I had asked frankg who served on the Tax Study committee if he would be willing to write something here about tax classification. He agreed and the following is his report.
Bill T. has asked me if would be interested in posting something on this Blog with regard to the split tax rate. Since I am a firm believer in sharing information, I have taken him up on his offer. Hopefully someone will find this interesting and worthwhile.
The split tax rate is always a topic for interesting discussions. Unfortunately most of the time it becomes an emotional one, not one based on facts. Two years ago when I was a member of the Tax Study Committee, I found there were many meetings with heated discussions because of the emotions involved. I found that the emotional arguments detracted from the fact-finding, and at the end of that committee’s tenure I still had unanswered questions. Since my engineering career was full of research and data analysis, I decided to continue the investigation for my own edification, and in fact enjoyed the many months spent researching the subject. What I found cleared up my 2 major questions, which were, what is it really for, and why do some communities use it and others don’t.
One of first things that some folks bring up is that it punishes business, but it didn’t make any sense to me that the law would have been created for that reason. What I found out is that the legislature created the tax classification law, i.e., the “split”, to be used as a correction factor because of an inherent inequity in the basic tax law.
Let me explain just what the problem is. The methods for valuing residential and business properties are very different. Most people are familiar with how residential values are determined, through “comps” from sales. If you have a 3 bedroom ranch on an acre of land your value gets based on similar home sales. However, business valuations are determined mostly by square footage of the building, the property is a business “tool”. It is called an “income model”. The value is assessed by how much rent that space COULD generate, if it were to be used that way, MINUS the business’s expenses. If the size of the building doesn’t change, the value hardly ever changes, and if it does, it is small amounts, up or down. The land that a business sits on doesn’t even escalate like residential land, because it is the internal building space that drives the equation.
Here is a practical example that is quite realistic for Dartmouth and many other communities. Let’s say that 10 years ago 2 properties were built, one a home and one a business, both worth $150K. Today, that home is worth about $350K while that business is still worth close to $150K. It could be $160K, or it could be $145K, but it is still close to the value at inception. These properties started out paying the same tax bill amount, but today the home pays a tax bill that is 2 1/3 times higher, that is a 233% increase in tax contribution to the town.
Now, here is how that problem plays out. It is important to remember that the total tax levy a town can raise is fixed by law, and the tax rate is a number back calculated from dividing the levy by the total town valuation. As the total valuation goes up, both from new growth and property values, the tax rate goes down as long as the increase in valuation is more than the 2.5% the levy increased. This has been quite common in our town. Well, even though the tax rate went down the residential tax bill goes up because of the valuation increase of that property. Simultaneously, the business tax bill usually goes down because the value didn’t change. Even if the business tax bill rises because of “rental space” value, it is a very small amount, and in no way matches what the resident faces. This is why I always caution that just looking at the tax rate doesn’t tell the entire story, valuations need to be considered as well.
Over time more and more of the tax levy is paid by the residential contribution. This is called “burden shifting”, and is exactly why tax classification, i.e. the split tax was created by the legislature. Please recognize that this is not the fault of the business, it is the system that is the problem. The same basic system is used everywhere in the state. This problem has been going on almost forever, and before the 1978 – 1979 time frame each community had their own way of dealing with the problem, usually by using a percentage of a property’s value to calculate taxes, with the percentage for a business different (higher) than the percentage for a residence.
Since part of the state aid formula is a community’s total valuation, the legislature decreed that everyone had to move to a 100% value model, and allowed the community to adjust the tax rate of the different classes of property to correct for the acknowledged valuation problem. This new system provided a way for everyone to do things the same way, and left it up to the local leaders to choose how much of a split they wanted to use, if any, and when to implement it.
The maximum split was 50%, but over time the legislature recognized that the problem continued to escalate, so for some communities the limit was raised to 75%, and in 2004 100% temporarily. Dartmouth is still bound by the 50% limit. Please note that even at the full 50% that wouldn’t make up for the 233% tax bill increase in the example I used above, but it is certainly better than having no split at all, as is the current 40%.
So, tax classification was not created to punish businesses, it was created to stop or alleviate some of the “punishment” inflicted on residents by not using the split rate choice available. Even at a full 50% split businesses would still be enjoying a break with regard to tax levy contribution. It is important to note that the problem continues to escalate, and be recognized by the legislature. There is legislation pending that would again change the limits to help the resident’s plight.
Ok, hopefully that explains the “why it exists” question, and now that we have been through the nuts and bolts of it, that leaves the “when is it used” part.
