<!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>Who pays, more or less, et
cetera</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:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
1. Re: Land Value Tax Calculator (david lingua)<br>
2. Re: Land Value Tax Calculator (Nancy)<br>
3. Marylandlandtax.org (Jack R. Jones)<br>
4. Re: Land Value Tax Calculator (Regina M. Kreger)<br>
5. Re: Land Value Tax Calculator (david lingua)<br>
6. Land Value Tax Calculator (David Hiles)<br>
7. Re: Land Value Tax Calculator (fwd)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> (Alan
Thompson and Sarah Wayland)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> 9. Re: Land Value Tax
Calculator (Andrew Farrington)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> 10. Re: Land Value Tax Calculator
(bruce.wernek@mindspring.com)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:45:43 -0500<br>
From: "Nancy" <ng_md@verizon.net><br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax Calculator<br>
To: <TownTalk@riverdale-park.org><br>
Message-ID: <007001c65eac$bdd35f50$0201000a@DDBT4981><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Wait a minute. If some folks' taxes are going down, then whose
taxes are<br>
going up? Or is this mainly a mechanism to reduce tax revenue for
local<br>
government?<br>
<br>
Nancy</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Riverdale Road</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Jack here:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>These figures are based on a revenue neutral 100% shift to Land
Tax</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>These are figures for December 2003</div>
<div>20 Vacant Industrial Lots would pay a total of $76, 904 more in
taxes</div>
<div>42 Vacant Commercial Lots would pay a total of $25,391 more in
taxes</div>
<div>7 Vacant Multifamily Lots would pay a total of $3,965 more in
taxes</div>
<div>60 Vacant Residential Lots would pay a total of $25,391 more in
taxes</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>These are figures for December 2004</div>
<div>20 Vacant Industrial Lots would pay a total of $103,597 more in
taxes</div>
<div>42 Vacant Commercial Lots would pay a total of $34,204 more in
taxes</div>
<div>7 Vacant Multifamily Lots would pay a total of $5,341 more in
taxes</div>
<div>60 Vacant Residential Lots would pay a total of $26,877 more in
taxes</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>How much speculators made on vacant lots in 2004</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Industrial speculator $26,693/20 = $1,335 each</div>
<div>Commercial speculator $8813/42 = $210 each</div>
<div>Multifamily speculator $1376/7 = $197 each</div>
<div>Residential speculator $1486/60 = $25 each</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Now there are those who will say this is not much, but add those
commercial properties at Building to Land ratio of</div>
<div><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab>Average</div>
<div>0.033 to 0.50: 22 would pay a total of<font
color="#FF0000"> $24,667<x-tab>
</x-tab></font><x-tab>
</x-tab>$1,121</div>
<div>0.501 to 1.00:<x-tab> </x-tab>10 would pay a total of<font
color="#FF0000"> $33,991</font><x-tab>
</x-tab><x-tab>
</x-tab>$3,399</div>
<div>1.001 to 1.50 15 would pay a total of<font
color="#FF0000"> $24,432<x-tab>
</x-tab></font><x-tab>
</x-tab>$1,629</div>
<div>1.501 to 2.00<x-tab> </x-tab>49 would pay a total
of<font color="#FF0000"> $32,279</font><x-tab> </x-tab>
$659</div>
<div>2.001 to 2.50<x-tab> </x-tab> 9 would pay a total
of <font color="#FF0000"> $1,053<x-tab>
</x-tab></font><x-tab>
</x-tab> $117</div>
<div>2.501 to 3.00<x-tab> </x-tab> 4 would save a total
of <font color="#007700"> $871</font></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Total of Commercial under developed is $121,646 per year
for 2004</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The under developed commercial properties are costing the
residents of Riverdale Park $121,646 dollars a year in additional tax
so that buildings can be taxed instead of land, personally, I would
like to see them paying their fair share of the infrastructure and
public service cost.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It will be interesting to see what the 40% real estate bubble of
2005 has done to things.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 06:12:30 -0700 (PDT)<br>
From: david lingua <inkywaterbears@yahoo.com><br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax Calculator<br>
To: TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
Message-ID:
<20060413131230.86382.qmail@web84002.mail.dcn.yahoo.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<br>
<br>
Currently the underutilized commercial property on<br>
Rhode Island Avenue owned by Mr. Jemal's company would<br>
net Mr. Jemal $110.- in decreased taxes under LVT as<br>
the property stands right now.<br>
A cursory glance at at the town shows a large number<br>
of residential properties, if not a majority, would<br>
see their tax rates increase. One sees more red than<br>
