From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 01-Apr-15 11:57, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 30-Mar-15 23:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>>>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. . . .   
      
   >>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.   
      
   >Perhaps we're talking about different things.  My land is valued (and   
   >therefore taxed) based on the "highest and best" lawful use, which is a   
   >two-story detached house; that I actually have a single-story house is   
   >irrelevant.  I could generate more revenue by replacing the house with a   
   >gas station, but that's irrelevant too because it'd be illegal.  I could   
   >try to get the zoning changed, but if I succeeded, my land value (and my   
   >taxes) would go up accordingly.   
      
   Right. Building and zoning codes are outside influences that depress   
   or increase land value.   
      
   I don't think the phrase "highest and best use" is found in George, but   
   I'm suddenly spacing out on the term he used.   
      
   Anyway, you're better off in the long running owning the smallest house   
   on the block, not the biggest, if you wish to profit when you sell.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)