Because of the “apples and oranges” nature of the individual valuations, the extent of the problem is purely a function of what the make-up of the total town valuation is. If a community has no businesses they are all “apples” so no problem. If they have just 1 business they technically have the problem but it would be so insignificant that it would not be noticed or measurable. It would be lost in all the big numbers. So the best way to tell when it is appropriate to implement a split is to look at when other communities have “noticed” the problem, and when they reacted to it. In the DOR database it is very clear that 9% business component (CIP%) of the total valuation in a community is the break point.
With the data I worked with, there were 333 communities reporting, and of these, 141 were at or below 9% CIP%. Some use the split rate but most do not. The reason they don’t use it is because they don’t have a noticeable problem. Simply put, they don’t use it because they don’t need it. For those that have played in the statistical world, the total distribution is far from “normal” so one has to be careful about applying simple statistics. This grossly skews things for those that try and do simple averages, usually the opponents of the split rate. The analogy I used at the Tax Classification Hearing was that to include the 9% or below part of the database for comparison to us would be like doing a statistic on a hospital about healthy people.
We have 15.4% CIP this year, and for reference New Bedford had a 15.8% CIP, AND used an 83% split rate. They are one of the communities allowed to go above the 50%, and again, we are not. I am not sure what N.B. is currently using but I am sure it is similar to the data I used, but what is important to note is that our business component is more like a city than a town. Generally speaking, the higher a community’s business component the higher the split they use, to their individual allowable maximum, and this is certainly true of those in our situation. This makes sense because as I have shown, the more business you have the more stagnant valuations you have contributing to the total, so the more burden shifting you have to the residents. A larger correction factor is in order to help restore the tax burden, NOT to punish the businesses.
This is already longer than I had hoped, so let me leave you with these thoughts:
1. A 50% split rate is entirely appropriate for our town.
2. I am glad the majority of the Select Board chose to make the move to 40%, but it was obvious by their comments that it was done for the wrong reasons. It was done to sell overrides, and their reluctance to go the full 50% was emotional, not factual.
3. Remember that when you hear them say things such as “we don’t like to raise anyone’s taxes”, that by their inaction they have passively raised the resident’s tax burden every year by not choosing the split rate. The resident has seen a double hit each year, the normal increase in their own tax contribution, and also an increase to make up for the share of the business tax burden that gets shifted.
4. Even at the 40% split, the tax bill that a business is paying this year is NOT the highest bill they have seen. We have had at least a couple of years where our tax rate has been above $10, with one of those about $11. Because of the similar valuation to what they have now, those would have been their highest years. Last year was the highest tax bill the resident has seen, and it would have been higher yet again this year except for the implementation of the split rate.
5. This year residential values have dropped some, maybe 5% or 7%, while business valuations have risen roughly in that same range. Don’t let anyone tell you that things have normalized, and the split should be removed. Remember the 233% example above.
6. The reason for my pushing for the split rate was not to punish the “big box” stores, or any other business. It was to try and re-shift some, and only some, of the tax burden back to business, and get them to contribute their fair share to the tax levy, at least as much as the law currently allows. The residents have been subsidizing the business tax bill far too long. THAT is what is not fair.
I have posted in the past about the tax levy and tax rate and how they are related. You can find that here if interested
Posts
16 comments:
Very well explained frankg. makes a complex issue very understandable. My only additional comments would be the SB decision while appearing emotional (it was a difficult decision for some and this issue does raise emotions) was based on knowledge of the facts by and large except for 1 or 2 of the SB who seemed intent on waiting some more or leaning towards a very low split. In the end though saner heads prevailed and the SB did as they said they would and implemented a significant split so I applaud them for following through on the commitment they had made earlier.
Thank you Frank G., Both you & Mr. Trimble have a firm grasp of this issue. Thank you for all the hard work you do for this town. Are you looking for a job? Our town could sure use someone like you.....
Frank does an excellent job presenting the facts concerning the split tax issue. He's one smart cookie. Having had numerous discussions on the issue with him, I did take a slightly different stance on the issue. While everyone seems to be in agreement that the WalMarts in town can and should pay more, there is still the small businesses to consider. My feeling was that we could have implemented a thirty percent split which would have given small businesses a 20-30% shift. The following year, we could then continue to adjust with another 10%. This would make the transition easier for the businesses that are more closely tied into the community. At the tax classification hearing, there was a great deal of concern for the effect of the split on small businesses and farmers. Where is the concern now that the debate turns to adding another 16% on top of the 30-40% increase that small businesses and some farms have absorbed? Another problem that I see is that nothing seems to get debated on its own merits. Whether it is PAYT or the split tax, it is ALWAYS debated in terms of getting an override passed. The split tax decision by the select board was indeed a difficult one and I have no problem with the decision they made.
