In reply to aircooled :
So he would throw his own crap?
Like a monkey??
Welcome to California.
In reply to aircooled :
So he would throw his own crap?
Like a monkey??
Welcome to California.
In reply to pheller :
I guess I don't understand the difference between forcing a property owner to keep a property in good condition and simply taxing them if it sits vacant?
Remember that I worked in municipal government. I sent out the letters to people who needed to mow their lawns or whom parked their work vehicles in front of their house. I thought it was stupid.
I'm much more concerned with apartments or houses that could be housing people sitting empty. Offices and storefronts sitting empty. I just want us to use our land better, especially that land for which is already developed or surrounded by development but not public (like parks and so forth).
I have a hard time with the idea that redevelopment will happen naturally. In areas of high demand, I'd sacrifice perfect of tomorrow for the "good enough" of today - especially when the plans for the future are solely interested in profit, not social or community benefit.
Note: this is a different topic that LVT, so some may say I'm moving goalposts.
You are assuming owners are just sitting on these properties with no plan other than wait for it to appreciate. Have you checked with the city to see if these "dormant" vacant properties are in fact dormant? Planning can take years before the first shovel hits dirt. I'd bet that many of the properties that you are complaining about already have plans and permits in progress. My city has a web site where you can look up proposed and approved plans. I checked a bunch of vacant properties, and the vast majority have plans in the approval process or that have already been approved. There is a golf course a mile from me that closed back in 2016. It's just sitting there being reclaimed by nature. To the casual observer, it looks like a waste of prime real estate. Two minute of searching uncovers the approved plans that have been in works for years- hundreds of acres of housing from large single family to multi family, commercial offices, retail, parks, and high density housing/retail mix.
I did a quick search for Flagstaff and found this-
Flagstaff Development Approvals
This looks just a brief list with property locations, no plans like my city has. Those must be somewhere else, I couldn't find them. This is also only approved projects, none that are out for approval or that have been rejected. I bet you will find some of your dormant lots on that list, a quick peek showed some "teardown and rebuilds."
In reply to frenchyd :
While that is absolutely the true ( regarding suburban sprawl and its desirability).
The truth regarding people leaving places isn't as black and white as you portray it. The attraction of California is its wealth. 5 th richest country in the world and #1 state in America. So yes some are leaving but nearly as many are returning. Add foreign born growth and California is maybe losing 1%
Same with New York. Both have high taxes, high costs, but it's also where opportunity is.
So you think losing our skilled workers in California is okay, because we are replacing them with undocumented low skilled workers and homeless people? Sounds like a good idea, I wonder why it isn't working out?
In reply to Dennis_Ortega :
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to frenchyd :
While that is absolutely the true ( regarding suburban sprawl and its desirability).
The truth regarding people leaving places isn't as black and white as you portray it. The attraction of California is its wealth. 5 th richest country in the world and #1 state in America. So yes some are leaving but nearly as many are returning. Add foreign born growth and California is maybe losing 1%
Same with New York. Both have high taxes, high costs, but it's also where opportunity is.
So you think losing our skilled workers in California is okay, because we are replacing them with undocumented low skilled workers and homeless people? Sounds like a good idea, I wonder why it isn't working out?
It's important to note that the issue of skilled worker loss in California is complex and multifaceted. While there are certainly challenges with the state's tax and cost of living, it's also true that many people are drawn to California because of the opportunities it provides. Additionally, the idea that undocumented workers and homeless people are replacing skilled workers is a false dichotomy that ignores the diversity of California's population and the complex factors that contribute to the state's economy. It's important to approach these issues with nuance and avoid oversimplification.
Most of the skilled canoe paddlers have fled the state. They realized that all of the permits and fees really made it difficult to be profitable. When canoe thefts started to rise and those responsible were not prosecuted, it was the final straw. The homeless tried to fill in the gap with their stolen canoes, but it hasn't worked out. People say they want to help the homeless, but surprisingly few put their money where their mouth is and pay for canoe rides with homeless people.
