From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 30-Mar-15 23:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
   >>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:   
      
   >>>A town can raise taxes overnight, but it will take a property owner   
   >>>much time to adjust--be it do something different with the land,   
   >>>e.g. build something or sell it off.   
      
   >>In my state, taxes cannot be raised overnight. They have to go   
   >>through notice and public hearings and a truth-in-taxation process.   
      
   >In my state, property taxes can only be raised with voter approval,   
   >typically done as part of a bond election since the projected revenue   
   >from the higher tax rate is needed to secure the bonds.   
      
   I wasn't commenting on the need to go to referendum to issue bonds.   
   There are exceptions, but bond issues need to pass a referendum first.   
      
   Most levies that aren't for bonds are subject to statutory caps,   
   unless there's a referendum.   
      
   >>>Further, maximizing land use profit is limited by zoning, laws,   
   >>>historical designation, etc.  Laws are passed regulating land use   
   >>>for quality of life reasons.   
      
   >>Then if laws limit land value to less-than-highest-and-best-use, the   
   >>land will be assessed accordingly. That's the point.   
      
   >Well, the "highest and best use" of land typically accounts for zoning   
   >and other restrictions.  IOW, it's the highest and best _lawful_ use.   
      
   There are plenty of examples in which an intensive use of property,   
   while complying with zoning and building codes, wouldn't be the   
   best use. I'm not thinking of traffic, but pre pollution control days,   
   in which there was no legal remedy to preventing air, water, groundwater,   
   and land pollution from industrial and agricultural sources.   
      
   I've never sympathized with "high traffic generation" as an excuse   
   for building and zoning restrictions, 'cuz those already there never   
   seem to be able to see the effect of their own trips on people who   
   came before them. Also, we always overestimate how much new traffic   
   a new land use will generate and always forget to estimate trip diversion.   
      
   People pull this nonsense trying to get some developer to reduce the   
   number of homes in a small development from 20 to 18, as if that's   
   meaningful.   
      
   To the extent that the land user has the ability to shift his costs   
   onto the rest of the community, that would raise his land value and   
   lower everyone else's. Pollution is the prime example of cost shifting.   
      
   No, "highest and best use" is a concept of an ideal marketplace without   
   building and zoning restrictions and without the ability to shift costs   
   from your land use to others to prevent their full enjoyment of their land.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)