Quote:
Originally Posted by eixample
Right, but then what do you do when they don't follow through with their commitments? You have to impose a tax, a fine, or, I suppose, a really large fee for the permit to start building. Or I guess you could make the landowner post a bond that they would forfeit if they didn't build?
I think one of the underlying issues with respect to underused property in the city is our taxation system. We do have a split tax rate where the land is given a separate value from what is built on the land. However, the property value ascribed to land should be a much higher percentage of the total valuation as compared to the improvements on the land. Right now, we are vastly undervaluing our vacant land in this city. I realize this isn't really related to the current debate, but it would eliminate to some degree people sitting on undertaxed, underbuilt lots.
|
Yes good point. Justin mentioned this tax issue previously. I think if you fixed the tax issues with the land itself being so undervalued and put the restrictions in place to get the demolition permit, then i really think you're 90% there.
Sure there will be people don't follow through on their commitments, but if someone actually wants to build and due to restrictions on the demolition permit, they've already gone through the zoning process and secured financing, why not just build? Especially if there is no tax incentive to delay either.