green as one looks at page after page at the site</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>provided by Mr. Hiles. While Mr. Hiles
did provide the<br>
caveat emptor ("might look like"), the examples<br>
demonstrate negligible incentive for adopting LVT.<br>
<br>
-DJL<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>--- "Regina M. Kreger"
<regina@kreger.net> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:41:14 -0400<br>
From: David Hiles <hilesd@mindspring.com><br>
Subject: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax Calculator<br>
To: TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
Message-ID:
<d46662769097ca20dcff313d8a4944dd@mindspring.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed<br>
<br>
My messages to this list are being moderated because I was judged
to<br>
have violated the posting standards.<br>
************************************<br>
<br>
The LVT proposal says NOTHING (say it loud!) about increasing
or<br>
cutting total town tax revenues. The LVT proposal is one that
changes<br>
the base of taxation to a better footing. The calculator is
presented<br>
using rates which yield a REVENUE NEUTRAL result for the town as a<br>
whole. Alternatively, it could be set to cut revenue or to raise
it. <br>
Raising or cutting revenue is a SEPARATE TOPIC.<br>
<br>
For a simple example of how a LVT would work for a commercial
property<br>
see [ http://www.marylandlandtax.org/lvt ].<br>
<br>
To see how the LVT would redistribute some of the tax load away
from<br>
improvements and toward undeveloped property, open up the calculator
[<br>
http://www.marylandlandtax.org/calculator ] and put in a street
like<br>
Riverdale or Baltimore or Kenilworth, or even your own street.
If you<br>
don't put in the street number, you will see a list of all the<br>
addresses on that street along with the tax change for each
property. <br>
The calculator is set at rates which would not change the overall
tax</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>revenue coming into the town. It
shows what happens when you shift<br>
more of the payment onto undeveloped land.<br>
<br>
The shifted amounts are small in most cases, which I think is what
Mr.<br>
Lingua noticed. This small initial shift is intentional, so that
there<br>
is not a big disruption at the beginning. The first change
is<br>
something like a 20 percent cut in the tax rate on improvements,
with<br>
the revenue made up by increasing the rate on land. Over time,
more of<br>
these changes are made so that the town eventually gets to the
target<br>
high rate on land and the target low rate on improvements.
Making the<br>
change all at once is unnecessary and would be cause more problems
than<br>
it would solve.<br>
<br>
Thinking that the change would have to be either<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>a) too small to be effective or<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>b) so big that it would be disruptive<br>
is one of the mistaken assumptions made when this topic was raised<br>
years ago. Reasonable ideas like "make a small change for
the better<br>
which becomes big over time" were lost in the noise and drama of
the<br>
past.<br>
<br>
<br>
WE are who we have been waiting for.<br>
http://riverdalepark.blogspot.com/<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Jack here:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As Senator Everett Dirkson used to say "A decimal here, a
decimal there, pretty soon you're talking about real money" Pete
Seeger "1 and 1 makes a million"</div>
<div>A little Land Tax here and a little Land Tax there and pretty
soon we'll be talking about real development. Well said David.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:49:05 -0400 (EDT)<br>
From: Alan Thompson and Sarah Wayland <twacks@his.com><br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax Calculator (fwd)<br>
To: towntalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
Message-ID: <20060413094821.R99584@mail101.his.com><br>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed<br>
<br>
[Sarah here, speaking only for myself.]<br>
<br>
While I *do* support the idea of a Land Value Tax, I worry about two
issues.<br>
<br>
The first is that the current assessed value of the land does not
reflect size<br>
or location.<br>
<br>
The second is that the differential incentive is small, and I wonder
whether it<br>
will be effective.<br>
<br>
Let me give some examples to illustrate.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
(1) The value of land (versus the improvements on the land) is
currently set by<br>
the state, and those values do not reflect lot size or location.<br>
<br>
Example 1: On my street are 3 houses: A is on one lot, B is on two
lots, and C<br>
is on three lots. Each address has only one house on it. The land
value for<br>
each property is set at:<br>
<br>
A (9000 sq ft) = $55,500<br>
B (18000 sq ft) = $56,400</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>C (22500 sq ft) = $56,850<br>
<br>
So my neighbors all pay roughly the same tax on their land, even
though the<br>
smallest lot is 13,500 feet smaller than the biggest lot.<br>
<br>
