Re: Party/Meeting followup, Steve Cord's 238 LVT study document

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Baker

unread,
Dec 30, 2014, 4:35:25 AM12/30/14
to Mike Curtis, John Tepper Marlin, ala...@centurylink.net, Lindy Davies, harmo...@verizon.net, common-g...@googlegroups.com, Edward Dodson, Andrew Mazzone, jtma...@post.harvard.edu, albany...@gmail.com, yankee...@yahoo.com, osamuue...@aol.com, karry...@gmail.com, david...@earthlink.net, william...@yahoo.com, toby lenihan, mirellala...@gmail.com, mcleve...@gmail.com, terpall...@gmail.com, msul...@schalkenbach.org, rral...@aol.com, hsz...@gmail.com, Gill Herman, Billy Fitzgerald, Alanna Hartzok, Joshua Vincent
Yes, me too.
Let me very briefly respond to John's list of things to consider:
Higher taxes on vacant land. Tax breaks for new construction. More frequent assessments. Ending corrupt assessments. Ending classes of properties that discriminate in uneconomic ways against certain uses... etc.
We in CGNYC have been advocating for higher taxes on vacant land from the founding of the chapter (Rita discussed this at the party/meeting too).  Our position, as well as links to three related but tabled bills, can be found here:
Also, in coordination with Rita's Assembly member, Dan Quart, we set up this petition and created a Memorandum of Support for comparable assessments on ultra-lux properties.  This petition includes a link to Quart's bill:
Finally, credit must be given where it's due to the previous Bloomberg Administration for updating and clarifying most assessments, though unfortunately, also granting massive tax breaks to political friends and projects of the elite - like Goldman Sachs' new headquarters, which is tax-free, or the 5 ultra-lux residential buildings, including One57.
Zoning and tax class discrimination remains something CGNYC is trying to streamline, while remaining sensitive to legitimate community concerns about over-development, inappropriate development, etc. (no one said this would be easy).

State Senator Liz Krueger once told me that all issues in NYC are "Land issues."

Alanna, Rita and I and undoubtedly others, have all advocated for a central and professional PR person for the school and perhaps beyond.  As you know, we are somewhat short of the funds you mention *;) winking

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:01 AM, Mike Curtis <mikecur...@verizon.net> wrote:


Thank you John.  I very much appreciate you response.

Mike Curtis



On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:38 PM, John Tepper Marlin <tepper...@aol.com> wrote:

Let me just discuss New York City, which I know most about. Also, let me answer the question in a way that might be useful for moving forward.

We have four main taxes - Property, Personal Income, Business and Sales. In good times property taxes lag because the assessments are averaged over five years. The other taxes go up faster. In bad times, property taxes support the budget. A great system. NYC suffered much less than other cities because we have this built-in revenue support.

Revenue neutral means property taxes would have to go up a lot to make up for the loss of the other taxes. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said publicly at a breakfast meeting called by the real estate industry that his main constituent was the real estate industry (as in, "what is the equivalent in NY of the oil industry in Texas"?). 

In other words, I can't connect the dots between one end of your question and the other. There would be carnage along the way, rightly or wrongly. I don't think that $1 million of LVT propaganda (in the good sense) would change that, or even $10 million. Maybe $100 million would make a dent. I'm not sure the LVT lobby has its message ready for that kind of investment, assuming it could be accumulated.

However, ways making the system work more like LVT have been introduced successfully and could work without major shifts in public and political opinion. Higher taxes on vacant land. Tax breaks for new construction. More frequent assessments. Ending corrupt assessments. Ending classes of properties that discriminate in uneconomic ways against certain uses... etc.

I haven't ready every single email on this topic and I've been out of NYC Government for a few years, so I apologize for the inadequacy of my answer, but it's the best I can do as I head out of NYC for warmer weather.

