Who do you think will win MoCo county exec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

By the way, you have been wrong about a lot of things in this thread, which I have patiently pointed out to you, and you yet you insist on being a jerk in your incorrect assertions. Not a good look. Insulting people while you perpetuate misinformation is not going to bring a lot of people into your camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

PILOT‑specific affordability rules, fixed‑term 100%‑for‑20‑years structure, and program‑level caps prevent the full tax‑savings stream from being capitalized into the sale price; the residuals largely accrue to the county’s future tax base, tenants, and, in some cases, lenders and public‑purpose entities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

PILOT‑specific affordability rules, fixed‑term 100%‑for‑20‑years structure, and program‑level caps prevent the full tax‑savings stream from being capitalized into the sale price; the residuals largely accrue to the county’s future tax base, tenants, and, in some cases, lenders and public‑purpose entities.

That’s a really rosy picture. The affordability rules are barely above the affordability rules for every other project in the county. (And the countywide affordability rules are already capitalized into sale price for land. The PILOT-specific affordability rules are small potatoes, not to mention a very expensive way to get a 2.5 more MPDUs per hundred units)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

PILOT‑specific affordability rules, fixed‑term 100%‑for‑20‑years structure, and program‑level caps prevent the full tax‑savings stream from being capitalized into the sale price; the residuals largely accrue to the county’s future tax base, tenants, and, in some cases, lenders and public‑purpose entities.

That’s a really rosy picture. The affordability rules are barely above the affordability rules for every other project in the county. (And the countywide affordability rules are already capitalized into sale price for land. The PILOT-specific affordability rules are small potatoes, not to mention a very expensive way to get a 2.5 more MPDUs per hundred units)

It sounds like we are going to have to agree to disagree, though I will point out that earlier in this thread you claimed that there are land speculators that have already benefited from this but have provided no specific information or links, and the regulations for this tax abatement have not even been finalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

PILOT‑specific affordability rules, fixed‑term 100%‑for‑20‑years structure, and program‑level caps prevent the full tax‑savings stream from being capitalized into the sale price; the residuals largely accrue to the county’s future tax base, tenants, and, in some cases, lenders and public‑purpose entities.

That’s a really rosy picture. The affordability rules are barely above the affordability rules for every other project in the county. (And the countywide affordability rules are already capitalized into sale price for land. The PILOT-specific affordability rules are small potatoes, not to mention a very expensive way to get a 2.5 more MPDUs per hundred units)

It sounds like we are going to have to agree to disagree, though I will point out that earlier in this thread you claimed that there are land speculators that have already benefited from this but have provided no specific information or links, and the regulations for this tax abatement have not even been finalized.

It’s Finance 101 that anyone with a failing office building who has secured a loan or sold since that PILOT passed has captured some value. The law didn’t give a lot of discretion to finance to set the regulations so there aren’t really any mysteries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

PILOT‑specific affordability rules, fixed‑term 100%‑for‑20‑years structure, and program‑level caps prevent the full tax‑savings stream from being capitalized into the sale price; the residuals largely accrue to the county’s future tax base, tenants, and, in some cases, lenders and public‑purpose entities.

That’s a really rosy picture. The affordability rules are barely above the affordability rules for every other project in the county. (And the countywide affordability rules are already capitalized into sale price for land. The PILOT-specific affordability rules are small potatoes, not to mention a very expensive way to get a 2.5 more MPDUs per hundred units)

It sounds like we are going to have to agree to disagree, though I will point out that earlier in this thread you claimed that there are land speculators that have already benefited from this but have provided no specific information or links, and the regulations for this tax abatement have not even been finalized.

It’s Finance 101 that anyone with a failing office building who has secured a loan or sold since that PILOT passed has captured some value. The law didn’t give a lot of discretion to finance to set the regulations so there aren’t really any mysteries.

Ok. You said, "If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land." Why don't you look up one of these properties that would be eligible and tell us all about the loans they are taken out. You made the claim so you beat the burden of backing it up with data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

The law and zoning text are in place, but DHCA is still finalizing the specific regulations and procedures for the office‑to‑residential PILOT, so the program is not yet “fully operational” in practice. That means no developers have yet received the Bill 2‑25 office‑to‑residential tax abatement under the new pilot, even though the authority for the PILOT exists.

DHCA’s website notes that regulations are still under development, which typically means application forms, scoring criteria, and approval workflows are not yet locked down.

Until those rules are adopted, the PILOT amount, term, and conditions are not being formally offered or recorded for new office‑to‑housing conversions, even though ZTA 25‑03 and Bill 2‑25 have been enacted.

Feel free to share any data you may have to support your assertion that the value of the office to residential pilot is is already fully capitalized into the value of the land. I don't buy that for several reasons

What makes you believe this tax abatement will not be capitalized into the value of the land? Why would this one be different from other tax abatements? It’s literally Finance 101.

In practice, tax abatements are often capitalized into the value of a property, but rarely “fully” or permanently, because the benefit is time‑limited and investors only pay for the present value of the future savings. For a tax abatement with lots of specific requirements this is even more true.

What specific requirements will prevent this tax abatement from being capitalized into the value of a property? For portion of the tax abatement that’s not capitalized into the value of a property, to whom will those benefits accrue?

PILOT‑specific affordability rules, fixed‑term 100%‑for‑20‑years structure, and program‑level caps prevent the full tax‑savings stream from being capitalized into the sale price; the residuals largely accrue to the county’s future tax base, tenants, and, in some cases, lenders and public‑purpose entities.

That’s a really rosy picture. The affordability rules are barely above the affordability rules for every other project in the county. (And the countywide affordability rules are already capitalized into sale price for land. The PILOT-specific affordability rules are small potatoes, not to mention a very expensive way to get a 2.5 more MPDUs per hundred units)

It sounds like we are going to have to agree to disagree, though I will point out that earlier in this thread you claimed that there are land speculators that have already benefited from this but have provided no specific information or links, and the regulations for this tax abatement have not even been finalized.

It’s Finance 101 that anyone with a failing office building who has secured a loan or sold since that PILOT passed has captured some value. The law didn’t give a lot of discretion to finance to set the regulations so there aren’t really any mysteries.

Ok. You said, "If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land." Why don't you look up one of these properties that would be eligible and tell us all about the loans they are taken out. You made the claim so you beat the burden of backing it up with data.

That was an explanation of how commercial property owners extract value from land without building on it or selling it. Finance 101.

[Anonymous]

Lots of homes on the market. I guess everyone is leaving monkey county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of homes on the market. I guess everyone is leaving monkey county.

It's almost exactly the same as last year:
https://reports.longandfoster.com/r?boundary=5afca62e00e98a0144e8dd2d

I hope you leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of homes on the market. I guess everyone is leaving monkey county.

We are kicking out all of the maga white trash and sending them back to their trailer parks.

How is your lot rent these days?