<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: TownTalk Digest, Vol 9, Issue
13</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Send TownTalk mailing list submissions
to<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab>TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab
>http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk_riverdale-park.o<span
></span>rg<br>
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab>TownTalk-request@riverdale-park.org<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab>TownTalk-owner@riverdale-park.org<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of TownTalk digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Fwd: PG Transit Plan meetings (Rob Oppenheim)<br>
2. Re: Fwd: Arts District Hyattsville Grand
Opening<x-tab>
</x-tab>Information<br>
(Rob Oppenheim)<br>
3. m-utc report from this week (David Hiles)<br>
4. Re: m-utc report from this week (Gerard Kiernan)<br>
5. Land Value Tax (Marc Molino)<br>
6. Re: m-utc report from this week
(bruce.wernek@mindspring.com)<br>
7. Re: Land Value Tax (The Curries)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> 8. Re: m-utc report from
this week (CHRISTINA DAVIS)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>Jack here in italic bold...so many thoughts and
questions...I will try to answer them "expertly". And, as a
connected whole...enjoy the wandering if it happens. I hope I have
addressed all the questions and comments well, if not you know where I
am. My customary charge is to sit and talk over a cup of coffee. Also
check out the web links at the end.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>A. No one in Maryland has done it!</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>Guess what? If no one is first...it will never happen.
Imagine we could still be eating raw meat and vegetables and sitting
in cold caves, afraid to take those burning limbs from that lighting
struck tree.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>I personally thank the hominid that picked up that first
burning branch, the one who ate the first oyster, et
cetera.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>B. What are the advantages?</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>LVT switches the the economic incentive. Economists would
explain how income, sales, and property taxes are a dead weight on the
economy but a land tax is not.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>I come at this more from the Social Ecologist view. People
look for the least expensive or most profitable way of doing things.
So they go to the high income or low income tax, to the low sales tax,
to the low building tax, et cetera...myriad ways of moving to a better
economic situation.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>Land presents a problem for the running away solution, the
land can not go with you. The solution is to make better use of the
land, in fact the<u> highest and best use</u>...note also due to the
economics of central places and markets, going to higher use will
result in a loss of profit. LVT provides an economic thermostat that
allows only the Goldilocks solution "just
right"</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>C. Taxes will go up!</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>No! Not unless you want to raise them. It is recommended to
go revenue neutral with a phase in period. Primary reason is to let
people adjust from bad economic behavior to good economic behavior. To
arrive at the effect on your own property taxes multiply 0.0148
(revenue neutral for 50%) times your land value and compare that
amount to your current property tax to find if you pay more or less.
Since the current rate is 65%, if I recall correctly, then the revenue
neutral rate is 0.01924. I trust there is some astute mathematician
out there to check my calculations.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>D. The effect is small and not worth doing.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>I disagree, the margins are very important, currently the
average ratio of building value to land value is c. 2.5 to 1. At 65%
$1.625/$100 from building and $0.65/$100 from land so the positive
effect of $0.65 is protecting the situation from being even worse than
were all the tax on improvements. Put all the tax on land and we raise
the positive effect 250%. The effect is accumulative, were the town
able to negotiate a land tax in lieu of the municipal portion of the
sales tax and the income tax there would be additional positive
effect. Where would people tend to shop if Riverdale Park had a 4%
sales tax versus 5%? Would people want to move into RP because they
would not have to pay a municipal income tax (= 60% of state tax).
Would county jurisdiction people want to annex to Riverdale Park if
they knew that an improvement to their house would not increase their
property tax?</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>E. Hyattsville and the LVT.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>I was at a town meeting in Hyattsville some time way
back...about 30-50 people in attendance, my sense of the meeting was
the majority of residents wanted the LVT but wanted to have it on
commercial property only. Many felt that business should be treated
different than residents. I feel that the dichotomies are not the
classes of use but that they are the unused, the under-used, and the
highest and best used land. The first two groups are benefiting from
having low taxes while the land value climbs and they make their wind
fall gains from speculation at the expense of those who use the land
best and contribute to the economy. Industry and Commerce are not the
bad guys. The bad guys are those who do nothing with their land and
reap the profits created by those who contribute to the
economy.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>An interesting aside on the paths of history. The
legislator who got the enabling legislation for Municipalities passed
was planning to do enabling legislation for counties the next session,
but was appointed to a federal judgeship in Texas and so we are left
with the oddity that the State and Municipalities can tax land at a
different rate than improvements but the counties and Baltimore City
can not.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>I gather from the history that the LVT was brought on in a
PG County behind closed doors fashion and sprung on people with no
warning or explanation, apparently this so infuriated the loosing
faction that they spent years trying to get LVT outlawed...completely
missing the benefit in their infuriation with the manner of its
initiation which has no bearing on its merit. C'est la
guerre.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>Meanwhile outside of Maryland is a different story, our
northern neighbor Pennsylvania has a couple dozen jurisdictions with
LVT (also Site Value Tax SVT) and to my mind to great
examples</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>1. Harrisburg which in the early 1980's was something like
the next to worse city economic situation in the nation with several
thousand vacant commercial properties with in 5-10 year period the
number dropped to a couple hundred. I ran into a resident of
Harrisburg at a LUTRAC conference in the 1990's and he told me people
were actually abandoning the suburbs and moving back into the city. I
