Creative Taxation:
A Tool for Big Cities?
Neil Munro
[Reprinted from The Grand Rapids Press, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 3 December, 1967]
A lot of the people who know the most about city problems think
there's a reasonably simple way to help get rid of them. They're
convinced slums can be cleared, downtowns revitalized and sprawling
suburbs reined in, all without going to the federal government for
more bundles of money or more new laws. They even think they can save
the middle-income homeowner a dollar or two in the process.
They would put America's prime mover to work: The profit motive.
As of right now, these experts agree, the profit motive is making
cities sicker instead of healthier. It's encouraging _ people to let
old homes and stores run down. And it's encouraging them to hang onto
vacant land in the city and wait for a higher price while suburbanites
spend money driving past it to get to work and back, when they could
be living on it.
The profit motive would be put to work by changing the way we tax
property. Here's how property taxes work now:
Say Mr. Landlord has a vacant store in the middle of downtown. An
eyesore. His building isn't worth much so his property taxes are low
and he can afford to let it sit there. And he does. More than one Mr.
Landlord and you have a deteriorating downtown.
Speculators Encouraged
Mr. Speculator owns a big vacant tract in the midst of new suburban
subdivisions. There are no buildings on it so he pays low property
taxes and he can afford to keep his land off the market until its
price goes up. More than one Mr. Speculator and urban sprawl is forced
as builders go further out for cheaper land.
At the same time Mr. Slumlord owns and rents old houses close to
downtown. His property taxes are low, too, because his houses are in
bad shape. More than one Mr. Slumlord and the entire central city goes
downhill.
Meanwhile Mr. Homeowner sits in his Dutch colonial and pays high
property taxes because he keeps his house in good repair.
The experts say they can find the same fault with all four cases: The
tax assessor has based the property tax too much on the value of the
building and not enough on the value of the land.
\ The property tax, they argue, is not one tax but two: A tax on
buildings -- and a tax on land.
Would Prod Landlords
It's the tax on land and its social and economic effects that
intrigues a lot of people who are trying to solve city problems.
Suppose, they say, that most of the tax on a piece of property was
based on the value of the land instead of on the buildings. Suppose,
further, that the value of the land was not tied to the value of the
building on it, but instead that the land's value was based on what it
would be worth if it were put to its "highest and best use under
current zoning."
What would happen to Mr. Landlord?
Here's what these experts predict: His property taxes would go way up
because the downtown lot his old vacant store sits on would be worth a
lot of money if it were used like other downtown lots; for a big busy
store, for example.
With his taxes now high, Mr. Landlord would lose too much money
letting the store sit vacant. He would be forced to put up a new store
he could rent, and therefore be able to afford the property tax, or
sell it to someone who would.
He would have a better chance of selling his land because its actual
market price would go down. Why? Because the higher taxes would make
the land itself a less attractive investment. And why wouldn't he be
tempted to put up a better building anyway, without a higher land tax?
Because the building would be more valuable than the old one and his
taxes would go up, actually penalizing him for his enterprise. With
the higher land tax he's penalized for a lack of enterprise. In fact,
it supposedly would force him to improve his property and, by
extension, the community.
And what about Mr. Speculator? If his tax were based on highest and
best use, a subdivision, his tax bill would go way up. He too would
have to build something so he could afford the tax. And the price of
his land would drop because it wouldn't be so attractive an investment
with those high tax bills coming in. Furthermore, the builder who
bought the land would be able to sell his houses for less because the
lots would be cheaper.
The result: More orderly development of land around cities and less
expensive new homes.
Discourage Slumlords
And Mr. Slumlord. What about him? Again, taxes would go up. The land
his broken-down houses occupy really is very valuable under its "highest
and best use." It's the most vatuable residential land in the
city; close to downtown, mature trees, all the streets, sidewalks and
water and sewer lines are in. He, too, would have to tear down or fix
up the old buildings to bring in more money. And, again, the high land
tax would drive down the price of the lots to the point that they
would be attractive to builders of new homes.
But what about Mr. Homeowner? Most of the value of his property is
his house, not his lot. So a relatively high land tax and a relatively
low building tax would actually reduce his total tax bill.
But wouldn't this sometimes, in effect, confiscate a man's property
by changing the rules in the middle of the game, particularly if he
can't afford to fix it up and can't find a buyer?
This is one of the most common objections to a change to heavier
taxes on land: that it hurts innocent vested interests. The answer
usually is that the vested interests of land speculators are so
socially destructive that they must be injured, even if it hurts.
Which view is right is, of course, a matter of personal values.
Another and perhaps more telling criticism is that not everybody who
owns central city property is a slumlord.
