• QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s wild that you don’t see how exploitable such a tax would be. Specifically, it would make gentrification occur more easily and quickly.

    If a developer became interested in rebuilding a poor neighborhood, their interest alone would dramatically raise the land value of the area. The now untenable tax burden would force the current residents to move out, and because the developer would be the only one interested in buying, the developer has nearly complete control over the sale price.

    • vin@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Developer is not controlling the price, they’re the highest bidder. It seems like a positive anyway - existing owners can sell at a high rate, government can get more tax, more tax can fund more support for the poor

      • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        The current owner can no longer afford the taxes and is forced to sell whether or not they want to. The developer can position themselves as the “highest bidder” by an extremely small margin over the property’s historical value, denying the current owner the windfall from the recent spike in land value. Despite the increased land value, no one else will be interested in purchasing the property at this valuation until the developer’s project is complete, as the project itself is the cause for the spike.

        This is effectively eminent domain for private developers. If you’re a homeowner and you’ve been paying your property taxes just fine for the past decade on a $40,000/year salary, you shouldn’t suddenly become unable to afford to live there because someone said you live in a “hot area” or whatever.

        • vin@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Pardon, I don’t get this - “The developer can position themselves as the “highest bidder” by an extremely small margin over the property’s historical value, denying the current owner the windfall from the recent removede in land value.” - Wouldn’t ask/bid and transaction value determine the land value? Why does the land value tax increase a lot if the best offered purchase value will be only slightly higher than historical?

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            I think that’s what they are saying is exploitable. It comes down to who sets the value? Is it all just speculation. Speculation isn’t a price tag.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      LVT is already a thing in a bunch of places… How come we haven’t seen these dramatic gentrifications happen?