LVT in Los Angeles? Op-Ed says go for it.
Center for the Study of Economics - Company Message
RSS Follow Become a Fan

Delivered by FeedBurner


Recent Posts

LVT in Los Angeles? Op-Ed says go for it.
Welcome to the Zany World of NYC's Property Tax
Land Value Taxation in Jamaica: Now More Than Ever
Part 1, Land Value Taxation: Politics, Persuasion, and Practicality - A How-To
2016: Another Year of Advances and Retrenchment

Most Popular Posts

Noted UK Think Tank: Tax Land Values
Eliminating the property tax? It must not happen, but we’ll see what happens.
Altoona, PA: City tax wholly on land values = normality
Land Value Tax in Britain: Progress While the Rear Guard Digs In
Dr. Herbert Barry's Proposal to Really Reassess Allegheny County

Categories

Act 47
Affordable Housing
Africa
Agricultural Policy
Allegheny County
ALTER
Altoona
Assessment
Australia
Australian Capital Territory
Baltimore
Berkshire
California
Canberra
Clairton
Connecticut
Connecticut General Assembly
Current News Item
de Blasio
Economic Development
Economic Policy
Economic Rent
Economist
Ed Vargas
Education
EPA
Federal Tax Policy
Fiscal Policy and Taxes
Frederick
Free Markets
Gentrification
George Osborne
Global Taxation
Harrisburg
Hartford
Healthy Communities
Housing
Housing Policy
Hurricane Sandy
India
Ireland
Jamaica
Jeffrey Berger
Jimmy Tayoun
Justin Skariah
Kenyatta Johnson
Lancaster
Land Policy
Land Value Tax
Lanesborough
Larry Deutsch
Law and the Constitution
Legislation
Len Fasano
Liberal Democrats
Local Government
Los Angeles
Maria Quinones-Sanchez
Martin Looney
Maryland
Massachusetts
Matt Ritter
Matthew Ritter
Mayor Rick Gray
Michael Kinsley
Michigan
Millbourne
Model Legislation
Monroe County
Montreal
Moonachie
Namibia
National Tax Policy
New Jersey
New London
New York City
NY
Oregon
Parking and Transportation
Patricia Dillon
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portland
Property Assessment
Property Tax Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Public Resources
Public Works
Regional Tax Base Sharing
Regionalism
Regressive
Rhode Island
Rochester
Roland Lemar
Sales Taxes
Scranton
Senator Jan Malik
Sin Taxes
Smart Growth
Soda Tax
Taiwan
Tax Exemption and Abatment
Thomas Piketty
Titusville
Tom Kramer
Transportation Funding
Transportation Policy
Uncategorized
United Kingdom
Urban Blight
Urban Rejuvenation
Urban Tax Policy
Vince Cable
Wage and Income Taxes
Wales
Wealth
Wilson Goode Jr.
powered by

Incentive Taxation

LVT in Los Angeles? Op-Ed says go for it.


Affordable Land in LA, it's only 40 Miles Away


It’s not often than an op-ed drives UrbanTools jump over a paywall, but the LA Times has done the trick with a very good editorial by three planning professors at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs; a courageous call to sidestep the usually clumsy tactics to provide affordable housing.

In this case, the editorial rightly decries “linkage fees.” Linkage fees also known as “impact fees” charge developers a set price for anything they build that goes into a fund for affordable housing. 

It sounds elegant and to some fans of government over-involvement in markets it “fixes” a problem with another problem: increased cost and red tape to developers and legitimate builders who already face barriers to building. On that, it appears that progressive urbanists and builders can agree.

To be sure, it would be difficult to enact a land value tax under the current nightmare regime of Proposition 13. Prop 13 is a litany of failure that has a ghost army of defenders. Anyone who owned the property before 1976 enjoys a frozen assessed value that is now 40 years old. The same property owners enjoy minuscule increases in tax.  When the property is finally sold, the old owner cashes out in the real estate casino, and new purchasers are immediately reassessed.  

The result is a slow-motion Mad Max anarchic scenario with wildly varying property tax bills not only citywide, but among homes in a neighborhood. Also, he provision of Prop 13 that freezes assessments has been a windfall for nonresidential properties, as they rarely change hands.
 
The motivation behind a land value tax is simple: the property tax as used all over the US punishes people for fixing up their homes and investing in businesses; the fix requires reducing or even eliminating property tax on buildings and improvements. This is a pro free-market tax to unleash capitalism and workers.

This call for a land value tax gives Los Angeles an opportunity to use market forces and private investment to be a driver for all sorts of construction so people can live, and work in LA at a reasonable cost. Los Angeles and California desperately need to regrow the middle-class, and help lower income people that want to be stakeholders in the community gain a handhold on the ladder of prosperity.

So if California and LA stopped taxing everything that moves, and start emphasizing taxing the one thing that doesn't move we'll have healthier cities, much less urban sprawl, and less expensive housing or business creation cost.  It's a way to deploy what used to be All-American values like fair play and equal opportunity.  It is the right thing to do, as well the smart thing to do.

1 Comment to LVT in Los Angeles? Op-Ed says go for it.:

Comments RSS
Ryan on Tuesday, December 05, 2017 12:34 AM
Taxation is really necessary for any government for their infrastructure and they can make planning and gave relief to their society as well after collecting tax from rich people.
Reply to comment

Add a Comment

Your Name:
Email Address: (Required)
Website:
Comment:
Make your text bigger, bold, italic and more with HTML tags. We'll show you how.
Post Comment