Poor and elderly homeowners who have a struggle keeping their homes,
much less fixing them up, would be squeezed by the higher taxes. They
have an innocent vested interest, too.
Leon Silverman, writing in the
Yale Law Review, suggests that both these objections be met
with "gradualism."
He Advocates "Gradualism"
" He says, "Gradual adoption of the new tax, with minimal
disruption of the established procedures, may appear to be the best
guarantee of public support."
Other objections are that the great pressure for development of land
would wipe out open spaces and that the tax is too difficult for
assessors to administer.
Advocates generally argue that open spaces can be preserved through
government purchase or condemnation, if necessary.
Those who say administration is too difficult usually are the same
persons who don't like it on general principles. And those who say it
is not difficult are people who want to see it tried.
So why isn't is tried and who are these experts?
There are plenty of people who would like to see it tried, including
the Joint Economic Committee of Congress which reported: "State
and local governments have failed to make maximum use of the enormous
potential inherent in the property tax for either the prevention or
cure of poor housing and other blight conditions."
Mayors Propose It
Another group that would like to see it is made up of the nation's
big city mayors. They concluded in a recent conference, as reported by
Nation's Cities magazine, that "private enterprise must be able
to assume without subsidy most of the costs of rebuilding our cities.
It will be a lot easier to interest private capital in urban
betterment if the local tax system is modified to encourage new
construction and better land use, instead of, as now, penalizing
improvements and subsidising blight, slums and sprawl."
The mayors said they knew that government subsidies through urban
renewal and public housing would never be big enough to replace all
the crumbling downtowns and decaying slums; that private individuals
would have to be able to do it at a profit.
They concluded, "Most states make their cities collect most of
their property taxes, not on land (which is undertaxed) but on
improvements which are already so overtaxed that the tax inhibits even
some of the most needed improvements."
Among major magazines which have backed heavier land taxes
editorially are Life and Fortune, both Time-Life publications. In
December of 1965 Life (aid, "Both the local property tax and the
federal income tax can be adapted so as to reward the man who
maintains his property rather than the slumlord who exploits it and
the slothful owner who lets it go."
Property Tax Deductible
Life's reference to the federal income tax stems from the fact that
local property taxes are deductible from the income tax. This meant a
rich speculator or slumlord in the 50 per cent income tax bracket can
deduct 50 per cent of his property taxes from his income tax. It
further weakens the land part of the property tax as a social tool.
Fortune magazine said the same year that "almost all economists
agree that the social and economic consequences of increased taxes on
land are much better than the social and economic consequences of
increased taxes on improvements.
House and Home magazine has added its voice to the general
support of the idea. Its editor wrote: "The assumption that the
federal government has largely preempted the sources of tax revenues,
leaving cities helpless, is highly questionable. The biggest source of
taxes historically is land. As late as 1914, land carried nearly half
the tax load. Today the land values in our cities and suburbs add up
to something like a quarter of our total national wealth, but land is
so underassessed and undertaxed that it pays less than one-twentieth
of the total tax bill. It is the No. 1 reason city land prices are so
high that private enterprise cannot meet the need for good low-income
and middle-income housing in big cities without a subsidy from
someone."
AggravateProblems
The Urban Land Institute contends "there is hardly an urban
problem today that is not aggravated by today's practice of
under-taxing land an overtaxing improvements."
The list of expert organizations pushing for higher land taxes also
includes the Brookings Institute which agate makes the call for
change; "Heavy taxation of land values would increase
substantially the holding cost of land, and thus encourage more
intensive utilization.
And to cap it all, the Urban Land Institute, with the cooperation of
the Milwaukee tax commissioner, showed it would be profitable for
private industry, without any subsidy, to tear down and replace
practically all the obsolete buildings downtown if the property tax
were all on the valuable land they cover."
The institute's study concluded: "If we want to minimize
suburban sprawl and stop blighting the countryside with premature
subdivision, it is foolish not to tax land at its highest "best
use" value and pressure owners to release it at a reasonable
price when it is needed for orderly urban growth.
New Home Prices Rise
One of the biggest problems they see with the present system is that
it is pushing new-home prices beyond the reach of anybody who isn't in
the upper middle class. The Michigan State Home-builders Association
said this year it is virtually impossible, mainly because of high land
prices, to sell even a small three-bedroom house at a profit for law
tea UMN. An Associated Press survey of housing in Michigan cities last
summer revealed out the cities are running out of land and that what
is left is prohibitively priced. A lot in Ann Arbor sold for $12,500.
Lot costs here are going up about 10 per cent a year.