That was a strange post to setup legitimacy on this site.
I am wondering if this is an outgrowth of a ChatGTP style AI.
Look at the posts subject, create a ChatGTP style reply based on that, which will look far more genuine than the typical attempts.
Boost_Crazy said:You are assuming owners are just sitting on these properties with no plan other than wait for it to appreciate. Have you checked with the city to see if these "dormant" vacant properties are in fact dormant?
No I've literally had a new, more recent conversation with an investor in town that could provide a list of a dozen or more commercial properties for which they know the owners are riding appreciation. He even used that angle for due diligence when approaching property owners - he'd go to the city and see if they owners had any plans for the properties that the city knew about and they'd say "nope".
Then he'd go to the property owners and say "hey, I've noticed your property sitting vacant for a few years now, can I buy it from you?" And 9/10 they'd give him an "eff you" price. Years later, he'd still see the property sitting there, doing nothing. I even mentioned a vacant restaraunt across town and he was like "yep, I've actually made them multiple offers and they keep turning me down, despite it rotting away."
This is a guy who between him and his partners has flipped a dozen or commercial properties in town, started a few businesses, quite a few residential properties and has numerous permits at city hall under his (or his partner's) name.
He flat out told me "the big groups can hold these properties because taxes are low and they are using some good CPAs to minimize their loses. Or they have plans that are really far out (5-10 years). I make an offer and if they don't accept, I move on." I said "doesn't it frustrate you that prime real estate is sitting around doing nothing?" He replied "as a Flagstaff resident, yes, but as a investor, no. I'd love to be at a place where I could lose tens of thousands of dollars a year and know that I'd make hundreds of thousands later."
I asked him how he thinks higher taxes on land would impact him. He replied "Right now, I don't hold anything. My goal is to use my capital to generate consistent returns ASAP. I want cash flow. Whether that's selling or renting or creating a new business at a property. I'm not going to sit on anything that's doing nothing but costing money. I can't afford that. Higher taxes might impact my tenants, and they might motivate Mom and Pop places to sell, but likely not the larger groups."
I asked him about a vacancy tax or one that targeted vacant commercial property, he replied "that'd be good for my business, at least."
In reply to pheller :
So... what, exactly?
This is just Exhibit DD that pheller doesn't like people doing things he doesn't approve of with their own property, regardless of legality.
And, more importantly, it's confirming our prediction that the proposed tax would adversely affect the small business owners and small property holders, not the big corporations.
People are insistent that vacant properties are a crucial piece of economic system and that we should feel bad for taxing them any differently. That we should be patient and let their owners/investors execute their decades long plan.
Anti-Blight ordinance were designed to side-step this approach. They implemented in such a way to allow properties to sit vacant, as long as they are maintained. In some cases that might be enough. In others, I'm not sure.
A Land Value Tax could simplify this, no vacancy tax or property maintenance ordinance required. High-value proprieties would pay the same taxes regardless of whether they are doing something with them or not. They wouldn't avoid improvements just to keep the tax bill low.
Duke said:In reply to pheller :
So... what, exactly?
This is just Exhibit DD that pheller doesn't like people doing things he doesn't approve of with their own property, regardless of legality.
I mean, if it's any benefit, I think zoning should be relaxed.
So I'm willing to give up control of the specific uses of property so that we might developed a way of maximize the use of it via other methods.
I just want to tax the land, is all. We already do it. Lets just do it a bit more (while removing taxes from the structure).
In reply to pheller :
and what is to stop them from deciding that your house is now a high value property that could hold a warehouse so should be taxed as such? I'm glad that this state put a 1% cap on homes and 2% cap on commercial properties based off of assessed value. We also have an avenue to challenge an overzealous assessor trying to raise revenues to keep then from quadrupling our assessed value year after year.
Forcing people to do something with their own property is far from the right thing to do. If you want to live in a commune or communist-based society there are several to choose from and I will support your right to move there. But stop trying to make everyone else live in it.
