CDZ Idea for new property tax legislation to battle blight.

[beagle9]

Was riding the other day, and I was checking out all the run down buildings and such that are abandoned, closed down, and crumbling in our cities and towns. Why are these places not being demolished in order to make way for a new more modernization of the cities and towns in which we all live in ?

I understand that many of the places are still owned by the wealthy (old money), so why are they getting a pass on fines etc. in which if we're levied against them, would speed up the process of cleaning up these sites in these cities and/or towns, and it would hopefully get the owners to do better about this sort of thing ?

I think a (new property tax) legislation should be introduced, where as the new tax would work in this way. If you own a property, then there should be a tax incentive that would go into two different directions.

One direction is on behalf of the property owner if he or she does right by the property, and the other property tax incentive would work for the city or town. It would give him or her the reason to either fix the place, rent the place, sale the place or tear the place down.

The tax would work as such - If you own a property, and you keep that property up, keep it clean, maintain code, and keep it from being an eye sore, then the first 2 years your taxes would of course be the max allowed for the property to be charged by the government involved, but every year after that as compliance is met, then the tax is reduced by a percentage rate that is based upon the criteria formerly listed above.

After 10 years maybe, it is that you as the owner would basically pay no taxes on the property after that, and this would be due to the stewardship, and the on going up keep of the property while empty. The flip side would be that the tax would increase dramatically after say two years if there is no up keep, no repairs, and an abandonment of the property.. The tax increase would give the owner the incentive to sell the property, rent or lease the property, repair and keep the property up, tear it down or it will break his or her bank account if they don't. What say y'all ?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What say y'all ?

I say nay.

 

[beagle9]

What say y'all ?

I say nay.

. Why not ? Say I got a two story building on a frontage property, and I just pay the taxes on it while living in another town or city.... Say I'm no longer taking care of it, then why should the people in that town or city be forced to put up with my bullcrap or shouldn't there be a way to incentivise me to clean up the property, repair it or get rid of it ? Now if I take care of it, keep it repaired and up to code, then why shouldn't there be incentives built into the tax code that would lead me in that direction ?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What say y'all ?

I say nay.

. Why not ? Say I got a two story building on a frontage property, and I just pay the taxes on it while living in another town or city.... Say I'm no longer taking care of it, then why should the people in that town or city be forced to put up with my bullcrap or shouldn't there be a way to incentivise me to clean up the property, repair it or get rid of it ? Now if I take care of it, keep it repaired and up to code, then why shouldn't there be incentives built into the tax code that would lead me in that direction ?

Nay because the model you proposed portends (1) the eventual unwinding of all that depends on property taxes, (2) sharp price increases for real property, and (3) the eventual unavailability of property to all but the wealthy.

 

[beagle9]

What say y'all ?

I say nay.

. Why not ? Say I got a two story building on a frontage property, and I just pay the taxes on it while living in another town or city.... Say I'm no longer taking care of it, then why should the people in that town or city be forced to put up with my bullcrap or shouldn't there be a way to incentivise me to clean up the property, repair it or get rid of it ? Now if I take care of it, keep it repaired and up to code, then why shouldn't there be incentives built into the tax code that would lead me in that direction ?

Nay because the model you proposed portends (1) the eventual unwinding of all that depends on property taxes, (2) sharp price increases for real property, and (3) the eventual unavailability of property to all but the wealthy.

. It doesn't portend anything of the sort. You only get penalized if you refuse to do right by the property. On the other hand you stand to benefit greatly if you do right by YOUR PROPERTY, otherwise over the time period of the ownership. Tax codes are supposed to be helpful in these ways correct ? Why would such a thing increase the cost of a property ? It would actually allow the price of property to be reduced. Otherwise the owner if doesn't have the resources to keep the buildings and property up to par, then he or she will have to unload it at a price to sell or lose it due to the increasing tax based upon the problem of no up keep or the refusal to up keep the property. He or she might actually stand to gain in value by finding that all one has to do is keep the property up in order to benefit from the tax becoming cheaper and cheaper each year, and this after the two years of the initial ownership takes place. When sell the property the value would be greater because of compliance, and having something that is worth something to sell when all is said and done.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Such run down properties are foreclosed upon anyway. Failure to pay taxes and abandon the property it becomes property of the taxing authority.

Many times these slums are in rent controlled districts. The owners simply could not afford repairs and upkeep and so abandoned the properties.

Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Flint, have homes you can buy for a dollar. Get a few, fix them up yourself.

 

[beagle9]

Such run down properties are foreclosed upon anyway. Failure to pay taxes and abandon the property it becomes property of the taxing authority.

Many times these slums are in rent controlled districts. The owners simply could not afford repairs and upkeep and so abandoned the properties.

Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Flint, have homes you can buy for a dollar. Get a few, fix them up yourself.

. Different here.. Most of the properties are still owned by their owners, but they are given a pass because of who they are. The idea I have would deal with the situation. Now as far as your post goes, it should be demanded by the citizens for these authorities to do something about the blight. Letting properties just sit there in disarray is flat outright hypocritical and ridiculous. This country has some messed up ways about it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Such run down properties are foreclosed upon anyway. Failure to pay taxes and abandon the property it becomes property of the taxing authority.

Many times these slums are in rent controlled districts. The owners simply could not afford repairs and upkeep and so abandoned the properties.

Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Flint, have homes you can buy for a dollar. Get a few, fix them up yourself.

. Different here.. Most of the properties are still owned by their owners, but they are given a pass because of who they are. The idea I have would deal with the situation. Now as far as your post goes, it should be demanded by the citizens for these authorities to do something about the blight. Letting properties just sit there in disarray is flat outright hypocritical and ridiculous. This country has some messed up ways about it.

These cities simply cannot afford to fix these properties up. There are thousands of them and in neighborhoods where vandalism would prevent fixing anything up. The citizens are vandals, drug addicts and criminals themselves. They might demand something, then go get high and forget all about it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What say y'all ?

I say nay.

. Why not ? Say I got a two story building on a frontage property, and I just pay the taxes on it while living in another town or city.... Say I'm no longer taking care of it, then why should the people in that town or city be forced to put up with my bullcrap or shouldn't there be a way to incentivise me to clean up the property, repair it or get rid of it ? Now if I take care of it, keep it repaired and up to code, then why shouldn't there be incentives built into the tax code that would lead me in that direction ?

Nay because the model you proposed portends (1) the eventual unwinding of all that depends on property taxes, (2) sharp price increases for real property, and (3) the eventual unavailability of property to all but the wealthy.

. It doesn't portend anything of the sort. You only get penalized if you refuse to do right by the property. On the other hand you stand to benefit greatly if you do right by YOUR PROPERTY, otherwise over the time period of the ownership. Tax codes are supposed to be helpful in these ways correct ? Why would such a thing increase the cost of a property ? It would actually allow the price of property to be reduced. Otherwise the owner if doesn't have the resources to keep the buildings and property up to par, then he or she will have to unload it at a price to sell or lose it due to the increasing tax based upon the problem of no up keep or the refusal to up keep the property. He or she might actually stand to gain in value by finding that all one has to do is keep the property up in order to benefit from the tax becoming cheaper and cheaper each year, and this after the two years of the initial ownership takes place. When sell the property the value would be greater because of compliance, and having something that is worth something to sell when all is said and done.

It doesn't portend anything of the sort.

It most certainly does. You wrote:

If you own a property, and you keep that property up, keep it clean, maintain code, and keep it from being an eye sore, then the first 2 years your taxes would of course be the max allowed for the property to be charged by the government involved, but every year after that as compliance is met, then the tax is reduced by a percentage rate that is based upon the criteria formerly listed above.

After 10 years maybe, it is that you as the owner would basically pay no taxes on the property

Owners who keep their property from becoming an "eyesore" will pay no property taxes on in. Sooner or later, all properties will be owned by individuals (entities) who collect rents of some sort on from the property and who pay no property taxes on it. If owners of properties aren't paying property taxes, from where do you imagine property tax revenue will come? A jurisdiction will attractive properties that produce no property tax revenue; thus the things that are funded by property taxes will no longer be able to be funded by property taxes.

 

[beagle9]

Such run down properties are foreclosed upon anyway. Failure to pay taxes and abandon the property it becomes property of the taxing authority.

Many times these slums are in rent controlled districts. The owners simply could not afford repairs and upkeep and so abandoned the properties.

Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Flint, have homes you can buy for a dollar. Get a few, fix them up yourself.

. Different here.. Most of the properties are still owned by their owners, but they are given a pass because of who they are. The idea I have would deal with the situation. Now as far as your post goes, it should be demanded by the citizens for these authorities to do something about the blight. Letting properties just sit there in disarray is flat outright hypocritical and ridiculous. This country has some messed up ways about it.

