Revised Goals/Actions based on 3/6 meeting

[sam.zi...@dc.gov]

Hi all,

Thanks to everyone for a great meeting last night. Polina and I have entered our notes into the google Doc (here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkM4wmhsp47RdHNOd29zQzQzazU3VlpMOWNnNkZiSnc#gid=0) and attached as an Excel file.

This has responsible agencies and actions filled in, as well as Polina's great notes. We also identified indicators for each goal.

If anyone has comments, please email the group or enter them into the Google doc in the next couple of days, since we need to get a final version back to the "mothership" first thing next week.

Also, the "top 10" is highlighted in a light yellow. Since we didn't go back in and rank each action 1-25, This will serve as our prioritization. I tried to get to the top 10 based on our previous votes and the Meeting #5 votes.

It's been a pleasure working with you all, and look forward to continuing the process.

Sam

[Just Economics - Rybeck]

Dear Friends,

 

During our work last winter and spring, we came up with several goals and many action recommendations to implement them.  Over the summer, the Office of Planning has used a consultant to sift through the action recommendations from all nine working groups to develop a feasible implementation plan.

 

On November 7^th, the Office of Planning (OP) and the District Department of the Environment (DDOE) held a meeting to reveal the results of the consultant’s work.   During the introduction, representatives from the Office of Planning and the District Dept. of the Environment mentioned some of the key factors in the selection process.

·         Would the proposed action have a significant impact?

·         Would the proposed action be short-term, medium-term or long-term?

·         How much would it cost – and could the funding reasonably be obtained?

·         What would be the impact on employment?

·         What would be the impact on equity and inclusivity?

 

I have not done an exhaustive comparison between the consultants output and our input from last spring.  However, at least one important recommendation was totally missing.

 

“Transform the Property Tax into a Value Capture User Fee,” might not have been understood by the consultants.  But for our Working Group, we understood that the concept entailed reducing the property tax rate on privately-created building values while increasing the tax rate on publicly-created land values.  This has several important beneficial impacts for transportation that are good by themselves and that also help make other recommendations more effective and robust.  While raising the same property tax revenue as the existing property tax (no cost to the District), the benefits would include:

·         Transit Becomes Self-Financing. 

o   Transit facilities and services increase land prices near station stops – providing windfall profits to a few owners of prime sites.  These higher land prices chase affordable development to cheaper, but more remote locations (sprawl).

o   Higher taxes on land values recapture and recycle transit-created land values for transit and other public purposes (like affordable housing).

o   Higher taxes on land values reduce the profits from real estate speculation and thereby help make land prices more affordable.  (Most taxes make prices go up – but land taxes make land prices go down!)

·         Lower taxes on buildings make residential and commercial space near transit more affordable.

·         Shifting the property tax off of buildings and onto land makes It more expensive to hoard boarded-up buildings and vacant lots.

o   Reduces speculation in vacant and boarded-up properties.  This makes housing and business costs more affordable throughout DC – strengthening DC and reducing sprawl.

o   Redevelopment of these properties, induced by this reform, will provide more housing, more commercial space and more jobs within DC.

o   The greatest economic imperative for development occurs on high-value sites.  These tend to be infill sites near urban infrastructure amenities (like transit) and these are the very locations where smart-growth development should occur.  And, development in these high-value, infill locations makes walking, cycling and transit more convenient modes of transportation than single-occupancy vehicles. 

o   This measure also makes zoning more robust, because it is more difficult to hold onto vacant or underutilized sites.  Today, land near transit that is zoned for development might sit idle or grossly underutilized.  This tax reform motivates landowners to develop their land more fully, based on what zoning allows.  Thus it helps create affordable TOD which helps generate more walking, cycling and transit trips while reducing SOV travel.

 

The net impact is that transit infrastructure becomes self-financing, capturing values that are now appropriated by a few owners of prime sites.  This reduces the need to raise fares or cut service, thereby maintaining robust transit ridership.  Also, DC locations become more affordable for residents and businesses alike.  This helps reduce sprawl and saves energy.  Furthermore, energy-saving improvements become more affordable, resulting in more building retrofits, more energy savings and more jobs.

 

To support the inclusion of this important and cost-effective technique in the District’s Sustainability Implementation Plan, please forward this message to Laine Cidlowski, laine.c...@dc.gov and Dan Guilbeault   dan.gui...@dc.gov

 

Thanks

 

Rick Rybeck, Director

Just Economics, LLC

1669 Columbia Rd., NW, Suite 116

Washington, DC  20009-3625

(202) 439-4176

(202) 265-1288 fax

www.justeconomicsllc.com

 

 

.