In reply to pheller :
I already have a problem with this. As a property owner why am I forced to pay the gov't year after year for the right to live on propery that I worked hard to purchase, maintain and own? What gives you the right to forcibly take it from me?
In reply to pheller :
But I don't insist that vacant properties are a crucial part of the economic system.
I do insist that as long as the taxes are paid and they are not a public safety hazard, what happens to those properties is nobody's damn business except the rightful owners'.
Its not up to me to be patient or impatient about what someone else chooses to do with something they legally own.
And I can see no moral justification for taxing property based on potential value rather than actual value. You just happen to think that will result in the effect you want... even though your friend pretty much confirmed it will have the opposite effect.
I'm still formulating my opinions on this, but I think that primary residencies should have a stamp tax when they are sold. That would allow you to live on your primary residential property until the day you die without paying a (assessed tax) dime for it.
School taxes, EMS taxes, perhaps even a municipal infrastructure tax should be voted on via bonds. Want to live on a dirt road with no municipal water or sewer? Fine. Agree to pay for potential damages to local waterways from runoff or pollution, settled via civil suit if it ever got that. If nobody ever complains about water quality, then you get to live with low taxes, septic, wells and dirt roads if you so choose.
Perhaps you local area schools are crap because your local area is low income and nobody can afford high enough taxes to property fund the more local schools? Maybe instead of funding the local school, you contribute to another, more wealthy area's school, and your kids just have to ride the bus an extra 10-15 minutes.
I dunno, I just think sometimes more hyper-local organization of government funding would satisfy a lot more people. I don't like the state dictating how my city chooses to tax its residents or real estate.
In reply to bobzilla :
I'm of the opinion that in retirement taxes should only be paid on active income. No taxes on retirement or social security. If we've paid school taxes and city taxes etc all of our working life. Retirement shouldn't be a way to force people out of their homes.
In reply to pheller :
And I'm tired of people that have never left the "safety" of the city think they have any berkeleying clue how rural america lives. You realize that not being on sewer and public water are actually a GOOD thing right? State and county have codes for septic systems. Ours had to be over-sized because much of the county is flat and a flood risk. Our property is not. Not even close. We have a well that was drilled in the first decade of the 20th century that ties into the main underground river supplying western Indianapolis. Our road is dirt, gravel technically, and we preferred that because it limits traffic. We prepare ourselves for emergencies. Generators, food and water on hand etc. We are less of a drain on society than just about any city dweller out there. But, by you and others like you, you want us to pay more or to "wise up" and move to the city just like all the other drones.
No thanks. Keep your socialist utopia dream. I want nothing of it.
frenchyd said:In reply to bobzilla :
I'm of the opinion that in retirement taxes should only be paid on active income. No taxes on retirement or social security. If we've paid school taxes and city taxes etc all of our working life. Retirement shouldn't be a way to force people out of their homes.
and yet that is exactly what happens. People are forced to sell their property that may have been in the family for 200 years because someone that doesn't understand it taxes them out of it. East coast property taxes for my in-laws were and are in excess of $1000 per month. Fixed income, paying for health care etc can't afford that and that is wrong.
pheller said:Then he'd go to the property owners and say "hey, I've noticed your property sitting vacant for a few years now, can I buy it from you?" And 9/10 they'd give him an "eff you" price. Years later, he'd still see the property sitting there, doing nothing. I even mentioned a vacant restaraunt across town and he was like "yep, I've actually made them multiple offers and they keep turning me down, despite it rotting away."
Then his offer is not high enough. It's a simple concept, the seller sets the price, not the buyer. If I want to buy your car, I have to offer you enough to make you say ok, I cant offer you lower than it's worth then complain how you didn't take it.