These cities simply cannot afford to fix these properties up. There are thousands of them and in neighborhoods where vandalism would prevent fixing anything up. The citizens are vandals, drug addicts and criminals themselves. They might demand something, then go get high and forget all about it.

. Most of the properties I am referring to are old shut down Mills or plants in areas that can be seen from every angle within the cities they are found in..

They are truly eyesores, and they serve as a reminder of our folly, and as the tombstones of a once glorified explosion of economic sovereignty in which once thrived or at least until NAFTA opened this nation up to a complete destruction of it's glory day's gone by.

It was like Domino's falling all across this land, and it happened so quick that the fall out within the generations was a disaster that has spun lies and corruption to the inth degree in this country. It's time to get this nation cleaned up, and jump started again.

 

[beagle9]

What say y'all ?

I say nay.

. Why not ? Say I got a two story building on a frontage property, and I just pay the taxes on it while living in another town or city.... Say I'm no longer taking care of it, then why should the people in that town or city be forced to put up with my bullcrap or shouldn't there be a way to incentivise me to clean up the property, repair it or get rid of it ? Now if I take care of it, keep it repaired and up to code, then why shouldn't there be incentives built into the tax code that would lead me in that direction ?

Nay because the model you proposed portends (1) the eventual unwinding of all that depends on property taxes, (2) sharp price increases for real property, and (3) the eventual unavailability of property to all but the wealthy.

. It doesn't portend anything of the sort. You only get penalized if you refuse to do right by the property. On the other hand you stand to benefit greatly if you do right by YOUR PROPERTY, otherwise over the time period of the ownership. Tax codes are supposed to be helpful in these ways correct ? Why would such a thing increase the cost of a property ? It would actually allow the price of property to be reduced. Otherwise the owner if doesn't have the resources to keep the buildings and property up to par, then he or she will have to unload it at a price to sell or lose it due to the increasing tax based upon the problem of no up keep or the refusal to up keep the property. He or she might actually stand to gain in value by finding that all one has to do is keep the property up in order to benefit from the tax becoming cheaper and cheaper each year, and this after the two years of the initial ownership takes place. When sell the property the value would be greater because of compliance, and having something that is worth something to sell when all is said and done.

It doesn't portend anything of the sort.

It most certainly does. You wrote:

If you own a property, and you keep that property up, keep it clean, maintain code, and keep it from being an eye sore, then the first 2 years your taxes would of course be the max allowed for the property to be charged by the government involved, but every year after that as compliance is met, then the tax is reduced by a percentage rate that is based upon the criteria formerly listed above.

After 10 years maybe, it is that you as the owner would basically pay no taxes on the property

Owners who keep their property from becoming an "eyesore" will pay no property taxes on in. Sooner or later, all properties will be owned by individuals (entities) who collect rents of some sort on from the property and who pay no property taxes on it. If owners of properties aren't paying property taxes, from where do you imagine property tax revenue will come? A jurisdiction will attractive properties that produce no property tax revenue; thus the things that are funded by property taxes will no longer be able to be funded by property taxes.

. Ok, it portends to clean up this country. The details would have to be debated or worked out, but the current situation sure isn't working thus far to get it done. We should be ashamed as to how our nation looks. It reeks of greed and selfishness gone stupid back in the days, and then to have the evidence right in front of us in order to show exactly how sick we had become ? Good grief..

 

[usmbguest5318]

I say nay.

. Why not ? Say I got a two story building on a frontage property, and I just pay the taxes on it while living in another town or city.... Say I'm no longer taking care of it, then why should the people in that town or city be forced to put up with my bullcrap or shouldn't there be a way to incentivise me to clean up the property, repair it or get rid of it ? Now if I take care of it, keep it repaired and up to code, then why shouldn't there be incentives built into the tax code that would lead me in that direction ?

Nay because the model you proposed portends (1) the eventual unwinding of all that depends on property taxes, (2) sharp price increases for real property, and (3) the eventual unavailability of property to all but the wealthy.

