[RP TownTalk] land value tax oversold

[bruce.wernek at mindspring.com]

I think the delta between LVT and non-LVT on Jemal (Town Center) is meanless as far as an incentive for him to lease his properties.  We are going to have to be a lot more creative.   I personally am not in favor of the LVD based on Mr. Lingua's calculations.  That's were the delta is going to have the greatest effect, on us. 

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Hiles <hilesd at mindspring.com>
>Sent: Apr 13, 2006 11:06 PM
>To: TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
>Subject: [RP TownTalk]  land value tax oversold
>
>My messages to this list are being moderated because I was judged to 
>have violated the posting standards.
>************************************
>
>LVT Straw Man* gets up off the floor, dusts himself off and says,
>
>"I disagree that the LVT is being oversold.  I don't remember saying 
>that a land tax policy would influence a non-taxed landholder like the 
>University of Maryland.  And sorry, the LVT is not a club for beating 
>up certain real estate investors.  The LVT is simply one of several 
>tools available to shift the development balance towards a less vacant, 
>more dense, more interesting and successful landscape.  Like the Mixed 
>Use Town Center process, except on auto-pilot.
>
>Riverdale Park is a community where the long-vacant town center is a 
>big deal. Some members of our community recently tried using 
>anti-developer graffiti as an economic development initiative.  
>Redevelopment is not a morality play, but just an exercise in applied 
>economics.  The LVT productively "tweaks" the incentives in the right 
>direction.  I think the LVT and community marketing are things that 
>should be used together. Why not use multiple tools?
>
>Being happy that the Cafritz property is undeveloped greenspace in our 
>town near a major mass transit stop is a legitimate personal choice.  
>Translated into public policy, such a choice imposes costs on our 
>community and encourages sprawl. Having lots of fallow property in our 
>town means that the tax burden for basic services falls more heavily on 
>all of us who own developed property.  It also means that our services 
>are not as good as they could be if we were more fully developed. It 
>means there are fewer customers for those shops we want in the town 
>center.  We are greatly affected by other people's convenience in terms 
>of the highways and rail lines which cut through our small town.  The 
>LVT is a means for capturing some of that benefit for our community.
>
>Consultants from the Maryland Land Tax Project may be available for a 
>presentation on how the tax could work in our community and how to deal 
>with some of the implementation issues raised in this discussion. If 
>requested by a town official, such a presentation could be held at the 
>town hall.  Some problems have solutions.
>
>
>I think that at this point, the burden of proof falls on the defenders 
>of the unsuccessful status quo** strategy for economic development and 
>taxation."
>
>
>*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]
>
>
>**Laurence J. Peter (Peter Principle) "Bureaucracy defends the status 
>quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status."
>Peter Senge (1999) "...collaboration is vital to sustain what we call 
>profound or really deep change, because without it, organizations are 
>just overwhelmed by the forces of the status quo."
>
>
>WE are who we have been waiting for.
>http://riverdalepark.blogspot.com/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TownTalk mailing list
>To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
>TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing only
>http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk_riverdale-park.org