I'm not proposing anything that is particularly extreme. Let me just have a quick go at this, taking into account that I'm no economics major...
So, the premise of the "land use" tax is that the city wants to try different methods to control sprawl. As the city grows larger, more roads and infrastructure need to be built. Although this is originally done by developers, for the most part, the city eventually has to maintain and perform upgrades on such services.
The basic restructuring is as follows: You property tax, instead of being 100% value based, would now be both value and use based. Pick an arbitrary number for now. Let's say 2/3 value, 1/3 use based.
So let's choose 2 properties, I'm going to avoid number-crunching but let's just go ahead and do it...
http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.as...ertyID=5544101
^ This unit in Bankview is $255 000 for 526sqft (
$485/sqft). There are maybe 12 units in this building?
http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.as...ertyID=5514536
^ This house in Midnapore is $699 900 for 2512sqft (
$279/sqft). Only 1 unit for the whole thing, right?
Okay, now back to the tax. So the way I might have this
conceptually work is as follows...
1) You figure out what percentage of the total parcel that the structure covers.
2) You then find out how many units are in the building, how many total sqft of space are within the building, and the amount of space per unit.
3) Charge ($/sqft/unit/totalsqft/% of total land used) or something to that effect
You could go further than that to try and tax based on the number of people per unit, and the number of income earners as well. Rental units, affordable housing, and senior's housing could be kept out of the equation. All fixed income earners would be exempt from paying this part of the tax. Hell, if a building has mixed uses you could throw in another tax break.
Phasing would be necessary to prevent shocks in the system. The average community lifespan right now is around 15 years before it starts going into decline. You could perhaps time it in 15 years for new communities and 20 years for older communities.
This is just a suggestion of course. I'd rather have a system that both considers the ability to pay and the responsibility to take into account the effects of our land use.