John

John Tepper Marlin, Ph.D.
Principal, CityEconomist
646-250-4915 (cell) . 212-924-3280 (land) . 772-492-9303 (Jan. & Mar.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Curtis <mikecur...@verizon.net>
To: John Tepper Marlin <tepper...@aol.com>
Cc: alanna <ala...@centurylink.net>; Scott Baker <ssbak...@yahoo.com>; Lindy Davies <li...@henrygeorge.org>; harmonyww1 <harmo...@verizon.net>; common-ground-nyc <common-g...@googlegroups.com>; Edward Dodson <edod...@comcast.net>; Andrew Mazzone <andr...@aol.com>; jtmarlin <jtma...@post.harvard.edu>; albanygeoist <albany...@gmail.com>; yankeelady19 <yankee...@yahoo.com>; osamuueharafdt <osamuue...@aol.com>; karryskanda <karry...@gmail.com>; davidmkorn <david...@earthlink.net>; williamjhanman <william...@yahoo.com>; toby lenihan <tob...@optonline.net>; mirellalandriscina <mirellala...@gmail.com>; mcleveland20 <mcleve...@gmail.com>; terpaller.aller <terpall...@gmail.com>; msullivan <msul...@schalkenbach.org>; rralph13 <rral...@aol.com>; hszwed1 <hsz...@gmail.com>; Gill Herman <gher...@yahoo.com>; Billy Fitzgerald <billyfi...@yahoo.com>; Jacob Shwartzlucas <jacobshw...@gmail.com>; Alanna Hartzok <eart...@pa.net>; Joshua Vincent <jos...@urbantools.org>
Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 4:20 pm
Subject: Re: Party/Meeting followup, Steve Cord's 238 LVT study document

Hello John Tepper Marlin, I believe you are a university trained economist, do you think a revenue neutral shift to land value taxation will lower the rental value of land if it is applied only in a single city?

Mike Curtis


On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:46 PM, John Tepper Marlin <tepper...@aol.com> wrote:

Amen to that.
I even like the expression "connect the dots".
That describes what is lacking and what needs to be done.

John

John Tepper Marlin, Ph.D.
Principal, CityEconomist
646-250-4915 (cell) . 212-924-3280 (land) . 772-492-9303 (Jan. & Mar.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Alanna Hartzok <ala...@centurylink.net>
To: Scott Baker <ssbak...@yahoo.com>; mikecurtisarden <mikecur...@verizon.net>; Lindy Davies <li...@henrygeorge.org>; Ron Rubin <harmo...@verizon.net>
Cc: Common Ground NYC <common-g...@googlegroups.com>; Ed Dodson <edod...@comcast.net>; Andrew Mazzoni <andr...@aol.com>; John Tepper Marlin <jtma...@post.harvard.edu>; Bill Batt <albany...@gmail.com>; B. Pyneyonoh Bertsche <yankee...@yahoo.com>; osamuueharafdt <osamuue...@aol.com>; Cay Hehner <karry...@gmail.com>; David M Korn <david...@earthlink.net>; Will Lenihan <william...@yahoo.com>; Toby Altschuler <tob...@optonline.net>; Mirella Landriscina <mirellala...@gmail.com>; Polly Cleveland <mcleve...@gmail.com>; Pat Aller <terpall...@gmail.com>; msullivan <msul...@schalkenbach.org>; Ralph Rivera <rral...@aol.com>; Halina Szwed <hsz...@gmail.com>; Gil Herman <gher...@yahoo.com>; Billy Fitzgerald <billyfi...@yahoo.com>; Jacob Shwartz-Lucas <jacobshw...@gmail.com>; Alanna Hartzok <eart...@pa.net>; Josh Vincent <jos...@urbantools.org>
Sent: Mon, Dec 29, 2014 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: {Spam?} Re: Paaty/Meeting followup, Steve Cord's 238 LVT study document

Ron - what I am hearing from people who find LVT of interest, is that they need us to show these connections, how LVT will address wealth inequality, working people, corporate rule, collapse of middle class,  issues of war and peace.  I am being told that we - our Georgist movement - need to do a much better job of connecting the dots. 
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
 
Thanks Alanna for so succintly putting this issue to bed.
 
The real question, and it is a rhetorical question, is will LVT redistribute wealth from the Rentier Class to the Productive Class?
 
We know the answer and that is why we stay involved.
 
Ron
This type of conversation has gone on for years. The answer to "will LVT lower or raise the price of land?" is BOTH. Whether it lowers or raises the price of land depends on a number of factors, not just whether it is a local, state or national tax.  
 