Massachusetts' split rate is a poor design; it is a blunt instrument, and ends up punishing the business owner who has improved his property and uses it well, and rewarding the fellow whose "business" is mostly land speculation. Land speculation benefits no one but the speculator, and does so at a cost to all his neighbors. ("Neighbors" is a tough term here, since the speculator is often an absentee, or an out-of-town corporation, or some other non-local entity.)
A better alternative would be to value all the land at its market value -- without regard to whether it is currently vacant, occupied my a modest obsolete cottage, a McMansion, a diner or a highrise. What is the land worth? Get 10 local business folk together, and put them in front of a detailed local map, and, in a short period of time, they'd reach a consensus about what each piece of commercial land is worth -- without regard for what sort of building, if any, is on it. (The assessor can do the same thing.)
Then bring in 10 local residential real estate agents, and do the same with the residential lots. Ignore the McMansions and cottages. Just value the land. (Take into account whether sewer and city water are present, if that affects demand.)
If you must, because it is "traditional," value the buildings, taking into account their age and the depreciation which represents both their obsolescence (old technology, size, cost to heat and cool, need for new systems, etc.) and perhaps their condition. Add that value -- very different from the replacement cost -- to the land value (only if you must... keep reading!).
If you map the land values, you'll find that the commercial land, if it is generally well used, is much more valuable than the single-family residential land, except perhaps the sites with water views or waterfront.
Now, the best step would be to place local taxes just on the land values. The commercial properties downtown are going to pay more than the residential properties of comparable size on the fringe. (Probably a bigger difference than under current "split rate.") But the owner of a downtown parking lot of 1/4 acre and the owner of a well-developed 1/4 acre lot next door will pay exactly the same amount. This won't penalize the guy who is putting his property to good use, creating jobs and providing a venue for an active marketplace, and it will, shall we say, "encourage" the owner of the parking lot to put it to good use. One of the parking lots will become a parking garage, maybe ... but the others will create jobs! Places for entrepreneurs to do their thing. Places for us to shop. Vendors who compete for our business. Employers who compete for our labor.
The current "split-rate" is a blunt instrument. Land value taxation is a much better tool.
*If you must tax buildings, at least tax them lightly, and plan on phasing it out in relatively short order.
This will work well unless your town's board is dominated by parking lot owners and speculators
I didn't mention anything about small business because of the length of my document, but perhaps I should.
One thing we ALL agreed on in the committee was that we wanted to help the small business, the "mom and pops" if you will. We asked about allowing them to be included in the resident rate, or even adding an additional class for them. We couldn't do either, and were/are bound by the existing laws.
I am a firm believer in small businesses, and in fact, when I grew up in this town that was all we had, and it was great because these are our friends and neighbors, and service was personal. That being said, I will also say that they have benefited from the burden shifting too, but if those were the only businesses we had we would surely be in a low enough CIP% that we wouldn't need the split.
Of course, having the big businesses has helped keep the tax rate low because they do contribute to the levy, just not proportionally the share they should, so it is clearly a 2-edged sword.
I recognize that every little bit helps the small business, but I know that it is not taxes that give them the biggest problem. It is competition from the big chains, so bringing them in has caused all of us a problem. When you court big chains they add significantly to the burden shifting problem, and this should be expected and dealt with because it has happened everywhere.
I advocated for the Small Commercial Exemption to give them some help, but because of the requirements it doesn't help all of them. The best way to help and keep our small businesses is to support them as much as possible, to help their revenue stream. I practice what I preach and do just that. If paying an extra dollar for something helps keep them around then it is well worth the price. The split helps the resident's problem, the residents need to help the small business problem. They are still our friends and neighbors.
LVTfan, all good points. I have always asked, if my acre is worth x why isn't their's? A "land value" model would be a big improvement over what we have, especially sense the largest part of the resident's value increase has been the land value, while business land is still "worth" peanuts, at least "on the books".
Unfortunately we get bound by the laws the State gives us, and common sense solutions almost never happen.
The "income model" for business certainly doesn't seem to be the correct way to assess "real" value, but unless something happens at a higher legislative level we are stuck with it.