. It doesn't portend anything of the sort. You only get penalized if you refuse to do right by the property. On the other hand you stand to benefit greatly if you do right by YOUR PROPERTY, otherwise over the time period of the ownership. Tax codes are supposed to be helpful in these ways correct ? Why would such a thing increase the cost of a property ? It would actually allow the price of property to be reduced. Otherwise the owner if doesn't have the resources to keep the buildings and property up to par, then he or she will have to unload it at a price to sell or lose it due to the increasing tax based upon the problem of no up keep or the refusal to up keep the property. He or she might actually stand to gain in value by finding that all one has to do is keep the property up in order to benefit from the tax becoming cheaper and cheaper each year, and this after the two years of the initial ownership takes place. When sell the property the value would be greater because of compliance, and having something that is worth something to sell when all is said and done.

It doesn't portend anything of the sort.

It most certainly does. You wrote:

If you own a property, and you keep that property up, keep it clean, maintain code, and keep it from being an eye sore, then the first 2 years your taxes would of course be the max allowed for the property to be charged by the government involved, but every year after that as compliance is met, then the tax is reduced by a percentage rate that is based upon the criteria formerly listed above.

After 10 years maybe, it is that you as the owner would basically pay no taxes on the property

Owners who keep their property from becoming an "eyesore" will pay no property taxes on in. Sooner or later, all properties will be owned by individuals (entities) who collect rents of some sort on from the property and who pay no property taxes on it. If owners of properties aren't paying property taxes, from where do you imagine property tax revenue will come? A jurisdiction will attractive properties that produce no property tax revenue; thus the things that are funded by property taxes will no longer be able to be funded by property taxes.

. Ok, it portends to clean up this country. The details would have to be debated or worked out, but the current situation sure isn't working thus far to get it done. We should be ashamed as to how our nation looks. It reeks of greed and selfishness gone stupid back in the days, and then to have the evidence right in front of us in order to show exactly how sick we had become ? Good grief..

Ok, it portends to clean up this country.

Okay...I thought you were capable of and wanted to have an honest and serious discussion from the standpoint of positive economics/finance. Clearly you don't. I apologize for responding to you as though you did.

 

[OnePercenter]

Was riding the other day, and I was checking out all the run down buildings and such that are abandoned, closed down, and crumbling in our cities and towns. Why are these places not being demolished in order to make way for a new more modernization of the cities and towns in which we all live in ?

I understand that many of the places are still owned by the wealthy (old money), so why are they getting a pass on fines etc. in which if we're levied against them, would speed up the process of cleaning up these sites in these cities and/or towns, and it would hopefully get the owners to do better about this sort of thing ?

I think a (new property tax) legislation should be introduced, where as the new tax would work in this way. If you own a property, then there should be a tax incentive that would go into two different directions.

One direction is on behalf of the property owner if he or she does right by the property, and the other property tax incentive would work for the city or town. It would give him or her the reason to either fix the place, rent the place, sale the place or tear the place down.

The tax would work as such - If you own a property, and you keep that property up, keep it clean, maintain code, and keep it from being an eye sore, then the first 2 years your taxes would of course be the max allowed for the property to be charged by the government involved, but every year after that as compliance is met, then the tax is reduced by a percentage rate that is based upon the criteria formerly listed above.

After 10 years maybe, it is that you as the owner would basically pay no taxes on the property after that, and this would be due to the stewardship, and the on going up keep of the property while empty. The flip side would be that the tax would increase dramatically after say two years if there is no up keep, no repairs, and an abandonment of the property.. The tax increase would give the owner the incentive to sell the property, rent or lease the property, repair and keep the property up, tear it down or it will break his or her bank account if they don't. What say y'all ?

If the majority of taxpayers made a living wage the reason why the buildings being abandoned wouldn't have occurred.

 

[Picaro]

The U.S. needs to lose the 18th-19th century mentality and take a cue from Henry George and start levying a Federal property tax directly on all property in the U.S. to finance defense and other Federal spending. This will help some in making it less lucrative for speculators to just squat on property forever hoping for a bubble to come along.

 

[Picaro]

Such run down properties are foreclosed upon anyway. Failure to pay taxes and abandon the property it becomes property of the taxing authority.

Many times these slums are in rent controlled districts. The owners simply could not afford repairs and upkeep and so abandoned the properties.

Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Flint, have homes you can buy for a dollar. Get a few, fix them up yourself.

There are caveats to those 'free houses' in Detroit and other places, though, so be sure to look into the reasons people aren't flooding in to take advantage pf '$1 houses' and the like; there are usually all kinds of fees and requirements that cost far more than many of the houses are worth.