 
 
 
-------Original Message-------
 
 
Scott, LVT in one city will not create free land; it will tend to raise the price of land in that city. Let's remember that empty land isn't free land. We might be tempted to think that abandoned, city-owned lots are "free land," but they got that way in a specific tax and market environment. If we make their areas more attractive, either by LVT or by conventional gentrification, then those lots will be very valuable again. We need to realize that local LVT can be seen as an engine of gentrification. That might not be an entirely bad thing, but we're mistaken if we leave it out of the mix in our advocacy.

We MUST be clear about the distinction between the full national -- or preferably international -- single tax and partial local implementation. The latter is still a good and desirable outcome! We just need to understand what we are -- and aren't -- promising.

-----> Lindy

p.s. Another thing that is incredibly important to remember is that government regulation, assessment and tax policy has EVERYTHING to do with what land is, and what natural opportunities are worth, especially in cities. There's "free land" in condo units, when they are underassessed. There's even free land, of a sort, in rent-stabilized leases. In some ways, this really is rocket science. We need to be doing our homework.

Hi Mike et al,

(I think these addresses all work - at least none of them bounced for me).
I actually do believe that LVT will create free land, albeit so briefly that it's impossible to stake a claim there, in a city, state, or whatever desirable place to live it is implemented within.  And that is where the cheaper land will be found too, next to the free land.  As the market settles a price on this "new" land, which is really just land that has been wrested from speculators by the new tax, people and businesses will move into it - while some leave other land because they can't make good use of it.  Land at the margins will increase in quantity.  After all, in NYC, who thought a derelict, rusting former inner-city train trestle would be a desirable place to live near and work?  But now we have a thriving neighborhood worth over $2B, so far, near the Highline Park.  Former Mayor Giuliani wanted to tear it down!  You can't get much freer than that, though more through policy and withholding than through actual market forces. 
In any case, the point is that with LVT, there will always be some marginal land for people to start out on, though it may not be so obvious at the time where it is. (Von Thunen diagrams won't help much at this level of nuance, I'm afraid). The thing that short-circuits the market is not having LVT, not having it.

Cord's studies show in a very direct way that land rent will go down in the immediate term.  In my discussions with him, he stressed not to emphasize the later benefits of LVT in bringing up land rent, since he thought A) no one would believe us, and B) it would discourage its implementation because politicians would fear for their constituents ability to continue to live in now more desirable places.
I can testify that he is right on both counts.  When I talked to my state Senator Liz Krueger, sometimes with Rita, sometimes alone, she did come around to seeing that it would work - she is smarter than the average politicians, IMO - but then worried her elderly fixed income constituents would be "forced out."  She said her district would be over-taken by unaffordable high-raises.  I tried to point out that this was already happening, in spite of her and others' efforts to keep rent affordable, because the overall supply of housing was inadequate, partly because of the lockup of un- and under-utilized land, but she saw this as a minor influence in her crowded midtown Manhattan neighborhood.  She suggested this might work in outer Queens etc. where land is already cheap.  Oh, did I mention her husband is a R.E. developer?

There is a reason Josh and others focus on smaller towns, though I don't believe that is because a case couldn't be made for highly desirable places like NYC, if some provision was made to take care of land-rich, but cash poor residents during the transition (for example, to give them comparable housing in other areas, or deferral on land-rent until the property is sold or the occupant dies).
 
Scott Baker - President: Common Ground - NYC; NY State Coordinator, Public Banking Institute; Opednews Blogger/Managing Editor; Huffington Post Blogger; Author




On Monday, December 29, 2014 8:32 AM, Mike Curtis <mikecur...@verizon.net> wrote:


Dear Scott and fellow Common Grounders, thanks again for a wonderful party.  As I am sure you all noticed, I had a great time.

 Thanks for sharing our discussion, and sending Cord’s studies. I had forgotten about them.  They are most impressive, and I think a great incentive for people who might otherwise dismiss our claims, to pursue an understanding of the reason why LVT yields more jobs and housing, while homeowners and all other people who put their land to its highest and best use pay less.

I also appreciate your stating our discussion about whether a switch to LVT will make land cheaper in a city that makes the switch. 
My reason for saying it won’t is because of the law of rent:  "The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same application [of labor & capital] can secure from the most productive land that is free.† Or, if there is no free land, as Ricardo formulates it, “ the most productive land in useâ€.  Since a switch to LVT in a single city or even a state won’t create any free land that yields more than the normal wages and interest, all the increase in productivity that results from revitalization of a city, will go to landowners.