Example 2: The Town of Riverdale Park sold a 649 square foot
commercial lot on<br>
the southeast corner of East-West Highway and Route 1 for $36,000 to
Riverdale<br>
One LLC (Mr. Caputo) on 6/4/2003. That same property has a
state-assessed value<br>
(last updated on 1/1/2004) of $200.<br>
<br>
Clearly the state will have to reassess the value of the land before a
"land<br>
value tax" can have any real meaning.<br>
<br>
(2) The amount of money a commercial property will pay, with the
current<br>
assessment structure, will not change by enough to motivate a change
in<br>
behavior.<br>
<br>
Example: The old Crestar Bank Building at 6200 Baltimore Avenue,
currently<br>
owned by Jemal Riverdale Citizens LLC, currently pays the following in
taxes:<br>
<br>
STATE: $946<br>
COUNTY: $8508<br>
MUNICIPAL: $7173<br>
<br>
Under a Land Value Taxation scheme, Jemal Riverdale Citizens LLC would
pay:<br>
<br>
STATE: $1469<br>
COUNTY: $8936<br>
MUNICIPAL: $7534<br>
<br>
For Riverdale Park, this means Jemal would pay $361 more to the town
under Land<br>
Value Taxation. He bought the building for $1,350,000. I don't know
that $361<br>
will motivate any changes in behavior on his part. David Hiles says
that this<br>
argument (that the incentive is too small (or a different version too
large))<br>
was not relevant to the merit of the proposal, but I think it is<br>
worth considering nonetheless.<br>
<br>
----<br>
<br>
To summarize, the main point is that the state will have to change how
land is<br>
valued before Land Value Tax can truly work. A secondary point is that
the<br>
amount of money we are discussing here will not have much impact on a
developer<br>
who is used to dealing with millions of dollars at a time, and doesn't
seem to<br>
mind lost revenue on the order of many thousands each month.<br>
<br>
-Sarah</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Jack here:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The State of Maryland has the reputation of being among the best
in Land and Improvement Assessments: on Example 2 I'd want to see what
they do after the sale information is applied and given SDAT
reassesses every three years and the increase is spread out over three
years I would expect it to show a change bringing it in to line with
other adjacent commercial property at about $27 per sq ft, but not the
$55.47 per square foot of the purchase. That additional $$$ was
probably spent to reduce the RP pain in the derriere.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The reason there is not much tax difference on the residential
lots is that additional land over the "standard" lot is that
it is assessed as agricultural land which has an annual rental value
of $50 to $150 per acre depending on tilth or about $15 to $45 tax
value for a 1/3 acre...and probably $15 because high tilth has not
been demonstrated.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>On the other had in the other use codes a square foot is a square
foot in that use.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite>------------------------------</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Message: 10<br>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:16:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>From: bruce.wernek@mindspring.com<br>
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Land Value Tax Calculator<br>
To: david lingua <inkywaterbears@yahoo.com>,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite><x-tab>
</x-tab>TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<x-tab>
</x-tab
><11089026.1144937802821.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthl<span
></span>ink.net><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
Thanks for the very informative counter point. This may explain
why there are no municipalities in the state which have adopted the
LVT.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Bruce<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Jack here:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I still favor a working hypothesis of the phobia of being first,
so prevalent in Maryland municipalities as the reason none have gone
with LVT...it is so Maryland, if you have seen "1776" or
read the<u> Oxford History of the American People</u>. Unlike the
Virginia County I am from...they couldn't prove it but we were
instigators in Bacon's Rebellion...a 1620 effort to throw the English
Governor out and have the House of Burgesses (longest continuously
meeting legislature in the world, 400th anniversary coming up soon)
take over running the colony with out English interference. God we are
sooo provincial!! A friend told me that on a trip to Europe he found
two types of tourists...those from the United States and those from
Virginia.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
TownTalk mailing list<br>
TownTalk@riverdale-park.org<br>
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk_riverdale-park.org<br
>
<br>
<br>
End of TownTalk Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16<br>
***************************************</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<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>