Is there a way to change the vacant land tax to only penalize developer sitting on the land? Perhaps don't charge the tax if there is a development application but only for the average length of time for planning approval. This will provide incentive to planners to approve quicker since it will lower the average time to approval. It will also somewhat prevent the developer stretching out the approval process when they really want to sit on the land.
I think you're wrong on this one - there are 11,000 undeveloped plots of land zoned for residential use. How many of those are developers specifically sitting on?
This tax would make it cheaper to build by significantly reducing the cost of land, which is a major chunk of development cost. Some developers are whining now because they own a lot of vacant land, if the value of the land falls they lose money now. The beneficiaries include everyone who wants to build, and as a result they could see new competitors.
The tax itself is a gross distortion of a Land Value Tax, which would be significantly more effective for the purpose of getting more housing built. At the minimum, wouldn't you prefer people write in support of LVT rather than opposition to this?
Is it possible an under-occupancy tax might work? Thinking specifically about Vancouver I see in my job many many new houses being built for huge families that will never materialize. And there are countless more retirees sitting in homes with empty bedrooms. Maybe it's an incentive to build suites, maybe it's a cash grab.
Is there a way to change the vacant land tax to only penalize developer sitting on the land? Perhaps don't charge the tax if there is a development application but only for the average length of time for planning approval. This will provide incentive to planners to approve quicker since it will lower the average time to approval. It will also somewhat prevent the developer stretching out the approval process when they really want to sit on the land.
I think you're wrong on this one - there are 11,000 undeveloped plots of land zoned for residential use. How many of those are developers specifically sitting on?
This tax would make it cheaper to build by significantly reducing the cost of land, which is a major chunk of development cost. Some developers are whining now because they own a lot of vacant land, if the value of the land falls they lose money now. The beneficiaries include everyone who wants to build, and as a result they could see new competitors.
The tax itself is a gross distortion of a Land Value Tax, which would be significantly more effective for the purpose of getting more housing built. At the minimum, wouldn't you prefer people write in support of LVT rather than opposition to this?
Is it possible an under-occupancy tax might work? Thinking specifically about Vancouver I see in my job many many new houses being built for huge families that will never materialize. And there are countless more retirees sitting in homes with empty bedrooms. Maybe it's an incentive to build suites, maybe it's a cash grab.