can land value tax used as method to reduce urban sprawl? need a discussion about this
#urban sprawl x land value tax
modern zealot
glass crown
I think it can, but I’m not an urban planner yet
It would lower the quantity of homes built bc it’s a tax on new sprawl development
I’m by no means not an economist but I’m attempting to use my economics knowledge
Ig you could say it would make a good pigouvian tax
vagrant fractal
My understanding is that LVT would remove barriers to improving land and attempts to alleviate holding unimproved land as part of value speculation. I think it'd probably encourage construction / improvement of vacant lots but I don’t know if it’d necessarily stop sprawl. I think maybe with some other tools it could create an anti-sprawl toolkit if a municipality decided to go that route (urban growth barrier, design standards and incentives encouraging density, transit orientated development)
I could be wrong though. I don’t interact with this side of planning that much anymore since switching jobs but I’m interested to hear others input
hollow summit
Good question. It can be used as a tool in helping to limit sprawl but I would not rely solely on that. As stated above, LVT can help to discourage land speculators holding onto vacant or underutilized land while at the same time encouraging land owners to build more on the site in order to make it easier to pay the tax. From what I know, this has been very effective on revitalizing areas as new developments replaced vacant or abandoned sites.
If we are also wanting to help reduce sprawl, you would want to look at property tax breaks for agricultural and open space lands. California has the Williamson Act which lowers an agricultural property’s tax to almost nothing if the contract is approved.
The LVT also has a potential drawback as that it may actually reduce the amount of taxes a jurisdiction is able to take in, which would impact their budget.
His is especially accurate for cities that have a lot of nonprofit or tax exempt lands as they have to rely on a smaller amount of developed land to provide revenue, whereas if the taxes included improvements they may be able to still have a comfortable tax income (does that make sense?).
wind ruin
While a LVT is one tool that could add a price/cost for sprawl I know that there are other options to consider that can also help curb sprawl. Growth management boundaries are a tool that Portland Oregon and the state of Washington use to encourage more infill development first in existing urban areas. We have seen great improvements to the urban infrastructure as a result.
mortal socket
LVT in industry is double-edged sword. On the one hand, yes, you encourage to demolish and rebuild abandoned industry sites.
On the other side, the increased costs may prevent a company from expanding or encourages them to build their Factories somewhere else, where there are no LVT.
In terms of economic growth it's maybe not conducive.
I've heard the idea that the LVT is used to pay for the demolition of existing structures and subsidize the construction on already used plots. But I don't know the exact figures, I can't estimate if this equation works.