Hi Colin,
I heard
you on the radio today speaking about your public comment / input period
regrading ideas for improving affordable housing availability. So, I'm sending my thoughts along none
the less in hopes that they are taken into consideration.
My
specific suggestion is to move to land value taxation from our current property
improvement tax system. A solution lies in how property tax is assessed
and would be revenue neutral (ie. wouldn't cost government anything). Our current tax assessment process is
primarily based on the value of the improvements on the property, with less
emphasis given to the land value itself.
This assessment method is actually a disincentive to redevelopment and
development of revenue generating buildings (e.g. rental or multi-housing). In fact, under our current property tax
assessment system, holding fallow or underutilized land for speculation is
encouraged. This is because if a
developer wishes to develop a high quality, multi-use building, the tax on that
property rises, whereas if they do nothing, or construct a low-quality
development, the property tax is lower.
The
alternative to property tax assessment is land-value taxation. Under this system, the tax on real estate is
commensurate with the site's potential value, regardless of what buildings may
occupy the site. Therefore, holding fallow or underutilized land is a
cost to the developer. The developer
will want to construct the highest quality (and highest income yielding)
development on the property as possible, comfortable in knowing the taxation
will not change significantly. Under the land-value taxation system, holding land is expensive, and high-quality
re-development is actually encouraged by the taxation system. A good overview
is found on wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax,
or another nice summary of this system can be found at:
http://www.sprawlwatch.org/taxincentives.html
Obviously
the land-value taxation would be gradually moved to over a number of years so
land-owners know it is coming and it doesn't cause a tax-shock for them.
For example, increase the land portion of the tax assessment by 10% and
decrease the improvement portion by 10% every year for 10 year. At the end, the tax would be assessed 100% on land and 0% on improvements. The specific rates would need to be looked at so that on balance the tax is revenue-neutral relative to the current tax base.
This would be an easy, revenue neutral way to get some of that fallow-land in Whitehorse
into providing housing for people, and would ultimately lead to a better built
environment for the community. The City has been criticized for "not
doing its part" by allowing all these derelict lots downtown, but instead going
and developing in new areas. This could be a means to directly show that
the municipality, supported by YG, is doing its part to provide sustainable
housing to the community.
I hope that this is something we can move towards. Thank you for taking
my input.
-Forest Pearson
“Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.” —Jack Layton, August 20, 2011
http://forestpearson.blogspot.com/