A very interesting Atlantic article on why cities should encourage investors to renovate downtown property for its higher property-tax assessment:
The Simple Math That Can Save Cities From Bankruptcy - Jobs & Economy - The Atlantic Cities
It's non-intuitive, but it turns out that urban development yields more tax revenue than suburban commercial development. Suburban housing developments are the lowest yields of all, and come with high infrastructure costs.
The Simple Math That Can Save Cities From Bankruptcy - Jobs & Economy - The Atlantic Cities
It's non-intuitive, but it turns out that urban development yields more tax revenue than suburban commercial development. Suburban housing developments are the lowest yields of all, and come with high infrastructure costs.
We tend to think that broke cities have two options: raise taxes, or cut services. Minicozzi, though, is trying to point to the basic but long-buried math of our tax system that cities should be exploiting instead: Per-acre, our downtowns have the potential to generate so much more public wealth than low-density subdivisions or massive malls by the highway. And for all that revenue they bring in, downtowns cost considerably less to maintain in public services and infrastructure.
The interesting part of the article is at the bottom: a Google Map utility graphs the relative amounts of property tax coming from each street address. The "height" of the property on the map is actually its tax dollars/acre, not its physical height.Asheville has a Super Walmart about two-and-a-half miles east of downtown. Its tax value is a whopping $20 million. But it sits on 34 acres of land. This means that the Super Walmart yields about $6,500 an acre in property taxes, while that remodeled JCPenney downtown is worth $634,000 in tax revenue per acre. (Add sales tax revenue, and the downtown property is still worth more than six times as much as the Walmart per acre.)