When Sprawl Wins, Cities Lose

For about 10 years, Oil City, Pennsylvania used a land value tax, and it helped stave off decline after the Pennsylvania oil industry collapsed.

Indeed, after adoption of LVT building permits ticked upwards and then surpassed neighboring towns like Franklin. Taxes for most homeowners declined, so the stability provided by LVT was welcome.

Then, Venango County, reassessed and like Pittsburgh in 2001, the county pressured Oil City to use a "unified" tax rate and dump LVT.

In one fell swoop, Oil City went from having a competitive tax rate on buildings and construction, to the highest in the county! Go Team!

2006 Millages*
District	School District	County	Municipal	School
ALLEGHENY TWP	TITUSVILLE AREA S/D	5.565	0.826	12.480
BARKEYVILLE	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	1.900	17.000
CANAL TWP	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	0.920	17.000
CHERRYTREE TWP	TITUSVILLE AREA S/D	5.565	4.000	12.480
CITY OF FRANKLIN	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	8.800	17.000
CITY OF OIL CITY	OIL CITY AREA S/D	5.565	9.600	16.610
CLINTON TWP	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	0.453	17.000
CLINTONVILLE	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	1.099	17.000
COOPERSTOWN	VALLEY GROVE S/D	5.565	2.417	10.773
CORNPLANTER	OIL CITY AREA S/D	5.565	3.100	16.610
CRANBERRY TWP	CRANBERRY AREA S/D	5.565	1.940	11.950
EMLENTON BORO	ALLEG/CLARION S/D	5.565	4.812	9.600
FRENCHCREEK	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	0.900	17.000
IRWIN TWP	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	0.190	17.000
JACKSON TWP	VALLEY GROVE S/D	5.565	0.550	10.773
MINERAL TWP	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	0.568	17.000
OAKLAND TWP	OIL CITY AREA S/D	5.565	0.990	16.610
OILCREEK TWP	TITUSVILLE AREA S/D	5.565	1.148	12.480
PINEGROVE TWP	CRANBERRY AREA S/D	5.565	0.900	11.950
PLEASANTVILLE	TITUSVILLE AREA S/D	5.565	2.370	12.480
PLUM TWP	PENNCREST S/D	5.565	0.370	12.430
POLK BORO	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	3.242	17.000
PRESIDENT TWP	FOREST AREA S/D	5.565	0.679	7.890
PRESIDENT TWP	OIL CITY AREA S/D	5.565	0.679	16.610
RICHLAND TWP	ALLEG/CLARION S/D	5.565	0.813	9.600
ROCKLAND TWP	CRANBERRY AREA S/D	5.565	1.030	11.950
ROUSEVILLE	OIL CITY AREA S/D	5.565	6.110	16.610
SANDYCREEK TWP	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	1.392	17.000
SCRUBGRASS TWP	ALLEG/CLARION S/D	5.565	0.595	9.600
SUGARCREEK	VALLEY GROVE S/D	5.565	3.540	10.773
UTICA BORO	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	1.500	17.000
VICTORY TWP	FRANKLIN AREA S/D	5.565	1.199	17.000

*Courtesy Venango County Assessment Department

And The Winner Is....

Cranberry Township. You'll note from the chart how low its taxes are. So, when growth happens in an isolated pocket of a state that is undergoing entropy, it isn't going to happen INSIDE the city.

The local newspaper - the wonderfully named Derrick - just showed how much growth is taking off in the townships, while non-growth in Oil City is the order of the day.

Considering how much of Oil City is already tax-exempt from social services, hospitals, colleges and the like, I can only sing the Bee Gees lament "Tragedy"

New Projects for Land Value Taxation

Penndel Borough is a smallish town north of Philly and South of Trenton. It's part of a long-moribund industrial and commercial corridor that marked US-1.

When the Interstates took over our lives, the hotels, diners and other relics of our 1920-1940s early love affair with highways faded. Penndel is no different. the frontage of route 1 is now filled with lots of truck and auto-oriented businesses and many abandoned industrial sites. Penndel, like many other smaller towns with no particular charms for yuppy saviors is struggling fiscally and demographically; it is aging.

CSE - the little foundation I direct - was contacted by a local businessman who senses that increasing the local wage tax might not be a good idea. We couldn't agree more, so we are doing a study next month.

The rub? Bucks County hasn't done a reassessment since the early 1970s! That's routine in Pennsylvania; it gives the newer parts of a county a real advantage in low values, while poorer and older parts of a county get overcharged.

So, the numbers might be useless...

Vermont Churches and Land Taxation

Time for me to say "sorry" to Vermont. After the bonehead story about taxing "supersize" homes, I blithely assumed that Vermont would remain in my mind as a cutesy place where the natives are driven into the hills, and candle dippin' hippies that are worth a million bucks rule the roost. Even my mellow girlfriend almost broke into hives when we had lunch in Bennington once.

The only place I can think of that would get away with a proposal to tax the property of churches IS Vermont. The Vermont idea is a good one, as it proposes to tax church lands. Now, I know that sounds like Henry the VIIIth and the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but t' isn't,

Barre Vermont, needs money. They've floated a few things, all of which failed. Now, they are floating a tax on previously exempt land.
Naturally it's being called a "church tax" even though church stuff takes place in buildings.

