Want to End the Scourge of Surface Parking? Tax Land, Not Buildings
Surface parking lots -- they're the scourge of downtowns nearly everywhere across the United States. They're ugly, they make cities unwalkable, and once they're in place, they can be terribly hard to get rid of.
But cities can do something to solve this problem. In fact, changing the way local governments tax downtown properties could encourage land owners to opt for development over asphalt. Chris Keimig at Network blog Streets.mn explains that if cities want to end the blight of surface parking, they should be taxing land at a higher rate relative to buildings. He explains:
The conventional property tax, which taxes land and buildings at the same rate, is essentially backwards when it comes to the behaviors it incentivizes. It penalizes property owners for building or making improvements to their structures, while rewarding speculators and absentee landlords who would rather allow their properties to decay than make expensive (and annually taxable) improvements. Taxing land and buildings at the same rate means that as long as you don’t put any buildings on your land, your tax bill is going to remain relatively cheap. If you’re a speculator, this means that you only need a modest amount of revenue (say, a few bucks a day from people driving into the city for work or to go shopping) in order to sit on that land indefinitely, or until someone comes along offering your “pie-in-the-sky” price (to quote one downtown city planner I spoke to)—effectively keeping the land out of the hands of those with genuine interest in putting it to productive use.
By taxing land at or near its development potential, however, owners of land being used at less than maximum productivity would be paying a disproportionate amount in taxes in order to keep it that way.
If the city is trying to encourage development—and to attract the 70,000 more downtown residents it seeks by 2025—it hardly makes sense to place a tax on that behavior. Similarly, if the city wants potential developers to treat land as the scarce resource that it is—encouraging them to build up rather than out in order to maximize economic output and reduce sprawl—it makes sense to tax land at a higher rate than buildings.
Keimig crunched the numbers to demonstrate just how perverse current incentives are. It turns out owners of the Minneapolis Grain Exchange building (above) pay 42 times as much in property taxes per square foot of land as the adjacent parking lot owner.
Elsewhere on the Network today: City Block calculates how much parking inflates housing costs in Portland. Systemic Failure reports that flawed World Bank cost-effectiveness measures helped produce the world's most dangerous highway. And Transit Miami says small urban interventions, rather than silver-bullet-style megaprojects, are what make cities livable.
Stay in touch
Sign up for our free newsletter
More from Streetsblog New York City
Analysis: ‘Dangerous Vehicle Abatement Program’ is a Failure By All Measures
The Department of Transportation wants the Dangerous Vehicle Abatement Program to simply expire in part because it did not dramatically improve safety among these worst-of-the-worst drivers and led to a tiny number of vehicle seizures.
School Bus Driver Kills Cyclist in Boro Park, 24th Bike Death of 2023
Luis Perez-Ramirez, 44, was biking south on Fort Hamilton Parkway just before 3:15 p.m. when he was struck a by school bus driver making a right turn.
‘Betrayal’: Adams Caves to Opposition, Abandons Bus Improvement Plan on Fordham Road
The capitulation on Fordham Road is the latest episode in which the mayor has delayed or watered down a transportation project in deference to powerful interests.
Friday’s Headlines: Yes He Said Yes He Will Yes Edition
That headline above is a reference to the last line of James Joyce's Ulysses, which we won't pretend to have read. But we have that ... and other news.
Madness: Port Authority Will Spend $8.3M to ‘Study’ Widening Outerbridge Crossing
Will this $8.3 million find out anything we don't know about induced demand?