And Gene Brewer, president of the United States Plywood Association,
says, "
land speculation has pretty well milked all the
profit out of the residential building business before anyone else
gets a crack at it."
The National Association of Real Estate Boards complains that rising
land costs have erased growing efficiency in home building.
So the homeowner has a double stake in the land tax;' lower overall
property taxes and lower home prices. That is. if the land tax scheme
works in reality as well as it does on paper.
The trouble is nobody really knows how it works in reality because it
never _ has been given a good test. And most tax officials in
Michigan, including Grand Rapids, are convinced state law prohibits
putting it to a test.
Originated by Henry George
The idea of the heavy tax on land was first dreamed up by Henry
George, a 19th Century American social reformer who had the notion
that the cure for all society's ills lay in taxing only land. Most
modern tax reformers do not go quite that far. They are not "single
taxers."
But they all accept the economic truth of one of George's basic
principles; that a tax on land is the only tax that promotes instead
of hinders business activity.
Economic theories are one thing and laws are another. The Michigan
constitution demands that all property, that means buildings and land
both, must be assessed and taxed at 50 per cent of their market value.
On the face of it, the constitution therefore bars any move to tax
land more heavily than buildings or improvements. Most assessors are
content to leave it at that and have paid little attention to the
theory of taxing, as opposed to its efficient administration. They,
including Assessor Clarence Thielman of Grand Rapids, stick to
following law and leave the speculating on possible changes to others.
But one place where it has been tried in Michigan, in spite of the
law, is in the suburban Detroit area city of Southfield. There, Mayor
James Clarkson and assessor Theodore Gwartney are convinced of the
social value of heavier taxes on land.
Population Boomed
Southfield is a city that had a population of 25,000 in 1958 and
expects to have 100,000 residents by 1970. In the last year 2,500
apartment units and 30 office buildings have gone up. Southfield
officials don't claim all this prosperity is due to heavier taxes on
land. A J. L. Hudson Co. shopping center and a freeway interchange
have helped a lot. But they do give their new tax policy some of the
credit.
If the law prohibits heavier taxes on land, how does Southfield do
it? Thielman insists it can't be done.
Gwartney, Thieiman's counterpart in Southfield, says they do it
mainly by reversing what he calls standard Michigan assessment
practices.
He assesses land at the full 50 per cent of market value and
buildings at about 35 per cent of value. He makes sure the land market
value is the highest possible and building value the lowest possible
by reassessing every piece of land every year and by cutting down the
value of buildings by depreciating them as rapidly as possible.
"We cut the value of a new building by 3 per cent as soon as
it's completed," Gwartney says.
He Admits It's Illegal
Gwartney admits that taxing buildings at less than 50 per cent of
their market value is illegal. But he contends that it's no more
illegal than the practice of most other state assessors who he says
assess land at less than its market value.
The result, according to Gwartney, has been to cut the taxes of the
average homeowner by 15 per cent. That's because most of the value of
the home-owners' property is represented by his building, not by his
land.
Another benefit has been that many older homes are being fixed up.
There's a big profit incentive because none of the improvements,
unless a room is added, cause the assessment and taxes to go up. Grand
Rapids has a liberal policy in this area, bat not that liberal.
Southfield, however, hasn't seen a drop in land prices which is what,
theoretically, should happen. Because of a heavy demand for land in
the booming community, prices are being bid up despite the heavier
land tax. But Gwartney says he believes they aren't going up as fast
as they otherwise would.
Southfield's Mayor Clarkson, the man who hired Gwartney, and who is a
fervent advocate of the heavy land tax, spoke in Grand Rapids last
year. But his sales talk on the tax was largely nullified when, in
response to a question, he said the Grand Rapids assessing office was
doing a fine job.
His Meaning Misunderstood
Local officials took that to mean he agreed with assessing practices
here. Clarkson, however, says he meant only that the office was
efficient, not that he agreed with its practice of attempting to
assess land and buildings at the same rate.
Most local officials, including Mayor Sonneveldt, are aware of the
theory, mostly through the efforts of Benjamin Smith of 1801 Breton
Rd. SE, who has repeatedly told the land tax story at public hearings
and school board and city commission meetings.
The mayor is not completely sold on it but agrees it needs to be
studied more. City Planning Director J. Paul Jones won't comment on it
arid Urban Renewal-Public Housing Director Donald O'Keefe says he's
not qualified to offer an opinion.
Assessor Thielman says, "if it is so good why isn't it used
more?"
In spite of this, public debate on the heavy land tax is growing.
Gwartney says, "I've seen more stories on it in the last year
than in the previous 10 years."
|