1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
New York City
Charles B. Fillebrown: A Catechism of Natural Taxation, from Principles of Natural Taxation (1917) Q52. In old cities, it is not nearly all the land in use? Jeff Smith: What the Left Must Do: Share the Surplus During the 1920s, New York City
taxed land but not new buildings
put on it. Construction more than tripled while in other big cities it
barely doubled. There were more jobs and higher wages for construction
workers, and more business for merchants who sold goods to the employed
workers. There were more buildings for new businesses that hired help.
(“How New York Solved Its Housing Crisis,” Charles Johnson Post,
1934?)
Read the whole article
Jeff Smith: How Sharing Earth Brought Peace New Yorkers benefited before from geonomics.
After World War I, the city lacked housing. Borrowing a page from former
mayoral candidate Henry George, the council exempted new buildings but not
underlying sites from taxation for the next ten years. During the first half
of the Roaring 20s, new construction more than tripled while in other big
cities it barely doubled. Economic good times came to an end when owners
in 1928 began to anticipate the expiration of the exemption. Stalled housing
starts helped trigger the Great Depression.
More recently, Mayor Rudy Giuliani used to welcome the school year by suspending for a week the tax on shoes and clothes. Shoppers saved, stores profited, and the city took in more revenue. If the city zeroed out taxes on all sales and wages, customers and workers would flock to the Big Apple, pumping up site values even higher, providing a fat fund for fixing up infrastructure. That'd help owners redevelop both lower Manhattan and the blocks of vacant lots and abandoned buildings in the Bronx and Bedford-Stuyvesant. Read the whole article Lindy Davies: Land and Justice
Mason Gaffney: The Taxable Capacity of Land How does one come to so startling a
finding? Wisconsin is not a backward state. It prides itself on the high
quality of its public administration. What I did was study sites on
the eve of demolition.
When you buy an old junker to tear down and replace with a new building, you (the market) are obviously recognizing that the building has no residual value. All the value is then in the land. However, in Milwaukee in 1969 the Assessor was saying the building was worth about three times as much as the land, just before tear-down. That is a good way to measure to what extent land is underassessed. Try that in Manhattan. When the visitor first gapes at its skyline from afar, it looks like one big modern high-rise. If you poke around on foot much, though, you soon realize those are the exception. Most of the lots are covered with obsolete junk, some of it tumbledown, commanding rents mainly for their location value. Check the Empire State Building. Old as it is, it is still nearly the tallest building in the world. As to its site, it is in a so-so reach of 5th Avenue (34th Street), many blocks from the 100% location (57th Street, I would guess). Even so, when the site and the building sold in separate transactions a few years ago, the site represented 1/3 of the total value. What does that say about the land fraction on neighboring parcels, covered only with the remains of ordinary old structures? What does that say about the land fraction nearer the 100% location? ... Read the whole article |
|
to
email this page to a friend: right click, choose "send"
|
||||||
Wealth
and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy
alone hasn't yet led to a society in which all can
prosper
|