am sure the Mayor's Office of Harrisburg would be willing to share
their experience.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>2. Pittsburg (had LVT 1913 to c. 2000) set the scene...when
a town goes with LVT (none to my knowledge have gone 100% yet) the
range of increase in building permits in the 2 year period after
adoption goes up by 65-75% of which 70-80% are improvements on
existing buildings. Now...Pittsburg had a reassessment study on land
and property after not doing any for something like 20-30 years. At
the time Pittsburg's land to property tax ratio was 7 to 1 (which
allowed it to weather the Rust Bust) everybody panicked at the high
land tax and they shifted it all to property. With in a year their
economy was dropping and the building permits had dropped to something
like 50% of the National average (there is a case study being
done).</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>There are also over a 1000 Municipalities, States,
Provinces, or Nations in the world that use LVT to good effect now,
and the number grows every year. By all means Riverdale Park wait
until Maryland is the last State in the Union, and Riverdale Park is
the last Municipality in the State to adopt LVT...and even then it
will not be done because everyone will have moved to a better place
and there will be no one to vote for or against LVT.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>More Information on LVT</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>http://www.urbantools.org/</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.us/</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>And my precis of "Progress and Poverty" by Henry
George</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>or you can read the entire book which I highly
recommend,</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>as I could not do it justice in such a short
space.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>http://www.tpaine.org/tphgprop.htm</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<div><i><b>If you made it this far, God Bless you for your Curiosity
and Patience.</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>Sincerely,</b></i></div>
<div><i><b>Jack R. Jones</b></i></div>
<div><i><b><br></b></i></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Message: 5<br>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:32:34 -0400<br>
From: "Marc Molino" <mmolino54@hotmail.com><br>
Subject: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax<br>
To: gerardkiernan@earthlink.net, TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
Message-ID:
<BAY107-F15BAC1F27DD29635B4B071A5CD0@phx.gbl></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed<br>
<br>
Putting aside the individual personalities and which policies they
support,<br>
could someone explain to me why a land value tax is a bad idea, or
better<br>
yet, by what reasoning have previous town councils voted against<br>
implementing an LVT?<br>
<br>
Because a theory sounds good, doesn't mean it's practial; likewise,
just<br>
because someone voted against it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I
would<br>
assume one argument might go that if Riverdale Park were the only<br>
municipality to have an LVT, developers might go elsewhere to
purchase<br>
property first.<br>
<br>
Anyhow, I'd appreciate hearing a little more on why Riverdale Park has
voted<br>
against such an option in the past. At this point, I am neither for
nor<br>
against an LVT. Mostly, I just miss the Riverdale Bookstore and the
bicycle<br>
store.<br>
<br>
Kindly,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Marc Molino<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:54:05 -0400 (GMT-04:00)<br>
From: bruce.wernek@mindspring.com<br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] m-utc report from this week<br>
To: David Hiles <hilesd@mindspring.com>,
TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab
><17397168.1144756446091.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earth<span
></span>link.net><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
Won't this LVT increase our property taxes as well? Riverdale
Park has one of the highest property tax rates in the state. I
am not in favor of any increases in this rate.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Bruce</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:54:52 -0400<br>
From: "The Curries" <the.curries@verizon.net><br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax<br>
To: <TownTalk@riverdale-park.org><br>
Message-ID: <0IXK002P23RTKQ66@vms042.mailsrvcs.net><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
As it happens, before he was mayor, Hyattsville's Bill Gardiner did a
study<br>
for his master's degree in urban planning of how LVT would impact
economic<br>
development in Hyattsville. He found that it would have a
positive impact,<br>
but it would be slight because the municipal share of property tax is
so<br>
small. Unless the other governments that make up the largest
part of the<br>
levy (County, State) went the same way, you can't change the dynamic
much<br>
with a municipal LVT. <br>
<br>
Hyattsville, by the way, was the first municipality in the country to
enact<br>
the LVT -- more than 100 years ago. Commissioner Jackson Ralston
was a<br>
disciple of visionary economist Henry George, who pioneered the
concept of<br>
land-value taxation. Unfortunately for him and his cohort on the
town<br>
council, an opposing group sued the City and won in state court a
year<br>
later. At that time, Md. state law didn't provide for municipalities
to<br>
adopt LVT (it now does). To add insult to injury, Ralston and
his group<br>
were voted out of office and replaced with the opposing faction in the
next<br>
election.<br>
<br>
That history might explain why Hyattsville (and perhaps Riverdale
Park?)<br>
haven't tried to enact LVT even when there is some evidence it would
have a<br>
marginal positive impact on local development of commercial
property.<br>
<br>
Chris Currie</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Hyattsville City
Councilmember</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Message: 8<br>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:08:31 -0400<br>
From: "CHRISTINA DAVIS" <book-smart@verizon.net><br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] m-utc report from this week<br>
To: <bruce.wernek@mindspring.com>,<x-tab> </x-tab>"'David
Hiles'"<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab><hilesd@mindspring.com>,<x-tab
>
</x-tab><TownTalk@riverdale-park.org><br>
Message-ID: <000c01c65d60$a714f550$020aa8c0@naw.org><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Hello Bruce, David, and others:<br>
<br>
Actually, most of the residential property owners would see a tax
decrease<br>
(Jack has the tax rolls run periodically to show this by
individual<br>
address). No town council has ever voted against this. I thought it
was a<br>
bad idea until we had the historic districts in place. Once that
happened, I<br>
tried to bring it up on several occasions. However, most people did
not want<br>
to be the first in the state to try something new. . .<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Chris Davis<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>"We have met the enemy, and he is us!" Pogo Possum<br>
http://theriverdaleobserver.blogspot.com</div>
</body>
</html>