In the American cities that tax buildings less heavily than land, the effect has been dramatic. As John Norquist, the president of the Congress for the New Urbanism who was the acclaimed Democrat mayor of Milwaukee from 1988-2003, said: "It's been great for Pittsburgh. You almost can't find an empty lot in downtown Pittsburgh. They've done a lot of things wrong in Pittsburgh, but one thing they did right was having this land value taxation so there's no incentive to have an empty lot." Other cities in Pennsylvania are already copying Pittsburgh. Similar tax systems operate in Denmark and Australia.
A tax on land values can dampen the cycle of boom and bust in British property prices by discouraging the hoarding of land during price upswings. It can make a crucial contribution to the financing of social improvements. It can shift private incentives so that areas do not fall into unfashionable disuse because of blight. It provides an incentive for developers to bring forward plans that are tailored to social needs. Where such taxes are applied, there are higher levels of construction activity and a better-looking urban environment.
These potential gains are not inconsiderable. Land value taxes can hugely improve our cities and towns.
I guess, at this moment, my questions are how best to use it with areas like allotments in cities where the economic rent may price allotments out (or have I misunderstood something?) and similarly, the implications for setting aside land for the common good - national parks and the like.
New Statesman: On Del.icio.us: LVT, USA, justice, public, housing, rent, blight
No comments:
Post a Comment