[RP TownTalk] m-utc report from this week

[David Hiles]

My messages to this list are currently being moderated because I have  
been judged to be insufficiently civil.
************

OK. Now that we have gotten the usual opening salvos off, let's look at  
the merits.

The argument that "others didn't do it so it must be bad" is not  
sufficient to dismiss an idea from consideration.  After all, even  
non-property holders now have the vote.  This argument often proves  
effective as a delaying and diffusing tactic, used by those who aren't  
interested in looking at new ideas.

The land value tax has had revitalization successes in several  
locations, with Harrisburg PA one fairly nearby.  The Maryland Planning  
Association ran a "rolling seminar" bus trip to Harrisburg last year to  
increase LVT knowledge levels among local planning professionals and  
gov't officials in MD.  I went and learned a lot.  The usual opponents  
of the LVT are parking lot operators and car dealers. They would have  
to pay higher taxes on their property. The usual proponents are  
architects, urban design firms, and developers interested in more fully  
using existing infrastructure.  If you like smart growth, then LVT is a  
tax structure that encourages good development around things like mass  
transit stops and major traffic arteries.  In other words,  in places  
like Riverdale Park.

Jack has brought up the LVT repeatedly because he 1) lives here, 2)  
knows about LVT, 3) knows Riverdale Park would benefit from it, 4) is a  
stubborn cuss, 5) wants the community to improve, and 6) can see with  
his own two eyes the limited success brought by the status quo.

A lot of people put significant time over the last ten years into  
things like the vision statement and the M-UTC and the TDOZ and all the  
associated meetings.  Some benefit has come from that, perhaps mostly  
in the form of putting a brake on the low density retail proposals that  
keep getting presented for the Rt 1/410 corner.  Putting in a LVT in  
Riverdale Park would give the development community more incentive to  
comply with our vision and participate more fully in creating a better  
community.  Going to a LVT isn't a one-way decision.  If for whatever  
reason the town did not like it, we could return to the traditional tax  
structure.

When I saw Alice's description of the bank proposal, it clicked  
perfectly as an example of the bad projects with which we keep getting  
presented.



************************************************************************ 
************************************************************************ 
************

Some other takes on the topic:



Pittsburg Mayor John Norquist
More Question and Answer with Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist on Tuesday,  
January 26, 1999

The Landmark Series Q: Have you looked at alternative property tax  
systems such as a two-tier land value based system to encourage  
efficient use?

A: Great idea and almost impossible to get politically. Usually the  
constitutions in most states block it but it's been great for  
Pittsburgh. You almost can't find an empty lot in downtown Pittsburgh.  
They've done a lot of things wrong in Pittsburgh but one thing they did  
right was having this land value taxation so there's no incentive to  
have an empty lot. Having a parking lot doesn't make sense economically  
so the buildings fill in and you don't have these big empty spots. So  
if you can do it in Minnesota, go for it. It's good for the city.


National Association to Restore Pride in America's Capitol

May, 2001.Land Use Planning:
The Committee reflects NARPAC's strong emphasis on increasing the  
density of mixed-use developments around Metrorail stations. It also  
suggests the need to incorporate transportation objectives in its  
Comprehensive Plan, and suggests adopting a "Split Rate Tax" to  
encourage "compact growth and neighborhood renewal".

http://www.narpac.org/


SPRAWL WATCH CLEARINGHOUSE - BEST PRACTICES - Tax Incentives

1. Promoting Good Design and New Investments in the City: Site-Value  
Taxation
As an alternative to the current property tax system, James Howard  
Kunstler (author of The Geography of Nowhere) commends a rational  
alternative, site-value taxation which levies a tax on real estate  
commensurate with the site's potential value, regardless of what  
buildings may occupy the site. This form of property taxation  
recognizes "socially created value" -- the huge public investments in  
streets, sewers, utilities and so forth, that make the private real  
estate holdings more valuable. Site-value taxation encourages  
productive new investments, such as buildings for middle-class housing  
and denser urban development. This, in turn, makes urban spaces more  
lively and interesting -- places where people want to live and  
businesses invest. By taxing land, and not buildings, developers have  
greater incentive to design durable, gracious buildings and can more  
easily eschew the slipshod standards of so much contemporary  
construction. Under the current property tax, land speculation is  
encouraged. Land speculation inflates land prices near existing roads,  
transit, sewers,schools, etc. and drives development away from these  
facilities and services to cheaper remote sites. However, under a site  
value tax, land speculation is discouraged. This helps reduce urban  
land price inflation. Furthermore, where urban land values are high --  
generally near existing infrastructure -- landowners will need to  
generate income from which to pay the site value tax. As a result,  
landowners are motivated to create compact, infill and brownfield  
development on high-value sites near infrastructure. More intense  
development of these urban sites reduces the pressure to develop rural  
greenfields where land values (and taxes) are lower.


Paradox of Sprawl Conf., October 30/31, 1997, Edited remarks of Evan  
Richert, Director, Maine State Planning Office


There is a version of the single tax idea, which was Henry George's  
idea that is now widespread in Pennsylvania, simply using his idea and  
recreating it into an optional split-rate property tax for commercial  
and industrial districts. What that does is it untaxes the capital, the  
investment, and increases the taxes on the land so that the incentive  
and the reward are in the production of capital investment where you  
want the industrial and commercial growth to occur. The first community  
that enacts this will leap head and shoulders above the surrounding  
communities in terms of attracting commercial and industrial  
investments. It is that powerful an incentive.


END MESSAGE