Are your town's assessments readily available online, so that everyone can see them and evaluate their quality and logic?
Land appreciates, if things are going well and the local economy is healthy. Buildings depreciate -- about 1.5% per year. If your assessments don't reflect that (aside from corrections of past errors), perhaps getting the quality of the assessment improved might be an important step.
If you have teardowns, you have an excellent benchmark on which to value local land, and a way to judge just what the old buildings are really worth. It costs to tear them down (I've heard $10 psf for houses) and cart them away, so a transaction followed by a teardown tells you the value of the land.
Commercial assessments based on income penalize the successful entrepreneur. They turn what should be tax on land value into a tax on income.
A 2006 Federal Reserve Board study showed that, for single family homes, in the top 46 metro markets, land in 2004 represented 51% of the value. For San Francisco, the figure was 88.5%; for Boston metro, 75.7%, for NYC and W,DC,67.4%, for Hartford, 54.1%, Chicago 52.1%, Buffalo 28.7%.
Most assessments seem to show that land represents a small share of the value of a commercial property. And mostly they're wrong. Initially, the land might be 20% or 25% of the value, but over time, the land appreciates and the building depreciates, and that land share of real estate value increases.
Good assessment isn't hard to do, and making it transparent by putting the results online for local scrutiny is a good step.
Holders of land which it has been affordable to keep underused in the past may find themselves motivated to put it to use, or to lower their asking price so that someone else can do so. That would benefit the entire community.
lvtfan - Let me first say that you have some interesting stuff on your Blog, and your website. As I have time I will read more.
Our appraisals are online, available through the town website. They show current value breakdown, and total value at any change of title.
I can tell you that in my case the land is 51% of the total value, and has increased by 311% in 13 years. It was about 45% of the total at that inception time, and my total assessment has increased 281%, with no significant change in the property.
We have had a commercial appraiser say that he doesn't think our commercial assessments are correct, especially with regard to land value. The explanation has been that it is the difference between appraising and assessing. This will be explored further though.
Please recognize that the "income model" has nothing to do with the income of the actual business on the parcel, just the square footage rental capability of the building space. Even the type of business has nothing to do with it. The only thing that pertains to the actual business is the subtraction of its expenses from the calculation.
I am not familiar with how things are done outside our locale, so it is good to hear some "outside" perspective.
Basing the building assessment on square footage and what that square footage could rent for IN THAT PLACE is mixing apples and oranges. No wonder the land is undervalued! The locational value might get factored into the building value, instead of being properly treated as land value.
And treating the existing building square footage seems to me to favor those who have kept old, obsolete buildings suited to another age and penalize those who seek to conduct an active business and use their land well. Sounds like a lose-lose situation for the community. Places more burden on residential, and then creates a less dynamic downtown to attract them.
But it can be turned around.
Yes, you'd need to get the enabling legislation for using different millage rates on land and improvements. Pennsylvania has had it for 90+ years, and a number of PA towns and cities, including most notably Harrisburg, whose mayor is convinced that the city's success since its inauguration in 1972 is a good part of why he keeps getting re-elected. And similar measures are doing tremendous good in some former steel towns, encouraging the redevelopment of the brownfield sites in which the town has already invested significant infrastructure.
lvt - I took a look at your blog and did some googling of Henry George and his political outlook as it relates to land and land valuation and its relationship to taxation. It is interesting stuff but I don't think its caught on here in staid New England that I'm aware of.
Dartmouth is a suburban community of some 64 square miles some rural, some residential with a concentration of retail and medical/professional offices along the Faunce Corner Road/Rt 6 Corridor. No real downtown to speak of, severl small historic villages scattered around. Considerable waterfront residential property. Given the intense development in recent years of the retail/professsional corridor mentioned above those land values have skyrocketed. Interesting concept - but a lifetime of advocacy for such a system will move this discussion not an inch here in Massachusetts. Where else is this model used successfully?
Much depends on what the residents want for their home town, and how powerful the well-situated are, and whether they can persuade others to vote against their own self-interest and the good of the community. (Tax caps, for example, generally are a very neat way to shift the tax burden off the well-situated and onto those who own slower-appreciating properties -- and to do so while proclaiming that the purpose is to protect the poor widow. Very neat trick, if that's the sort of thing one values and respects!!)
Where most people are retirees, no longer needing to earn a living, and sitting on large amounts of land value, this may not be appealing.
But where people are working, raising children, considering opening a business someday, and concerned for the future of the town and of their own families and their neighbors' families, this can be very appealing. In places where choice land sits vacant, and the town is sprawling onto virgin land, this is a way to reverse that ugly trend.
