3 ms·
A Georgist LVT would fix that is short order. Start making owners pay compensation for keeping a valuable space empty and crumbling, and you'll see them step to
by andrepd 5mo ago
A Georgist LVT would fix that is short order. Start making owners pay compensation for keeping a valuable space empty and crumbling, and you'll see them step to it pretty quickly or sell it to someone who does.
- ghaff 5mo agoIf it's empty and crumbling, I doubt it's all that valuable to be repurposed for housing or anything else. I did note the other day in the very small downtown of a nearby minor city that the the ancient travel agent is now a party supply store. But, really, there's not a lot in that downtown.
- IAmBroom 5mo agoThis is essentially saying "There's no hope; no one will ever return to downtown, no matter what!"... in a thread trying to find ways to prove that wrong.
- ishouldstayaway 5mo agoThe point of LVT is right there in the name: it is the land that has value. "Location, location, location" is an old cliche for a reason. If you let your property go empty and crumble, the Land Value Tax is there to provide the incentive for you to either fix up the property and actually use it, or sell it to someone who will.
- SoftTalker 5mo agoWhat if nobody wants to buy it and you can't pay the tax?
- datadrivenangel 5mo agoThe state takes it, and then can either sell it off or use it. This makes it easier to do things than trying to find who owns a probably abandoned property.
- ghaff 5mo agoOr it just decays without a real owner.
- hdgvhicv 5mo agoThen it’s worthless and the state will take abandoned land for $0.00. If the land is worth less than nothing (contaminated etc) then there should have been a bond involved to ensure the clean up fee was collected.
- ishouldstayaway 5mo agoThe same thing you do now when you can't sell a piece of land: you lower the price. In addition to what others said, in this case the land is obviously not worth very much, and thus the taxes are also minuscule.
- avidiax 5mo agoThough I am pro-LVT, I don't think this will help in the current situation. The owner, the bank, and the city all wish to maintain the illusion that a $10M building from 2010 is still worth at least $10M today, even vacant. No party wishes to realize the loss in value. Occasionally, the city may try to punish vacancy with a tax, which is still about additional revenue and not about realizing diminished value.
- hdgvhicv 5mo agoLet’s assume that 10m is the land and it’s a 5% tax. That means the bank is paying 500k a year to keep an empty property. That’s real cash flow problems.