archited
Senior Member
Gene Dub has been doing his part here... although he has confessed to me that it is a struggle that needs outside support if this wants to be community wide.
The Quarters Hotel and Residences | 280.1m | 80s | Alldritt Land | KENNEDY
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
IanO
Superstar
Avenuer
Senior Member
F
Feeling nostalgic? Lol
johnnyboy
Active Member
It's that, or he's getting notifications from Google that his storage is almost full. Time to free up some space.
supaflyryguy
Active Member
I can't wait until we pass an undeveloped land tax so these parcels can get moved to developers who develop land in addition to renderings.
kcantor
Senior Member
When you can’t make money developing a site even if you got it for free, then an undeveloped land tax won’t make a damn bit of difference.
Except perhaps to see the city taking title to more sites by way of tax foreclosures and losing even more of their property tax base in the process, not just on those sites but on the reduced taxable value of similar sites.
yegsteve2000
New Member
Was just on this thread the other day, scrolling sadly that lol.
devobersver
New Member
I feel we need to increase the rate for vacant lots to fund incentives to build. We are already reducing the taxable income by allowing demolition of the properties before they sit on them for 10-20 years as they speculate. After a set time with no movement and building the taxes should revert back to the previous amounts when there was a structure on the property. Hopefully that encourages developers to use properties until they are ready by closing the tax loophole of the tax reduction.
David A
Senior Member
Importantly, I feel we need to reduce the incentive to tear down existing buildings. I believe others have indicated we should continue to assess and tax based on if the building was still there and that makes good sense to me.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
^^
On that we agree - I’ve said for a very long time that taxes should remain at the “pre demolition level” until such time as a replacement structure is completed and fully assessed.
The issue is that the MGA doesn’t allow multiple mil rates on the same class of property (ie land without improvements).
The work around is to require a development agreement as a condition of issuing a demolition permit; to have the development agreement require an equivalent payment to the reduction in property taxes be made to the city on an annual basis until the site is developed; and to have that development agreement registered on title so it “flows with the land” and the city doesn’t get short changed if it’s sold.
^^
On that we agree - I’ve said for a very long time that taxes should remain at the “pre demolition level” until such time as a replacement structure is completed and fully assessed.
The issue is that the MGA doesn’t allow multiple mil rates on the same class of property (ie land without improvements).
The work around is to require a development agreement as a condition of issuing a demolition permit; to have the development agreement require an equivalent payment to the reduction in property taxes be made to the city on an annual basis until the site is developed; and to have that development agreement registered on title so it “flows with the land” and the city doesn’t get short changed if it’s sold.
Stevey_G
Active Member
What about a post-construction tax rebate for the time the land was left vacant? As in, a site like Regency's on 101st continues to be taxes at estimated assessed levels had the building been there, but that money is placed in an interest bearing trust so that when the next project is completed, the developer gets a substantial rebate back with interest based off the difference between a bare land and developed tax.
It would add a bit of certainty for honest developers who are facing hold-ups on dependencies and whatnot.
It would add a bit of certainty for honest developers who are facing hold-ups on dependencies and whatnot.
kcantor
Senior Member
You’re overcomplicating something that should be simple which will create less certainty at the end of the day, not more.
Who gets the “refund” if the site has sold two or three or four times since the city started collecting? Who tracks and reports on the money and how often?
If the money has to get refunded (in my proposal the money gets paid to the city and the city keeps it just as it keeps all other revenue including property taxes) the city can’t use it (and the city needs it) as they would only be holding it on an interim basis until they refunded it.
devobersver
New Member
Would this work as desired? Knowing they are getting the money back might not provide the encouragement that is required. Sure it impacts cash-flow, however; they are still benefiting from others investing in the area which makes their vacant lot worth more. Personally I think putting it all in a fund to accelerate those investing in the area and meeting quality design standards more valuable. A portion could also be allocated to accelerate public infrastructure renewal. For Downtown this can help tackle some of the other reasons people don't want to go.
Out of Towner
Active Member
An interest bearing trust might have the opposite effect of its intended goal. Instead of encouraging a project to proceed, a developer might delay a project on the grounds that they're receiving interest compensation for not doing anything. So for a developer with projects in different jurisdictions, the one with the least carrying cost could be the last one to be developed.
David A
Senior Member
Agreed we want the incentive to be to build sooner, not build up a fund for the property owners. Again, the less complicated solution is best.