Sounds more like the Substack is trying to raise poverty by raising cost of living and prices.
The point of the article is not "Baltimore should raise more taxes" -- raising more revenue is a political decision, and that is not actually under SDAT's purview. SDAT's job is simply to assess property at market value. What to do with that value is for the elected officials (and the voters who elect them) to decide.
If property A is undervalued relative to property B, property B faces an unfair burden of taxes, and property A receives an unfair tax break. That's all this report is trying to say -- all property should be assessed at its market value, as the law requires.
Any exemptions, discounts, write-offs, and the tax rate itself, are political decisions. Those should be made explicitly by elected officials, not implicitly by unequal valuations.
It's just that a lot of that housing is in awful shape, and the places where it exist aren't desirable neighborhoods (although let's be clear, many of them are right next to expensive and desirable neighborhoods, it's really bad.) This should be a situation that rights itself automatically, but it's not.
That is one angle of view. Alternatively, you could be encouraging vacant lot (or equivalent structure) owners to sell if neighbors are improving properties while they are not.
However, it depends. An area might have enough demand for a single improvement, like a 7-11 or something, but no prospects for any more.
Punishing neighbor properties for not getting that one deal is an interesting but not ideal solution.
It could very well be that it is less than optimal to compare lots intended for residential with lots you would develop a convenience store on.
Why shouldn't a land owner be able to use that land in the most profitable way possible (within reason)?
Example: In my area, there's an intersection about 1/4 mile away. I think it would be a great place to have a corner shop/cafe/bodega. It's close to the schools, the other shopping options are another mile away. It's walking distance to several thousand housing units.
But, I can't build such a shop because the entire area is zoned residential (and also covered by HOAs, which are yet another debate).
Quite a few blogs and articles out there comparing US zoning to typical Japanese zoning, if you're interested. Cliffs: Japan often has mixed-use zoning by default (ie, anything from detached homes to small apartments to small office/shops is ok in the same zone)
Time is money and taxes are already amortized into any potential developer's math, regardless of what the rate nominally is. If the properties aren't economically developable in a "it costs us pennies to sit on them so we'll take our sweet time" paradigm then they're sure as shit not developable in a "I'm paying the same tax rate no matter what so I gotta put something up ASAP so I can a)get income b) sell" paradigm.
Those people are potentially treating it like an investment. If the cost to hold onto it for longer is very low, why not sit and wait until the value appreciates and a developer offers you more money in the future?
Increasing the cost to hold the investment might encourage sales at today's prices instead of waiting for years.
I'm not sure that helping developers buy land cheaper is the right solution or a complete one, but I do think increasing the cost of holding property as an investment would have an effect.
Or they double down and hold longer to "make it back" later when conditions are more favorable.
>I'm not sure that helping developers buy land cheaper is the right solution or a complete one, but I do think increasing the cost of holding property as an investment would have an effect.
We are all developers, comrade.
The more you increase costs the more you'll squeeze out the little guys leaving BigCos that DGAF and are copy pasting the same things everywhere with no regard because they're operating at the statistical level.
I don't mind taxing the BigCos more and more money to hold land.
When you own land, you have taxes, insurance, mortgage perhaps, upkeep etc. Easier to invest in stocks.
Anyhow, you have land with the idea that when the conditions warrant you can develop. Hopefully soon. But conditions may not develop quickly and you have to bear high holding costs.
At some point, it becomes free land for anyone willing to use it.
Assess the empty properties to their actual value, and then lower the overall rate.