Environmentalists:
For or Against Reforming the Property Tax?
Jeffery Smith
[Reprinted from Blue Oregon, May, 2007]
Have you joined the ranks of the "property rightists"? Some
environmentalists have. Without naming names, one even echoes their
call to abolish the property tax.
Good intentions pave the way to a hot place. Where the property tax
has been kept down - Dixie in America - or where it's been capped,
following California's lead, small owners get crumbs while owners of
high-value lots save millions; capping the property tax is a
gold-plated gift to speculators and sprawl artists. Where there is no
property tax or it's poorly enforced - south of the US border - you
see worse sins than sprawl, sins against both nature and humanity.
Take a deeper look at the property tax. It falls on both homes and
land, two items quite different. One we did not create, cannot do
without, cannot increase, and constantly bid up its value. Indeed, an
owner can make more money by simply letting land lie vacant in the
middle of bustling downtown then selling when prices peak. Note the
wasted space next time you visit Portland.
That speculative act of withholding central land is what causes
sprawl, not the property tax. Indeed that tax can even counter sprawl,
not as currently constituted but by shifting the burden from buildings
to land. Then when owners fix up their property, they're not punished.
When owners procrastinate or speculate, they're prodded by the land
tax to get busy and develop where development does good.
What happens when owners of prime lots build? They:
- attract private investment - as happened in Sydney Australia,
- hire workers - as occurred in New Zealand,
- reduce joblessness while raising wages - a la Denmark,
- add to the housing stock, lowering the cost of housing (supply
and demand does alter price, still) - see Pittsburgh,
And they fill in cities. That's what curbs sprawl. Stephen Reed,
mayor of Harrisburg PA, gives credit to his town's land tax for
sparing its suburban farmland from development. A more compact city
shortens trip distances and lets residents walk or ride bikes or
buses, all of which reduces fuel consumption, smog, and emission of
gases altering the Earth's climate.
One substitute for taxing property has been to tax income. Yet the
powerful have shot that pseudo-reform through with loopholes, leaving
workers to pay the lion's share. That generates the mentality of tax
avoidance, not wealth creation, so investors seek shelters and don't
pursue enterprises like alternative energy. Further, it and the tax on
sales are unnecessary complications to start-ups, such as a recycler
or retrofitter, and both taxes diminish the discretionary income of
taxpayers, fostering the mentality whereby one seeks cheapest price,
not necessarily highest quality.
Calling for these "land dues" implies that Earth is here
for us to share, that her worth is a bounty that belongs to us all.
Arguing against the property tax, especially its land half, reinforces
the worldview of dog-eat-dog, of squeezing all the money one can out
of the land one owns. When the only way to profit from land is by
owning it, then people must develop it, even prematurely, and you end
up with laws like Measure 37. Developing every owned site to the max
despoils, whereas the optimum is to develop the center intensely while
keeping much space open throughout the region. Doing that is what
maximizes the bottom line; a region with open space will be more
livable and have higher taxable values than one with border-to-border
development.
The other conventional way owners profit is to sell out and move on,
rending the fabric of community. A benign way to recover land value is
to share it; that is, to pay in land dues (or land taxes) to one's
society and to get back "rent" dividends, a bit like Aspen
CO does or Alaska does with oil revenue. Most residents, owning land
whose value is at the average or less, would come out ahead; owners of
prime sites, typically the rich or out-of-towners, would pay more, so
sharing is progressive.
Having owners pay for what they take, not for what they make, is but
one benefit of geonomics. As newly enlightened environmentalists leave
the ranks of the pro-property people, perhaps they can bring some of
them along, to a tax policy that works right for both people and
planet.
|