In other words, same answer as last year...
bobzilla said:In reply to pheller :
And I'm tired of people that have never left the "safety" of the city think they have any berkeleying clue how rural america lives. You realize that not being on sewer and public water are actually a GOOD thing right? State and county have codes for septic systems. Ours had to be over-sized because much of the county is flat and a flood risk. Our property is not. Not even close. We have a well that was drilled in the first decade of the 20th century that ties into the main underground river supplying western Indianapolis. Our road is dirt, gravel technically, and we preferred that because it limits traffic. We prepare ourselves for emergencies. Generators, food and water on hand etc. We are less of a drain on society than just about any city dweller out there. But, by you and others like you, you want us to pay more or to "wise up" and move to the city just like all the other drones.
No thanks. Keep your socialist utopia dream. I want nothing of it.
No, I think you are mistaken.
I'm saying, you should be able to vote directly on the taxes that impact you. If you want a dirt road, you should be able to vote against paving it, and retain your taxes. If suddenly your surrounded by a bunch of new residents who all want a paved road? I dunno what to tell you.
In an LVT system, your taxes would likely go down because your land is not as valuable as the land closer to more economic activity. You'd pay the same taxes per acres as you farmer neighbors. Which hopefully would be pretty low.
What I dont want, is you buying vacant land next to my house in the city, doing nothing to the property, but riding the appreciation of my neighborhood as my neighbors and I make our street into one of the most desirable places in the region. If the value of my land goes up, I want the taxes on your vacant land to go up equally.
Steve_Jones said:pheller said:Then he'd go to the property owners and say "hey, I've noticed your property sitting vacant for a few years now, can I buy it from you?" And 9/10 they'd give him an "eff you" price. Years later, he'd still see the property sitting there, doing nothing. I even mentioned a vacant restaraunt across town and he was like "yep, I've actually made them multiple offers and they keep turning me down, despite it rotting away."
Then his offer is not high enough. It's a simple concept, the seller sets the price, not the buyer. If I want to buy your car, I have to offer you enough to make you say ok, I cant offer you lower than it's worth then complain how you didn't take it.
In other words, same answer as last year...
Ok, but they should be taxed on the appreciation of the land for which they did not contribute. Basically, if the property was bought for $100k, used for ten years where it appreciated to $200k, then abandoned for 10 years where it appreciated to $300k, then they should be taxed $100k, because they were not around to contribute to that appreciation.
Oh good.
I was really hoping this thread would come back
Additionally, I'd have a hard time with a commercial land owner saying:
"Well just the fact that our property was developed, even if abandoned, increased the desirability of the surrounding property, and therefore we contributed to the appreciation and increase value even if we did not use the property."
That would be an interesting argument.
I'd still be inclined to tax them on all profits since abandonment or vacancy less the amount of taxes paid on the property during that time.
What's sad/great is that we got 74 pages of pointless banter WITHOUT ChatGPT bots. Imagine if they started spamming comments? They'd probably sound a lot like me.
pheller said:Steve_Jones said:pheller said:Then he'd go to the property owners and say "hey, I've noticed your property sitting vacant for a few years now, can I buy it from you?" And 9/10 they'd give him an "eff you" price. Years later, he'd still see the property sitting there, doing nothing. I even mentioned a vacant restaraunt across town and he was like "yep, I've actually made them multiple offers and they keep turning me down, despite it rotting away."
Then his offer is not high enough. It's a simple concept, the seller sets the price, not the buyer. If I want to buy your car, I have to offer you enough to make you say ok, I cant offer you lower than it's worth then complain how you didn't take it.
In other words, same answer as last year...
Ok, but they should be taxed on the appreciation of the land for which they did not contribute. Basically, if the property was bought for $100k, used for ten years where it appreciated to $200k, then abandoned for 10 years where it appreciated to $300k, then they should be taxed $100k, because they were not around to contribute to that appreciation.
And if it depreciates the owner gets a refund right?
Why did they hold on to it while it depreciated?
pheller said:Why did they hold on to it while it depreciated?
No land is ever guaranteed to go up, that is part of the risk. Maybe as it was going down,there were no buyers. So if you speculate and win, you want to tax them on the way, but if you lose, too bad?
You'll need to log in to post.
