Success idea from elsewhere: Harrisburg, PA

[zoo]

"A building tax can be avoided by allowing a building to deteriorate or by leaving land vacant. A land tax cannot be avoided -- so owners have a greater incentive to put valuable downtown sites into use. Also, higher land taxes put downward pressure on land prices, helping make downtown locations more affordable."

Just found this tidbit of info on a blog; quote references property tax structure change in Harrisburg, PA implemented by Mayor Reed after floods left destruction and vacancies in downtown core (in 70s?). Mayor Reed has since been re-elected 6 times and a similar land-heavy tax structure was implemented in Pittsburgh, which also led to revitalization.

I believe the Pittsburgh change occurred while Tom Murphy was in office there. Mr. Murphy has been to Jax on several occasions, and spoken as part of downtown-oriented forums and with the Mayor's office. Wonder if anyone was listening?

[Joe]

Yeah, land taxes have long been discussed (nationally) by downtown advocates. In many ways it's a reaction to the taxation policies that allowed for "demolition by neglect" and surface parking lots.

On the other hand, you always have to worry about the unintended consequences of government regulations. If you implement land taxes in the wrong manner, you could be inadvertently setting up an incentive for landowners to build crappy 1 floor boxes, instead of quality urban buildings. Or, you could be deincentivizing downtown development entirely if a suburban district starts allowing high-density but without the extra taxes. So you have to be careful with that kind of stuff.

All that being said, yes, I'm tempted to agree that Jax's vacant land taxes are too proportionally low relative to the taxes on improvements (to the extent that I tolerate any taxes to begin with).

[vicupstate]

I posted something about this  in a different thread, but I haven't been able to find much about it on the net. 

One idea I would like to see tested as well, is to offer a property tax refund or reduction based on density.  In other words, each additional floor would be taxed at a lower rate than the one below it.   

For example, say you have a 5 story building with each floor being 'equal' (the same size and the same finishes, etc.)  The fifth floor would be taxed lower than the fourth, the fourth lower than the third, etc.   This would provide incentive to build up, rather than out.  Hopefully, enough incentive to offset at least a significant part of the higher costs involved in building up (stronger foundation, etc.).

The theory being that the city would develop with more density and less sprawl.  Doing so would provide savings of it's own, because less infrastructure is required (water lines, sewer lines, storm drains,etc.).

Food for thought anyway...     

[BridgeTroll]

Very interesting concept!

[Jason]

Indeed!

In theory, that would also make the typically more expensive upper floors more affordable.

[thelakelander]

I'll be in Harrisburg next month. Look for a Elements of Urbanism: Harrisburg to pop up on this site later this Summer.

[heights unknown]

I doubt if anyone was listening from the present Jax government administration Zoo, but, it is an interesting concept to spur and spark revitalization in undeveloped areas and in our case, downtown would be a great place to start!

Land-Heavy tax structure as a catalyst for revitalization; never heard of it till now.

Heights Unknown