Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a way to take a lot of money in taxes, while also not solving the problems it purports to solve.

You aren't connecting the dots.

Taking money is a disincentive for underutilizing land.
Utilizing land solves the problem of affordable housing and homelessness.

https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2021/12/the-perfect-tax-land-value-taxation-and-the-housing-crisis/

You are not addressing mental illness. I have a family member who was homeless for years. He refused to live with any of us or let us pay for a place for him to live. Money was not an issue, it was mental health. It is almost impossible to force someone into any type of treatment or evaluation if they are not willing. We are an educated, financially secure, stable supportive family and there was nothing we could do. Believe me, we tried everything. This went on for around 4-5 years. We would go long periods of time not knowing where he was and how to contact him. We have tried involving every resource you can think of over the past ten years. Nami, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, local programs, police, friends and acquaintances, searching streets ourselves at times

At the moment things are good. Good as in he’s living in a place the family pays for, and we pay for everything he needs. He still refuses any type of mental help treatment but he’s off the streets and safe. All of us worry what tomorrow will bring.

Anonymous wrote:I fail to understand why the focus is not on Wards 7 and 8. Those Wards rightfully have been complaining for decades about the lack of development there. Create incentives to develop in those Wards.

Exactly!

I fail to understand why the focus is not on Wards 7 and 8. Those Wards rightfully have been complaining for decades about the lack of development there. Create incentives to develop in those Wards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"undermaintained" -- That's pretty vague. I guess most of the SE is going to be resold to developers.

Place conditions on the developers that they still have to provide homes for any current residents without any new financial or other burdens or hardships placed upon them including providing them with an equity share if they are the current owners.

So, a developer tears down a house, builds four new houses, "gives" a new house to the old owners and sells the remaining three houses at an inflated price to offset the giveaway. And compensates the old owners for the lost property, and increased tax assessments in perpetuity? I don't see any developers jumping at the opportunity. Is moving a hardship? Is the construction noise a hardship?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the proposal:

Additional land tax on privately held land.

One rate for developed, but blighted/undermaintained/absentee landlord/slumlord at a rate that if not paid, would rapidly exceed the value of the land in a few years, so that it can be taken and turned over in a sheriffs sale
Another rate for underdeveloped land (low density)
And tax the living crap out of undeveloped land.

Exemptions/discounts on those taxes could be provided for cases of things like sites of historical/cultural/other value and for providing affordable housing.

That would address blighted properties.
That would address NIMBYism
And it would create more housing. It would serve as a disincentive for lower density and And the tax revenue generated would provide housing for qualified homeless (lived in the District for x years prior and in an appropriate treatment/rehab program if needed)

Would also need to keep an eye on zoning as "elite" neighborhoods would try to keep themselves zoned low density.

Sounds like a proposal authored by the “chairman” of Cleveland Park Trump Growth!

Trump what? You seem confused. It's based on Henry George's work. Far closer to socialism than it is to Trumpism.

"Georgism" - interesting idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism Not that ownership of land should be abolished, but that it could be a driver for appropriate use.

Anonymous wrote:"undermaintained" -- That's pretty vague. I guess most of the SE is going to be resold to developers.

Place conditions on the developers that they still have to provide homes for any current residents without any new financial or other burdens or hardships placed upon them including providing them with an equity share if they are the current owners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the proposal:

Additional land tax on privately held land.

One rate for developed, but blighted/undermaintained/absentee landlord/slumlord at a rate that if not paid, would rapidly exceed the value of the land in a few years, so that it can be taken and turned over in a sheriffs sale
Another rate for underdeveloped land (low density)
And tax the living crap out of undeveloped land.

Exemptions/discounts on those taxes could be provided for cases of things like sites of historical/cultural/other value and for providing affordable housing.

That would address blighted properties.
That would address NIMBYism
And it would create more housing. It would serve as a disincentive for lower density and And the tax revenue generated would provide housing for qualified homeless (lived in the District for x years prior and in an appropriate treatment/rehab program if needed)

Would also need to keep an eye on zoning as "elite" neighborhoods would try to keep themselves zoned low density.

Sounds like a proposal authored by the “chairman” of Cleveland Park Trump Growth!

Trump what? You seem confused. It's based on Henry George's work. Far closer to socialism than it is to Trumpism.

"undermaintained" -- That's pretty vague. I guess most of the SE is going to be resold to developers.

Anonymous wrote:Here's the proposal:

Additional land tax on privately held land.

One rate for developed, but blighted/undermaintained/absentee landlord/slumlord at a rate that if not paid, would rapidly exceed the value of the land in a few years, so that it can be taken and turned over in a sheriffs sale
Another rate for underdeveloped land (low density)
And tax the living crap out of undeveloped land.

Exemptions/discounts on those taxes could be provided for cases of things like sites of historical/cultural/other value and for providing affordable housing.

That would address blighted properties.
That would address NIMBYism
And it would create more housing. It would serve as a disincentive for lower density and And the tax revenue generated would provide housing for qualified homeless (lived in the District for x years prior and in an appropriate treatment/rehab program if needed)

Would also need to keep an eye on zoning as "elite" neighborhoods would try to keep themselves zoned low density.

Sounds like a proposal authored by the “chairman” of Cleveland Park Trump Growth!

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a way to take a lot of money in taxes, while also not solving the problems it purports to solve.

You aren't connecting the dots.

Taking money is a disincentive for underutilizing land.
Utilizing land solves the problem of affordable housing and homelessness.

https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2021/12/the-perfect-tax-land-value-taxation-and-the-housing-crisis/

This sounds like a way to take a lot of money in taxes, while also not solving the problems it purports to solve.

Proposal: Enforce the laws you already have. It’s not hard.

Who gets to define "blighted"?

Here's the proposal:

Additional land tax on privately held land.

One rate for developed, but blighted/undermaintained/absentee landlord/slumlord at a rate that if not paid, would rapidly exceed the value of the land in a few years, so that it can be taken and turned over in a sheriffs sale
Another rate for underdeveloped land (low density)
And tax the living crap out of undeveloped land.

Exemptions/discounts on those taxes could be provided for cases of things like sites of historical/cultural/other value and for providing affordable housing.

That would address blighted properties.
That would address NIMBYism
And it would create more housing. It would serve as a disincentive for lower density and And the tax revenue generated would provide housing for qualified homeless (lived in the District for x years prior and in an appropriate treatment/rehab program if needed)

Would also need to keep an eye on zoning as "elite" neighborhoods would try to keep themselves zoned low density.