This is not in any way to say that LVT is not a positive thing in a regional application.  More jobs, and more housing means less poverty — less unemployment and less homelessness.  It means thatt people who are buying a house and have made a down payment will pay less in taxes and enjoy a higher standard of living, as Steve Cord’s studies show: homeowners pay less with LVT.  But, there is no conceptually way that you can increase the desirability and the productivity of a region by encouraging economic development and cooperation, and have it be worth less than it was before — unless you create free laand, which is exactly what will happen when the switch is implemented throughout the entire country.  So, as someone said on Saturday, “but we are advocating it for the whole country.

Again, it was great seeing you all.

Happy New Year,

Mike Curtis


On Dec 28, 2014, at 5:15 AM, Scott Baker <ssbak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello Common Groundlings (and friends)!

Thanks to all who were able to attend last night's Common Ground-NYC annual holiday party/meeting.  About a dozen of us had good talks, good food and good cheer!

Unsurprisingly, we got into a pretty good discussion of Georgism, how to implement it, how our group can be more effective and also work with like-minded groups and others.  I've already started looking into some of your suggestions and will report back in the future.

One of the things that came up, and which is important in making our "pitch" is the question:
Does Land Value Taxation raise or lower the cost of housing in a given area for most people?
The answer is not as simple as saying: Yes, because more land would be freed up by the tax. 
This is because as land is freed up, opportunities increase, people flock to the area, wages rise, and land prices go up, etc.

However, there is another way to look at this, courtesy of 238 empirical studies, highlighted by very long-time Georgist, Steve Cord (with my help) in the 2 attached documents. 
    Cord concludes (emphasis added):
Here’s How Your State Could Reduce Taxes For Most Taxpayers And Stimulate Your Economy While Maintaining Complete Revenue Neutrality
Your state can gain these 2 advantages by taxing land assessments more and what is produced (like buildings) less. Find out the various ways to do this. It would be completely revenue-neutral since an economically beneficial tax would be reducing economically harmful taxes. This is what would happen:
(1) Most taxpayers would be taxed less because their tax reduction will exceed what they would pay with the higher tax on land assessments. All nonlandowning renters would pay less because there’d be less building tax passed on to them and in the long run the land tax cannot be passed on to them.
(2) New construction & renovation, in particular, would be more profitable because they’d be taxed less. Perhaps tax-exempt these activities entirely (not their land) for the first 7 years. Here’s how to stimulate your state’s economy.
Nothing in economics seems as well substantiated. Eight (8) American winners of
the Nobel Prize in economics have endorsed this tax...

Then follows 28 pages of summarized LVT studies.  It was quite interesting to compile all of this, but of course, Steve Cord had done most of the heavy lifting throughout his more than half-century career (Steve is in his 90s now, so perhaps use the document's advice to contact him for further info cautiously.  The younger Josh Vincent has taken on the mantle of direct implementation at the Center for the Study of Economics, CCed on this email).

I posted these 2 similar files to this email and to the Economic Reform Yahoo group: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/EconomicReform/info files section, and to the Effective Georgism Facebook group files section: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effectivegeorgism/files/.  They use the same studies, but the openings and formatting and descriptions differ, so pick the version you like best!  Then, follow the instructions, go to your council member, assembly member or state senator, and advocate for land value taxation!
 
Member Ron Rubin also brought up State Senator Brad Hoylman's recent Pied-a-terre tax, which you may remember was referenced in the December 4 e-update:
A Land Value Tax is just the beginning, unfortunately.  Things have gotten way out of hand, with non-resident billionaire owners absent 10 months a year and paying NO income tax either because they don't live here!
Pieds-Ã -Terre Owners Dominate Some New York Buildings

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pieds-Ã -Terre Owners Dominate Some New York Buildings
The Census Bureau tracks vacancy rates to find out who lives in Manhattan full time.

View on www.nytimes.com
Preview by Yahoo

 
State Senator Brad Hoynman is trying to pass a pied-a-terre tax, but even if it passes - a very big if in this Real Estate-dominated city - it would only put a tax on multimillion dollar apartments amounting to about half what London taxes, and London isn't exactly land-owner unfriendly either. 