They tried to pass a constitutional amendment in Colorado to tax non-profit property, it died at the hands of the voters. I bet this doesn't pan out, because the opposition loves to threaten the loss of The Lord due to taxes, and proponents are either scared of parishioners, or they are those militant-style atheists that everyone feels sorta creepy about.

Why Use a Flyswatter When You Can Use a Nuke?

Thanks to way-cool Matt Stillman for a heads up on some lawmakers up in Vermont who know the power of government and they are WAY ready to use it!

A new state law being proposed - but not yet introduced by Rep. Tony Klein - would impose a $1,000 per square foot "surcharge" for new home construction over 4,000 square feet. Another bill proposed will add a tax, OOPS no, a "fee" of 1% of the price of the house (Construction price? Sales price? The language doesn't say).

To quote the article from the Barre Times Argus

"The concept is to put in place incentives for building well-insulated buildings for homes and businesses," [Senator Lyons] Lyons said. "This kind of policy is the kind of policy I think we will be talking about over the next couple of years."Both bills, if made into law, would regulate the connection to the energy grid each new home needs, unless it relies entirely on its own power sources, such as wind or solar power.

In the immortal words of Casey Stengel "Now Wait a Minute."

First off, I (mis)spent some winters in Chester Depot and in the proud old, Yankee farmhouse of 1,500 square feet you couldn't keep a candle lit because of the draft. How come they don't have to pay for energy-efficiency?

Second, I guarantee that the opportunities for graft will abound. If, as the legislators complain, these are houses built by rich out-of-staters, then imagine a bond trader from Manhattan laying out a couple of hundred bucks to persuade the building inspector to certify that the new Schloss is in fact 3,999 square feet.



Third, if a tax on the biggest homes happens, SOMEone will wonder why we don't put a "fee" on simply bigger homes. I can hear it now: "3,000 square feet? The greedy bastards!"

Fourth, a change in tax policy, rather than command-and-control from the state will help all homes be more affordable and energy-efficient, old or new, native or carpetbagger. Untax all buildings, tax the land instead. Better use of land is an inevitable result, with more compact housing, and an incentive to put in the features everyone wants, not just the holidaying rich people.

Fifth, I'd lose my membership in the Irony Union, if I didn't tell you that both of
the legislative sponsors aren't from Vermont, but were born in New York State.

Friends, it's a solution looking for a problem. Out.

A Voice for Land Value Tax in Iowa

A few years back, I attended a conference in Des Moines,Iowa that tried to arouse interest in Land Value Taxation.
Well, it didn't work. One of my Board members Dr. Bill Batt , put together a persuasive report highlighting the concentration of land values where the city of Des Moines was emptying out, and demonstrating development taking place where land values were relatively low (cool graphics below). Unfortunately, it was a one day event, and the politicians stumbled off forgetting all about LVT.

So, imagine my shock when todays Des Moines Register published a smart letter about LVT. Naturally, I chimed in. We need more chimes, to make a carillon of truth. Or something. Thank you Clark Rieke!

Everything's Gone Green?

The Scottish Green Party is a refreshing alternative to the business as usual that's plagued Scotland since devolution started. New ideas ferment like malted barley.

Unlike many US Green Parties, command and control socialism is rejected in favor of a sensible communitarian-based economics that acknowledges the creativity and strength of the individual while ensuring there is a reservoir of revenue to maintain civilization.

I only say this because the SGP supports LVT like many Green Parties sensibly do,
Such as the Canadian Greens ...
Or the Irish Greens...
Or the Australian Greens...

If I had the brains to be fluent in another language, I bet it'd be more, but you GET THE POINT!
If any reader knows the positions of other Green Parties, let me know.

Tell Me What's the Word? Johannesburg

One City, One Choice, One Cock Up: Decay or Hope

One Upon a Time, Johannesburg (Jo-Burg in cool talk) had a land value tax that was the envy of - if not the world - me. A city with little natural wealth or locational advantages became an economic and finance powerhouse, while sweet and sylvan Cape Town had always languished.

As Professor Mason Gaffney wrote, Jo-Burg by any objective measure prospered under LVT.

Now, after the adoption of morally essential political change, South Africa is seeking to transform its economy to an inclusive and open one. Yet, with government tax and finance policy they really screwed it up big time.

Of course, it took foreign experts to really put a truncheon to Jo-burg's opportunity. The South African government now proudly mandates taxes on land and buildings, just like the Americans and Europeans told them to, so the introduction of the "new" property tax has taxpayers of all stripes nervous and scared, as the article indicates

In a classic case of officials worried about taxpayer backlash (you can almost smell the sweat of fear in the article), they are shovelling platitudes very quickly indeed:

Said Council spokesman Virgil James: “It would be unfair and incorrect to speculate on what it will cost ratepayers before the city has even determined the tax base and tax rate,” he said.

Well, call me unfair, but I bet I'm not incorrect: By taxing their houses for the first time in 100 years, the Jo-Burg government are going to tax the poor and working class citizens of Jo-burg heavily and unfairly. Land speculators and the rich will be very happy. Land ownership will again concentrate to the few.

Jo-Burg will start to empty,start to decay and become impoverished, just as South Africa got a handle on their crime problem and after the promise of a new day after apartheid. Sad.