--- Fredric Markus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This helps explain why there isn't a property > ownership stipulation in > our country's constitution. If only people with > serious money can have > gardens, then perhaps only people with serious money > should have > museums, schools, hospitals, parks, highways, > armies, and so on, and the > rest of us can move to Canada or jump off the > nearest cliff.
This reminds me of an intriguing workshop I attended in Philadelphia this past weekend on property tax theory and praxis in context of the growing first world land reform movement that has emerged out of third world land reform movements. Much of the attention and focus on this movement began when none other than Jesse Helms noted that the vast majority of land and real estate value in the U.S. is held by a far smaller percentage of private corporations and individuals than in those countries activists were advocating as cases for action and relief before the foreign relations committee Helms chairs. Harrisburg, PA was held up as an example of a city that has flourished and experienced a renaissance in development and restoration of properties based on the application of "resource rents" theory to local property taxation and Philadelphia is currently considering adopting a similiar approach. I'm not sure to what degree the city of Minneapolis controls the allocation of millage rates when it comes to the proportion on land value vs. buildings and other property improvements. This form of taxation was noted for encouraging infill development and property improvements particularly in depressed neighborhoods while simultaneously increasing market development of affordable housing and shifting the tax burden on to those with a greater ability to pay. With the recent report on the decline in the quality of Mpls. housing stock that was recently noted here, perhaps such a change to the local property taxation system that doesn't punish homeowners as much for doing improvements to their properties would help encourage more investment in property upkeep and property improvements. The nonprofit that hosted the workshop will do a study on behalf of any municipality that wants to look at what a shift would look like for free at the request of one city council person. If anyone is interested in knowing more, email me offline and I'll say if I can dig out my notes and materials from the workshop and provide with web contact information and resources related to this. I'm not sure that this system would be implementable in Mpls. or not under state law. I also question the way such a change would impact the use of tax increment financing and the city's debts related to tif. Still, I thought it was an interesting alternative to the history of demolotion of depressed and problem properties in the city. If a tweaking of our property tax system leads to many marginal properties having market driven nonsubsidized improvements and restoration, it could be very worthwhile. David Strand Loring Park __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