One interesting finding, which I hadn't had before, is this figure as quoted by (my) Senator Liz Krueger (whom I and Rita, or just me, have discussed this issue with or supplied data for, several times now).  From the Moyers' show transcript:
NEW YORK STATE SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: An example in a recent news story was a $90 million, 13,554 square foot penthouse and with 421a exemption allowed in this bill, their taxes per year would be $20,000. If they were not rolled into this legislation their taxes would be $230,000.
BILL MOYERS: Let’s hear that again.
NEW YORK STATE SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Their taxes per year would be $20,000. If they were not rolled into this legislation their taxes would be $230,000.

We have supported these measures and/or met with both of them in the past, but of course, they need our support now more than ever.

What's new now, is that we now have a bill number:
S7941-2013 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Imposes an additional tax surcharge on certain non-primary residence class one and class two properties in a city with a population of one million or more - New York State Senate

My State Senator, Liz Krueger, is already a co-sponsor, so it's up to you to add some more to the list.  This is not LVT, but it is something from a Senator who might then be on our side if we support him on this.  Let me know if you want me to attend a meeting with you and your Senator on this important, albeit limited, bill.

OK, that's enough reading assignment for now.  *;) winking    Until next time, Happy Landings....
 
Scott Baker - President: Common Ground - NYC; NY State Coordinator, Public Banking Institute; Opednews Blogger/Managing Editor; Huffington Post Blogger; Author

Video Appearances & Slideshows here:
http://newthinking.blogspot.com/

Petitions:
-- Commemorate President Lincoln's Assassination with 1 Billion Debt-Free Lincoln $5 Bills
-- Replace Property Tax with Ground Rent in New York State
-- Assess NYC buildings using comparative properties
-- California Dreaming: Set up a State Bank with abundant CAFR funds
-- Complete the East Side Manhattan Greenway from 38-61 Streets and save bikers, help the environment, and clear up traffic
-- Tax Vacant & Unused Land to Return its value to the Community
-- Close New York State's budget Gap with money from its own agencies by setting up a State Bank
-- Defend the Clean Air Act
-- Produce debt-free United States Notes
-- Reclassify the FED's account, from private to public
<238 Peer Reviewed Studies of LVT by Steven Cord.pdf><233 Empirical Studies Plus 5 Endorsements of a Tax That  Has Stimulated the Economy & Lowered Taxes for Most People.pdf>


 
 




Scott Baker

unread,
Dec 30, 2014, 10:49:49 AM12/30/14
to mcleve...@gmail.com, John Tepper Marlin, mikecur...@verizon.net, ala...@centurylink.net, li...@henrygeorge.org, harmo...@verizon.net, common-g...@googlegroups.com, edod...@comcast.net, andr...@aol.com, jtma...@post.harvard.edu, albany...@gmail.com, yankee...@yahoo.com, osamuue...@aol.com, karry...@gmail.com, david...@earthlink.net, william...@yahoo.com, tob...@optonline.net, mirellala...@gmail.com, terpall...@gmail.com, msul...@schalkenbach.org, rral...@aol.com, hsz...@gmail.com, gher...@yahoo.com, billyfi...@yahoo.com, jacobshw...@gmail.com, eart...@pa.net, jos...@urbantools.org
Polly -
Three of the Vacancy tax bills that came out of Stringer's office by way of Rosenthal's sponsorship (1) and the City Council (2) have been tabled since 2010 and 2011.  Our long-standing e-petition has links to all of them here: Tax Vacant & Unused Land to Return its value to the Community! and they can be found individually here:
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Tax Vacant & Unused Land to Return its value to the Com...
New York needs your support right now on the passage or sponsorship of three very important bills to force development of vacant and underutilized land, or the sale...
Preview by Yahoo
 

Perhaps we can have a discussion, among a narrower set of recipients, about how to get these bills back on the agenda, but Rosenthal at least was pretty negative the last time Rita and I met with her, after all three of us (or four of us, with Toby) met with her.  And Stringer is now Comptroller, though still supportive in general (I've talked to him and his staff since then).  Our problem is numbers of supporters and an organized push for them.  Ideas?
 
