Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownphxguy12
I think of the property at mcdowell and central that sat vacant for over 25 years not providing property or sales taxes.
|
Property owners still pay property taxes on vacant land. However, the taxes are obviously lower given that the property value is lower. This, however, is rational in that vacant land requires fewer public resources (i.e. no fires, no kids needing school, no road wear and tear). However, once a building goes up, the local government needs to provide additional resources for those new residents, necessitating higher property taxes on that parcel.
Anyway, stating that "the land didn't produce tax revenue before" is a weak argument that, even if true, would encourage antisocial behavior by rewarding bad actors (vacant land bankers) by giving them a government handout (property tax breaks) to develop the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownphxguy12
I think don't like the GPLET because of the length of the GPLET. 10 years would be more reasonable.
|
I agree. I am generally in favor of governments being able to use tax incentives to drive policies, and I don't necessarily want GPLETs to go away. Rather, I think a GPLET program with a shorter time period would be more appropriate.
In the alternative, a better policy might be to
raise property taxes on
vacant land. This will provide the same incentive to develop without having to give a handout to those landowners and developers. It will also give a break to nearby residents in that they won't have to shoulder the additional costs of city services that arise from a GPLET.
Some jurisdictions have tried this (i.e. Houston), and as far as I can tell, it has worked to encourage development and discourage land bankers.