Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Devil's advocate: the City doesn't have to create for-profit housing (e.g. it could also be a community/rec centre, park, non-profit housing, etc), but developers do (i.e. the only reason they'd sit on a property is to raise the value). A vacant land tax provides a kick in the ass to redevelop the site while the land is still kinda-sorta cheap.
|
IMO a vacant land tax is kind of a half baked idea, after all what is the definition of "vacant"? If you move an RV onto the property is it no longer vacant? Is a temporary community garden no longer vacant? If you use it to store your grass is it no longer vacant? Is 1916 William St vacant but 1050 Expo Boulevard and 4851 Belmont Ave aren't?
Just have a blanket increase in land tax and end the structure tax. Then you have a kick in the ass to make sure your land is productive.