As for a new bill, yes, that is something several of us, including the people you named, would have to work on.   So far, we've got you, me, Rita, John, and who else?  I think we would need someone like Bill who knows how to craft an actual bill too.
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:07 AM, Polly Cleveland <mcleve...@gmail.com> wrote:


John wrote:
"However, ways making the system work more like LVT have been introduced successfully and could work without major shifts in public and political opinion. Higher taxes on vacant land. Tax breaks for new construction. More frequent assessments. Ending corrupt assessments. Ending classes of properties that discriminate in uneconomic ways against certain uses... etc."

My Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal is very active in promoting affordable housing. She recently appeared on Moyers. My state senator Brad Hoylman is also supportive. If we can outline a bill that does what John suggests, with research that backs it up--and shows how it creates affordable housing, we may be able to get them and other progressive NY legislators to support it. After all, my neighbor Controller Scott Stringer has supported raising assessments on vacant land--I don't know the current status.

If someone--Bill Batt?, Lindy?, Scott? --can come up with more specifics, I can arrange meetings. (A couple of years back I joined Scott at a meeting with a young staffer for Linda to promote LVT, but I don't think anything came of it.)

Best
Polly
--
Polly Cleveland
20 West 72nd St Apt 506
New York NY 10023
(212) 873-2982
mcleve...@gmail.com
Website: www.mcleveland.org
Econamici blog: www.mcleveland.org/blog
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-manning-cleveland/
Adjunct Professor of Environmental Economics
Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs


Scott Baker

unread,
Dec 31, 2014, 5:36:01 AM12/31/14
to Joshua Vincent, mcleve...@gmail.com, John Tepper Marlin, mikecur...@verizon.net, ala...@centurylink.net, li...@henrygeorge.org, harmo...@verizon.net, common-g...@googlegroups.com, edod...@comcast.net, andr...@aol.com, jtma...@post.harvard.edu, albany...@gmail.com, yankee...@yahoo.com, osamuue...@aol.com, karry...@gmail.com, david...@earthlink.net, william...@yahoo.com, tob...@optonline.net, mirellala...@gmail.com, terpall...@gmail.com, msul...@schalkenbach.org, rral...@aol.com, hsz...@gmail.com, gher...@yahoo.com, billyfi...@yahoo.com, eart...@pa.net
Josh -

Thank you for your considered reply.  I spent the last day or so thinking how to answer.

First, this current thread began as a series of responses to my last update about our annual meeting/party of Common Ground-NYC, but has since diverged into many other directions, which is welcome and healthy overall.

Second, there are even more LVT supporters than you listed, some quite recent with the new Administration.  I attached a list I put together less than a year ago to this email.  I have written to some of them in support of their support, but more needs to be done in a "moving forward" fashion.

Third, several members of CGNYC worked to put together a 22-minute video of Mike and Lindy's work called "Walking the Common Ground of New York City", which may be found here: Walking the Common Ground of New York City.  What it lacks in professional production values, it more than makes up for in content.  Of course, their work shows up in other places, including CGNYC slideshows.  I presented some of this 3X over apx. the past year, the most recent one here: OpEdNews Diary: Case Studies in New York City Property Development Presented to the Henry George School.  It is more comprehensive than a slideshow dedicated to selected Electeds would be.  Comments welcome. 
 
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
OpEdNews Diary: Case Studies in New York City Property...
Public money for private benefit? I examined a selection of development projects in New York City, and evaluated the economic benefits given to encourage developm...
Preview by Yahoo
 
 
Fourth, Yes, let's begin the next steps to localizing LVT in NYC!  I expect only a fraction of the people on this list will be interested in such "detail" work, but CGNYC could host such a meeting, or the school could (we have a bit of money for space, if needed), if it is so inclined.  Space requirements TBD based on interest.  Who is interested?  Me, Josh, Lindy, Matt Stillman, Rita (probably), and ??? 

And yes, ditto to what Billy said: congratulations on recent victories.  CSE is gaining welcome momentum! 

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:37 AM, Joshua Vincent <jos...@urbantools.org> wrote:


Sorry I am a little late to this message. I removed Jacob per his request. As I hope most of you know, active work has been carried on since the mid-2000's by a coalition of CSE, Matt Stillman, and the Henry George Institute. Our work at the request of then Manhattan Borough Pres. Scott Stringer, as well as  our presentation at the New York Fed, has helped keep serious attention alive.

