Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller
I don't think you should force property owners to use their land to its highest and best use.
Otherwise, the same argument can be made for non-vacant sites that are currently "underdeveloped' vis-a-vis their zoning.
(ie. slippery slope)
|
I don't think you should force them to do anything. But you can provide a financial disincentive to hoarding land and sitting on it, and use the funds for affordable housing, or providing public bathrooms, or some other expenditure that wouldn't necessarily be funded that would benefit the area. You could allow a year period of grace, and have temporary uses other than parking that could be approved. I don't see it as any different to charging higher taxes on under occupied residential units.
Threaded Mode