It all depends who is in power, and what suits their interests.
But it seems to me that the community's interest is generally in compact development, in getting those who have benefited the most from owning choice sites to pay their fair share of the taxes, in not burdening those whose homes are not served by all the infrastructure, or sit far from the hub of activity.
I would think there might be general agreement that the sites along the main roads are the most valuable, and that it would be better to see them well-developed and avoid having commercial development sprawl beyond those corridors. Of course those who own land directly in the corridors may prefer that someone else do something to make their land even more valuable before they decide to put it to better use. And some who own land just beyond the corridors might feel that sprawl is in their individual best interest, because then their land would become a great nest egg to hatch, particularly if they can get the taxpayers to finance extending infrastructure to them at little cost to themselves.
But most of us would probably prefer to see the development remain right along the main roads, and the open space remain open, and the ag land remain agricultural, instead of sprouting subdivisions in some checkerboard pattern.
Land value taxation is a way to achieve these goals -- necessary, if not sufficient.
But first there must be some agreement that these goals fit your community. Your community might really like a different pattern of development; or maybe it is just some landholders who would like to see the development come their way, even if it leaves empty spots on the main roads.
Cui bono -- who benefits?
lvtfan, As some have pointed out, we are a waterfront community with a long coastline. There are farms, summer communities, villages, expensive homes and developments along that coast. How would these waterfront areas fare in your land value assessment scheme? Would it encourage development along the shore? What if there was a farm that included this shoreline? Or an undeveloped stretch?
Also we have laws in Massachusetts that allow landowners to accept an agricultural restriction on land in return for tax breaks. How would that be handled?
Bill,
If the market values waterfront land highly in your area, as it does in most other places, then, yes, the property owners who have waterfront properties are going to be paying a larger share of the property tax than they are now -- particularly the ones with large properties and tiny old cottages. They have an asset that the market values highly: land on the water.
So they are likely to campaign heavily against this. Some of them will probably be summer people who really don't contribute much to the community (they don't shop locally for 8 months of the year, for instance), but are occupying a choice site which sits vacant much of the time.
Who benefits from land value taxation? The year-round folks who can afford only a modest cottage some way back from the water, without views. The people who own McMansions set way back from the water, without views. The people who live in condos which put 4 or 6 families on the same amount of land that 1 single-family home occupies. They get rewarded for their frugal use of land. The children who grow up in a town and hope to be able to afford to live there as adults; their parents, who would love to have their grandchildren nearby. LVT keeps land *prices* down, making housing affordable. Keeping land prices down also makes it more likely that modest homes will be built, which serve a very different population from the McMansions that get built on more expensive pieces of land. (There seems to be a rule of thumb that a builder maximizes his profit by building a house that will sell for about 4 times what he paid for the land; keep the price of land down, and he can do okay building more modest homes, which gives local young people some hope of being able to afford to stay.)
Also, businesses which have built good solid appropriate buildings on their sites, and in the process have created jobs and attractions which draw people to the area (in the process, creating business for others), get rewarded, while those businesses which are mostly place-holders, earning just enough to pay low property taxes, lose out: they will need to use their land better, sooner rather than later. This creates jobs, a lively downtown, a lively corridor; an active commerce.
(Current MA-style split-rate penalizes the guy who put up the good building, and discourages the next one from taking the same chance. And since commercial sites tend to be underassessed, the fellow sitting on an underused site isn't particularly motivated to use it better.)
Farmland, in general is not all that valuable, unless it is about to be in the path of development. If local policies are such that all the business needs can be accommodated in the existing developed corridors (perhaps via infill, or the redevelopment of underused sites along the main roads or just off them), the farmland is not particularly valuable except for its future development possibilities. So when a farm in New England changes hands at, say, $10,000 per acre (ignoring all the buildings, fencing, drainage and other improvements made by the farmers over the years), the value is probably its value as a farm.
When a similar farm changes hands at $25,000 per acre, we're starting to talk about its value for development. And then, yes, farms in the path of development should be assessed at their real value.
Now, whether you choose to provide some abatements for genuine -- not gentleman -- farmers is a local matter. (I would make the case that when a farmer sells out for some high per-acre price, he should owe back at least several years' worth of those abatements to his fellow community members who gave him a break for several decades!)
