On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 10:12:30 PM UTC-4, Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   > If the current use is not the highest and best use of the land, then the   
   > total property value should be less than the land value, to account for   
   > the cost of clearing the current improvements.  IOW, the improvements'   
   > value would be negative--yet another reason to tax only land value.   
      
   There is a broader issue, and that is the ability of the landowner to pay   
   taxes.   
      
   Many, many years ago government got away from just taxing real estate and   
   taxed income and commerce.  Generally, these were percentage--not flat fee   
   taxes--so they more money one earned or spent, the more in taxes they paid.    
   This was seen to be more    
   fair.   
      
   In many states, property taxes pay only a portion of the cost of public   
   schools.  The rest of the money comes from general municipal or state taxes.    
   The proportion breakdown is hotly debated.   
      
   The newly elected governor of Pennslyvania has proposed steep increases in the   
   state sales tax (both in rate and in items taxed) as well as the state income   
   tax, so as to lower property taxes.  Basically, this is a wealth   
   re-distribution scheme.   
      
      
      
   > Also, improvements depreciate (absent major remodeling), so they should   
   > naturally be less and less of the property's value over time, eventually   
   > turning negative as above.  My jurisdiction gets this wrong, increasing   
   > my home's value every year but leaving the land value constant--despite   
   > a new freeway, major commercial developments, etc. nearby that have   
   > pushed up the value of every property in the city.  It isn't worth   
   > arguing about, though, since the tax is on the total value; if they   
   > taxed only my land value, I bet they'd get it right.   
      
   It's important to note that external events impact nearby property owners very   
   unevenly.  For instance, depending on where one's property is and its layout,   
   a new freeway interchange could cause its value to explode.  But it could--and   
   often does--cause    
   its value to steeply fall.  Not every property is so situated or laid out to   
   radically change its value.  It just becomes in the way, suffering from a   
   great deal of noise, litter, trespassers, even crime.  It was documented that   
   when the NJ Tpk widened,    
   properties nearby suffered badly from the noise and pollution, but there is NO   
   compensation from the state for that kind of loss.   
      
   Also, it's important to note that the market value of a property may be very   
   different to its value to the individual who lives or works there.  For   
   instance, a poor elderly person may have a modest home they're perfectly   
   content with and can afford.     
   But if the house is forcibly acquired by the govt, they may get an   
   insufficient amount to find another adequate dwelling space.  This was a huge   
   problem when Moses built the Cross Bronx Exprssway.   
      
   The highway programs of the 1950s and 1960s made a lot of people filthy rich,   
   but also ruined a lot of lives and towns.  Highway proponents don't talk about   
   the bad stuff.     
      
   One big advantage of railroads is that a far greater volume of freight and   
   people can be hauled through a narrow footprint.  Electric trains are very   
   quiet.  A diesel freight can be noisy, but is still much better than that same   
   load being hauled via    
   trucks.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)