The Land Tax -- A Planning Tool?
Thomas J. Shepstone, AICP
[October 1997]
Controlling sprawl and stimulating economic development are two of
the most vexing problems perpetually facing planners. The conventional
instruments of change, indeed are unreliable, vulnerable to politics
and often little more than 1ow impact Rube Goldberg bureaucratic
mechanisms. New tools designed to work with economic forces and not
against them, tools which can actually make a difference, are
demanded. The land tax, an old idea first promulgated by Henry George
in 1879, may be such a tool. It's already in use in Pennsylvania.
The land tax is simply what the name implies -- a property tax
assessed either on land value alone or at a lower rate on Improvements
than on land. It sheds lights on the dark shadow of the property tax,
its depressing impact on incentives to improve land, the fact that
every such impr6vement is immediately and forevermore penalized with a
tax increase. A land tax, however, (urns this disincentive on its head
and puts the property owner in the position where (he easiest way to
reduce his property taxes is to improve land, thereby spreading tax
overhead and generating revenue to pay for it. Only sitting on a
property and doing nothing with it is discouraged under a land tax.
The significance of this effect to stimulating economic development
in depressed areas, particularly downtowns, should be obvious. What
better incentive could be offered to a landowner, developer or
investor than to guarantee there will be no tax increase now or in the
future as a result of their efforts to upgrade their property? The
scaled property tax incentives stale legislatures have typically
offered (e.g., 50% abated the first year, 45% the second, etc.) are
but faint imitations of the land tax and its value. Moreover, when
developers are encouraged to put downtown land to its highest and best
use, the thrust of urban sprawl is blunted. Instead, there are
compelling reasons to first develop the highest-value land found near
population centers.
Henry George's concept of the land tax, first advanced in his classic
text, Progress and Poverty, advocated it as a means of giving
labor its due and redistributing wealth through capitalism. He
offered, as an analogy, the example of Mohammed Ali who found that
imposing a tax on date trees caused Egyptians fellahs to cut down
their trees; but a tax of twice the amount imposed on the land
produced no such result." George's "remedy" to the
situation he found in 1879, the side by side existence of enormous
wealth and hideous poverty in the midst of the American Industrial
Revolution, was a tax that would raise revenue without discouraging
production.
While property taxes have certainly caught on since then and his book
was quite popular at the time, the concept he envisioned did not take
root immediately. It ran counter to the interests of barons who wished
to clearly hold land in speculation until governmental investments in
infrastructure increased its value, a challenge which still faces land
tax adherents. Nonetheless, there are now real-life examples
indicating that Henry George was right -- the land tax sets the stage
for economic development in downtowns and this can discourage sprawl.
Pennsylvania communities have provided the leadership on this issue.
The Commonwealth has, since 1913, authorized the use of two-rate
property taxation whereby buildings are taxed at lower rates than land
for certain classes of municipalities and there are now several
legislative proposals to extend this privilege to other communities as
well. The evidence from the 15 cities who have applied the concept is
quite positive and among them are the Cities of Harrisburg and
Pittsburgh. Both have exhibited faster economic growth and stronger
downtowns than comparable communities without the two rate tax.
Harrisburg, as an example, adopted a split-rate system in 1975 that
taxes buildings at one-third the rate of land and it collects 36% of
all city real estate tax dollars from land. According to the
Harrisburg Office of Business and Industrial Development, the number
of vacant structures, some 4,200 in 1982, has now dropped to less than
500 and over $700 million in new private investment has been
attracted. It was, in fact, voted the No.2 "best investment"
city in the Eastern U.S. two consecutive years in a national banking
institution poll. Crime and fire rates have dropped while businesses,
private sector jobs and homes have increased in number after 3 decades
of decline. The City's Mayor, Stephen Reed, writing to an Allentown
Home Rule Charter Commission member (that city recently chose a 2-rate
tax by referendum), stated "our two-tiered rate policy has
specifically encouraged vertical development, meaning high-rise
construction as opposed to low-rise or horizontal development that
seems to permeate suburban communities and which utilizes much more
land than is necessary."