I have in mind that there are some lovely farms in Newport, RI, overlooking the water. Should they be given preferential tax treatment? I would tend to say not, but others might disagree. Their owners, or their heirs, can sell that land for a pretty penny, which they didn't create.
Would this encourage development along the shore? Certainly if there are commercial areas along the shore, they would get developed. The bait-and-tackle shop would no longer sit on 100' of waterfront; its owner would find it worth his while to put most of that 100' to better use -- which would create jobs, access for more human beings to a scarce resource -- the beach!
Does your town think people should have access? Or should the beaches remain private and pristine, available only to a few landholders who are being subsidized by people who own only cottages with no view?
I'm aware of a town where a part-time resident was pushing for assessment caps to keep the taxes on his summer home low. It strikes me as cruel, for those who have a very choice asset -- and one provided by nature, not by their own labor -- to ask those who live on inferior sites to subsidize them.
Does that help?
Thanks for the analysis lvt. It creates some questions in my mind however as to what happens in real life situations.
The large waterfront land owning summer resident does not use the same services that the year round, family resident does.That summer rresident does not use the school system, only disposes of tras a few months a year, taxes the infrastructure much less, yet it seems he gets penalized for being wealthy in your explanation no?
Conversely the family that has a modest home next to a similarly modest home all with 3-4 children will be paying less yet they are a much heavier burden on the town's services. The cost to educate each of those kids in this town for 13 years of schooling will approach $125,000!
Would the system you describe assess a separate tax or levy on those who use more services, or would the heavier levy on the large summer land owner make up the difference?
Public education is a public expense, and should, I think, be funded from the value of land.
For many things, I tend to think that user fees are a fine idea -- the person who generates a lot of trash should pay for its disposal; he who generates a small amount should not be bearing a per capita share of the cost of trash disposal.
Land is just plain different from things that are manmade, and it doesn't seem to me to be wrong to charge for the exclusive use of a scarce commodity supplied by nature; the fact that the owner of that waterfront property is only there one weekend, or one month, or one season a year, while other human beings have only one place to live year-round doesn't reduce his exclusive claim to that magnificent piece of land. And those other folks probably aren't welcome on the waterfront property when its owner is not in residence, and might have to go many miles to find a bit of public beach. So it doesn't seem wrong to ask him to pay at an equal millage rate on his land value. (Might it cause a few of them to decide to sell their homes? Perhaps. But probably not.)
Land value taxation is sort of "pay for what you take, not for what you make." I'd seek not to tax buildings, since the owner paid for their construction, or bought them from the fellow who did. I'd seek not to tax sales, or wages, on the basis that those are the result of an individual's labor.
But land values are different. We all need some land to live on. People who work generally need some land to work on, where he can interact with his customers, employees, suppliers, etc. Some of us take more than we need; they should pay in proportion to the value of what they claim as their own (they didn't create the land, and can't create any more in that place). Some of us choose to live on very valuable land -- be it the local waterfront or the choice urban sites that can be worth $500,000 or more per acre. The fellow who is able to, willing to, live on land no one else wants is not "taking" anything, and should pay little in taxes; he is also getting little from the community. Choice sites usually get lots of services from the community -- be it sewers, highways, police protection, courts, hospitals, fire protection, trash pickup, stormwater runoff control, beach regeneration. We don't run city water out to farms, or city sewers -- and we shouldn't have policies that encourage the extension of water or sewers beyond the current fringe until all the land within the existing boundaries is well developed.
Back to the schools issue ... many towns are reluctant to do anything that will encourage local people to have children, or people who have or might have children to locate in their town. They're happy to have seniors, particularly rich ones, and figure that people with children can find a place somewhere else. At least if it is other people's children. They seem to want to find a way fo their own children to afford to live there, and might even encourage them to have plenty of children themselves.
They do however, need police, and firemen and other emergency workers, and some of those people have children, or plan to have children, and need to be accommodated. Where I live, our firemen, police, and teachers are commuting an hour or so to get to work. Not a good situation. LVT could improve that, I think.
A society with few children may be inexpensive to live in, but is it the kind of society we want?
(I do think that major cities should be collecting a higher share of the value of their land each year, and that those funds should be used to fund education throughout the state, where land values are lower. But I think most towns have plenty of land value to fund local needs -- and particularly towns with a special feature like a waterfront, if only they are willing to tap that resource.
(I'd tried to post this a couple of days ago, and kept getting error messages. Started fresh this time, and will see if it works!)
'Public education is a public expense...'
Thank you lvt for your contribution here. You've given me a lot of food for thought.
Post a Comment