New York City ought to be a project. It ought to have at the ready policy analysis, competent yet humble presenters/presentations, and a sense of boundaries that our prospective clients may have.

Various nonprofit groups – the Drum Major Institute comes to mind – can support George's LVT as a standalone tax reform. I do not believe it is realistic to expect a "purchase" of the entire philosophy. There are public policy departments – Baruch College and its Newman Institute comes to mind - that have posted in the past land value tax and its that inject our idea into the bloodstream of the mainstream. The Regional Plan Association has published two monographs on land value tax, and has participated as collaborators within the past 10 years.

We have a basis therefore to move on. Elected officials have to see a benefit. Some of you may know that the Independent Budget Office, which has a rather high level of support for our concept (though not at all prepared to embrace the program with more specifics), has helped lay down the ground work for something that the elected officials could get behind (a series of briefs and studies suggesting that New York City is ill-served by an assessment system that was established during the critical/crisis. In New York's history of the 1970s). John Tepper Marlin certainly address those details.

Naturally, I am of the school that encourages exploration for low hanging fruit. Borough President Scott Stringer's law providing for  removal of vacant land from residential to commercial ratios is a fine example.

In the outer boroughs, and in the remaining residential neighborhoods of Manhattan, everybody hates vacant lots. Lindy and Mike Curtis presented an encouraging exposé of the problem. That seems like a doable effort: educating the public on a solution to a problem they already know exists.

On another point, dissemination of the message has to be sliced into component constituencies. A global message, a national message, or local message, have very different strategies for success. Alanna Hartzok has pushed the collection of economic rents into a position of visibility in the global NGO community.  CSE has partnered as mentioned previously to not only raise awareness, but offer a concrete policy solution that can be implemented if the community so chooses.  There are many ways to skin a cat, not just see it.

The composition of this mail list is not entirely clear to me, but the next step ought to be in my opinion a half day meeting, chaired and following rigorous procedures of order and decorum to come to an agreement on how to move forward and where. The New York metropolitan area seems like a natural. Now that Bridgeport and probably Hartford have voted to adopt the land value tax pilot program, media exposure cannot be far behind. I hope these thoughts are helpful.

By the way, I just came from Millbourne borough hall, just outside of Philadelphia where the Council voted unanimously this morning at 8 AM to adopt LVT, after several weeks of discussion and then compromise. It is a very small community, and the dominant county government does not want them to do this.  But it really is an issue of social justice writ small. 35% of the borough's taxable value is one vacant lot. Therefore, this community which consists primarily of South Asian immigrants, has one of the highest tax rates per parcel in the state of Pennsylvania. Our complex message of fairness and equity was necessarily boiled down to a very few points. LVT carried the day, and I believe it also let the people of Millbourne believe that they could take steps to preserve their own community in the face of massive privilege. 


I look forward to your views on how to approach this. Happy new year, Josh



Joshua Vincent CEO
Center for the Study of Economics
Central Business District Office: 1501 Cherry St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-266-4877 (Cell)
267-519-5312 (Office Phone)

Northeast Philadelphia Office: 7488 Oxford Ave.Philadelphia, PA 19111

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Scott Baker <ssbak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Polly -
Three of the Vacancy tax bills that came out of Stringer's office by way of Rosenthal's sponsorship (1) and the City Council (2) have been tabled since 2010 and 2011.  Our long-standing e-petition has links to all of them here: Tax Vacant & Unused Land to Return its value to the Community! and they can be found individually here:
 
 
image
 
 
 
 
 
Tax Vacant & Unused Land to Return its value to the Com...
New York needs your support right now on the passage or sponsorship of three very important bills to force development of vacant and underutilized land, or the sale...
Preview by Yahoo
 

Perhaps we can have a discussion, among a narrower set of recipients, about how to get these bills back on the agenda, but Rosenthal at least was pretty negative the last time Rita and I met with her, after all three of us (or four of us, with Toby) met with her.  And Stringer is now Comptroller, though still supportive in general (I've talked to him and his staff since then).  Our problem is numbers of supporters and an organized push for them.  Ideas?
 
As for a new bill, yes, that is something several of us, including the people you named, would have to work on.   So far, we've got you, me, Rita, John, and who else?  I think we would need someone like Bill who knows how to craft an actual bill too.


Support for taxing vacant land higher to promote development in NYC.pdf
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages