.

trentnix 1y ago
I’d like to see how the land is classified, regardless. If it’s genuinely urban land, it should be taxed heavily enough to make it hurt if it is appraised correctly. It’s possible this land is subject to delinquent taxes that, in Texas, incur significant interest. Also, I’d want to know about zoning to see if the city has restricted the use of the land. Zoning is a double-edged sword as well.
- sandworm101 1y ago
  If land is actually abandoned, taxation makes no difference. Land with abandoned biuldings can often cost more to redevelop than green fields (asbestos remediation, buried oil tanks etc). An owner dies, a holding company folds, and land sits vacant. Tax it all you want, nobody is around to pay. Of course the city or other government can take the land, but they dont want it either.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    The owners of polluted industrial sites always manage to disappear when it comes time to clean them up. Socialise the losses and all that.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
    > Tax it all you want, nobody is around to pay Why wouldn't this land immediately be forfeited to the city?
    - sandworm101 1y ago
      Nothing in land is ever immediate. Is it worth the legal efforts to force throufh a forfeiture? Does the city even want the land? Perhaps the land is tied up in a disputed estate. Such things can take a decade to resolve. Perhaps some holding company is using the land as an investment vehicle and is paying the taxes, if any are due. Owners have the right to let land sit.
      - acdha 1y ago
        > Owners have the right to let land sit. Yes, hence the point of a vacancy tax, but that’s not relevant in the scenario here where they’re not paying. Having a short period, especially for non-residential property, is a good way to discourage tax cheating and it also helps with cleanup: the best time to deal with toxic waste was when it was generated but the second best time is now and absentee owners aren’t going to volunteer to do that. Seizing the land at least lets the government plan to do something useful with in an orderly manner before it starts causing problems too big to ignore.
    - bombcar 1y ago
      Even if it does escheat to the city, the city has to pay for the various abatements.
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  >Also, I’d want to know about zoning There is no zoning, that would be kind of dumb and self-defeating in Houston. Houston was a planned industrial community.
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    Too late to edit now, but it might help to remind that it's always possible for people to indicate they are not very aware of a subject by their superstitious or misleading behavior, without having anything factual to add whatsoever, or even anything at all. Which is well recognized as even dumber. You don't see anybody trying to point out when actual zoning was enacted, or that Houston was founded where it was when it was for any other reason than to be the industrial powerhouse of the independent nation of Texas. Except to serve as the Capitol of the new Nation too, but those guys moved to higher ground one day, I wonder why. No brag, just fact. Enquiring minds wanted to know. Remember what Davy Crockett said when he was going back to Texas that time? To some people it applies more than others.
- shawn-butler 1y ago
  here you go. https://mycity.houstontx.gov/MYCITYDOCS/documents/map-LandUse_pj26326.pdf https://mycity.houstontx.gov/MYCITYDOCS/documents/map-LandUs...
  - paulcole 1y ago
    No, no, no. You don’t understand. He wanted to see something that validated his completely unresearched yet strangely strongly held theory.
    - trentnix 1y ago
      The idea that the owners of "brownfield" land (either undeveloped or in disrepair) might have taken advantage of tax loopholes to avoid a tax penalty is ridiculous? I see why they pay you the big bucks. The map shows numerous parcels in metropolitan Houston classified as "Ag" property. The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection.
      - paulcole 1y ago
        > The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection. Wake me when you’ve been encouraged enough to complete your (justified) close inspection.
- Fomite 1y ago
  One of the problems Boston had a couple decades ago is actually figuring out who owns those abandoned lots.
photonthug 1y ago
If we fill those abandoned buildings with people, air-conditioning the inside of the building for them will obviously add even more heat to the outside? Parking lots that are full of cars aren't going to be that much cooler than empty ones? Basically the real story is just that trees make shade (yes, we know already) and "vacant or abandoned" isn't much involved (yes, but we want to discuss zoning/taxes/urbanism things)
- acdha 1y ago
  There are complex trade offs there: housing uses more power than a parking lot but it also provides far more significant social goods, housing can be built with very different levels of energy usage and external heat emissions, and while people need housing they don’t need cars the same way so you can offset a substantial fraction of the pollution from housing by reducing the number of cars used by residents. The main lesson I draw is that everything would improve by taxing externalities: the land is vacant because the property owners doesn’t have enough incentive to do something useful with it and we have a lot of inefficiency in our housing and transportation which a carbon tax would go a long way towards reducing.
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    >the land is vacant because [of some imaginary occurrences] Texas is bigger than that. They have always taxed more carbon and more land in ways that make them rich as hell, at the average citizen's expense. To the envy of other states' greedy taxing entities. That wasn't so bad when there was still enough widespread prosperity for the average citizen to be able to afford it. The land is vacant after they tore down the buildings because the taxes were already too high, and rising too fast. No brag, just fact. "How far up is the river now, Ma?" "Six feet deep, and rising . . ."
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  >air-conditioning the inside of the building for them will obviously add even more heat to the outside? Roger? Well, if Roger's not here somebody's going to have to do the thermodynamics their own self, and it's good to take the initiative plus show it can be done wihtout scaring anybody by using equations or any of that complicated stuff :)

trentnix 1y ago

I’d like to see how the land is classified, regardless. If it’s genuinely urban land, it should be taxed heavily enough to make it hurt if it is appraised correctly. It’s possible this land is subject to delinquent taxes that, in Texas, incur significant interest. Also, I’d want to know about zoning to see if the city has restricted the use of the land. Zoning is a double-edged sword as well.

sandworm101 1y ago
If land is actually abandoned, taxation makes no difference. Land with abandoned biuldings can often cost more to redevelop than green fields (asbestos remediation, buried oil tanks etc). An owner dies, a holding company folds, and land sits vacant. Tax it all you want, nobody is around to pay. Of course the city or other government can take the land, but they dont want it either.
- Yeul 1y ago
  The owners of polluted industrial sites always manage to disappear when it comes time to clean them up. Socialise the losses and all that.
- MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
  > Tax it all you want, nobody is around to pay Why wouldn't this land immediately be forfeited to the city?
  - sandworm101 1y ago
    Nothing in land is ever immediate. Is it worth the legal efforts to force throufh a forfeiture? Does the city even want the land? Perhaps the land is tied up in a disputed estate. Such things can take a decade to resolve. Perhaps some holding company is using the land as an investment vehicle and is paying the taxes, if any are due. Owners have the right to let land sit.
    - acdha 1y ago
      > Owners have the right to let land sit. Yes, hence the point of a vacancy tax, but that’s not relevant in the scenario here where they’re not paying. Having a short period, especially for non-residential property, is a good way to discourage tax cheating and it also helps with cleanup: the best time to deal with toxic waste was when it was generated but the second best time is now and absentee owners aren’t going to volunteer to do that. Seizing the land at least lets the government plan to do something useful with in an orderly manner before it starts causing problems too big to ignore.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    Even if it does escheat to the city, the city has to pay for the various abatements.
fuzzfactor 1y ago
>Also, I’d want to know about zoning There is no zoning, that would be kind of dumb and self-defeating in Houston. Houston was a planned industrial community.
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  Too late to edit now, but it might help to remind that it's always possible for people to indicate they are not very aware of a subject by their superstitious or misleading behavior, without having anything factual to add whatsoever, or even anything at all. Which is well recognized as even dumber. You don't see anybody trying to point out when actual zoning was enacted, or that Houston was founded where it was when it was for any other reason than to be the industrial powerhouse of the independent nation of Texas. Except to serve as the Capitol of the new Nation too, but those guys moved to higher ground one day, I wonder why. No brag, just fact. Enquiring minds wanted to know. Remember what Davy Crockett said when he was going back to Texas that time? To some people it applies more than others.
shawn-butler 1y ago
here you go. https://mycity.houstontx.gov/MYCITYDOCS/documents/map-LandUse_pj26326.pdf https://mycity.houstontx.gov/MYCITYDOCS/documents/map-LandUs...
- paulcole 1y ago
  No, no, no. You don’t understand. He wanted to see something that validated his completely unresearched yet strangely strongly held theory.
  - trentnix 1y ago
    The idea that the owners of "brownfield" land (either undeveloped or in disrepair) might have taken advantage of tax loopholes to avoid a tax penalty is ridiculous? I see why they pay you the big bucks. The map shows numerous parcels in metropolitan Houston classified as "Ag" property. The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection.
    - paulcole 1y ago
      > The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection. Wake me when you’ve been encouraged enough to complete your (justified) close inspection.
Fomite 1y ago
One of the problems Boston had a couple decades ago is actually figuring out who owns those abandoned lots.

photonthug 1y ago

If we fill those abandoned buildings with people, air-conditioning the inside of the building for them will obviously add even more heat to the outside? Parking lots that are full of cars aren't going to be that much cooler than empty ones? Basically the real story is just that trees make shade (yes, we know already) and "vacant or abandoned" isn't much involved (yes, but we want to discuss zoning/taxes/urbanism things)

acdha 1y ago
There are complex trade offs there: housing uses more power than a parking lot but it also provides far more significant social goods, housing can be built with very different levels of energy usage and external heat emissions, and while people need housing they don’t need cars the same way so you can offset a substantial fraction of the pollution from housing by reducing the number of cars used by residents. The main lesson I draw is that everything would improve by taxing externalities: the land is vacant because the property owners doesn’t have enough incentive to do something useful with it and we have a lot of inefficiency in our housing and transportation which a carbon tax would go a long way towards reducing.
- fuzzfactor 1y ago
  >the land is vacant because [of some imaginary occurrences] Texas is bigger than that. They have always taxed more carbon and more land in ways that make them rich as hell, at the average citizen's expense. To the envy of other states' greedy taxing entities. That wasn't so bad when there was still enough widespread prosperity for the average citizen to be able to afford it. The land is vacant after they tore down the buildings because the taxes were already too high, and rising too fast. No brag, just fact. "How far up is the river now, Ma?" "Six feet deep, and rising . . ."
fuzzfactor 1y ago
>air-conditioning the inside of the building for them will obviously add even more heat to the outside? Roger? Well, if Roger's not here somebody's going to have to do the thermodynamics their own self, and it's good to take the initiative plus show it can be done wihtout scaring anybody by using equations or any of that complicated stuff :)