Windfall Tax?
One problem I have personally had with efforts like Measure 37 has been the one-sidedness of land-use claims. What do I mean? Well, if zoning or other regs prevent someone from developing their clover patch, value is lost and a claim of damages is filed for compensation.
Well, that's great, but what about all of the farmers sitting on land just outside the UGB who realize a huge windfall when their land is brought in? Zoning and regs just granted their property entitlements and significantly enhanced value. No one seems to complain about that.. except for me. I mean, ifmy property taxes the public have to compensate for a taking, shouldn't Farmer John have to pay something for his gains?
Oddly enough, a novel idea has popped up in Eugene, Oregon. City Council there recently voted to explore a Windfall Tax on properties that benefit from upzone/UGB expansion for revenues expressly earmarked for Measure 37 claims.
Assuming the current land-use regulatory regime in Oregon, this seems fair to me. Disagree?
One problem I have personally had with efforts like Measure 37 has been the one-sidedness of land-use claims. What do I mean? Well, if zoning or other regs prevent someone from developing their clover patch, value is lost and a claim of damages is filed for compensation.
Well, that's great, but what about all of the farmers sitting on land just outside the UGB who realize a huge windfall when their land is brought in? Zoning and regs just granted their property entitlements and significantly enhanced value. No one seems to complain about that.. except for me. I mean, if
Oddly enough, a novel idea has popped up in Eugene, Oregon. City Council there recently voted to explore a Windfall Tax on properties that benefit from upzone/UGB expansion for revenues expressly earmarked for Measure 37 claims.
Assuming the current land-use regulatory regime in Oregon, this seems fair to me. Disagree?
posted by Screwtape at 10:54 AM
3 Comments:
I can't argue with that one.
I'm going to qualify my enthusiasm. Bonny Bettman, a notoriously anti-business council member, is behind the plan afterall. She is pushing for the tax idea to go after anyone who is upzoned within city limits for higher density development. That's double-dipping.
But I think the idea should be explored for undeveloped farm land on the border of UGBs where existing services do not exist and windfalls are common.
c.g.i.:
I think the only error in your comment is that the tax will not discourage rent-seeking outside of the UGB unless the UGB itself is competely rethought and land inventory inside is better, larger, and more diverse for different uses and needs.
Most jurisdictions are seriously land constrained, so anything immediately adjacent to the UGB, on the outside, has seriously high rent potential. Taxes would have to be seriously punishing to achieve the result you predict.
Post a Comment
<< Home