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
|