Pittsburgh has had a two-rate system for decades. The original
version taxed improvements at half the rate of land but was totally
restructured in 1979-80 to effectively further lower the rate on new
buildings. The tax rate on improvements are now less than one-fifth
that on land. This has resulted in some 57% of City tax dollars being
raised from the land tax. The combined city-school-county tax on
buildings is less than half that on land values. The impacts, once
again, have been very beneficial. The value of building permits issued
annually from 1980 to 1989 was, on average, 70% higher than it was
between 1960 and 1979. Meanwhile, the cities of Allentown, Buffalo,
Cleveland, Detroit, Rochester and many others were experiencing
declines. Pittsburgh's new construction activity during the 1980-1992
period was actually also equal to 65% of Philadelphia's, though the
latter has four times the population.
These statistics, and many others, can be gleaned from a number of
readily available sources and for those who wish to obtain more
information or to further examine the underlying philosophies
regarding the land tax, the Henry George Foundation of America/Center
for the Study of Economics (410-740-1177) is an excellent starting
place (http://www.smartnet/~hgeorge). The land tax is finally gaining
some momentum after 118 years of consideration.
Why has it taken so long? The vested interests of land speculators
are an obvious reason. They ridiculed George's ideas when he
pronounced them and were in a position to control events. This
obstacle remains, but the more serious hindrance is lack of knowledge.
The conventional property tax is taken as a given and politicians
forever seek to "increase the tax base," ignoring the costly
impacts of sprawl and resorting to such unimaginative and devastating
alternatives as local sales and wage taxes when they no longer dare to
raise rates.
We planners, too, have been ignorant. We preach against sprawl and
cite facts to prove residential properties are tax-losers, but our
solutions of regulation, special incentives and grant-funded projects
seldom work the way we hope and usually have but limited effects. They
are typically more complicated than need be and not very
cost-effective. Our voices also fail to carry the influence we desire
because we've sometimes let the profession become associated with
anti-growth interests. Worse, we act as if land planning has nothing
to do with land economics, as if the former could be imposed upon the
latter, when the opposite is more often the case.
If we hope to make a difference, we must become more knowledgeable in
land economics and taxation and put that learning to work in helping
elected officials devise revenue-raising methods which do not topple
that for which we stand. The land tax is such a method and we need to
infuse budgeting debates with understanding of its principles and the
land use consequences. The groups who have kept alive and promoted the
concept are not likely to carry it forward very far because they've,
too frequently, made It part of fairly radical environmental and labor
agendas. Such methods will not serve to mainstream or sell the land
tax concept and fail to acknowledge the very practical benefits the
tax offers or the fact it frees property owners to make more
productive use of their capital as well as labor.
As planners we are in a position to both see and explain those
benefits and we must do so. Sprawl is a community disease and our
number one enemy. The land tax, by encouraging the 'development of
downtown and higher-valued properties with existing infrastructure
first, provides a real antidote to complement our zoning placebos. It
also, thereby, serves as a non-regulatory tool to lower the pressure
on rural open spaces and agriculture land. Some will fear land taxes
could encourage the development of these areas and want to piggyback
open space and agriculture preservation programs onto them, but that
is easily done and only serves to enhance both efforts.
The land tax should also be advocated by planners as a tool which can
be used to effectively stimulate downtown revitalization without the
necessity of large public investments. Conventional property tax
increases, wage and occupational taxes and special sales taxes all
serve to chase business out of the downtown and discourage building
improvements but the land tax has no such negative impacts. It is the
perfect assist for enterprise zones and Business Industrial Districts,
provided they encompass entire jurisdictions and don't promote
intra-community competition.
The land tax, finally, offers a unique opportunity to pull together
the often disparate interests of economic development and
environmental groups. Glory and opportunity abounds for both in
pursuing this remedy. It should be included in land use and economic
development elements of Comprehensive Plans and it has much to offer
fence-riding politicians as well. They can raise revenue with no
negative impacts on development and they get to offer something to
both their pro-growth and anti-growth constituencies.
The task facing planners presents challenging new ground. It is an
opportunity to lead. Partnerships with research groups are needed to
do more land value taxation studies of individual municipalities. The
concept cannot be advanced unless citizens and leaders have facts in
front of them to know how others have fared and how they will do under
land tax and how it might be phased in. Planners must start analyzing
land tax options as part of the Comprehensive Planning process and
incorporate their research into those efforts. The gains to be had are
many and despite all our well-intentioned best efforts at planning, we
must admit the rewards of our conventional regulatory and
grantsmanship approaches have been limited. It can be a frustrating
profession, but the land tax is one tool which holds the promise of
making plans into reality and we ought to take a long hard look at it.
|