Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
Which is the OP fallacy. Highest and best use for the privately owned land is a subjective term. From whose perspective? The highest and best use for a private golf course is a golf course. That was why the owners bought it, got it approved, had it developed and are using it for. If the City wants to see a bunch of high-rise buildings or a shopping mall on the land occupied by a private golf course, they should buy it in an open market by negotiating an acceptable offer with golf course owners. Then, have the land re-planned, re-zoned, re-serviced and re-sold to builders who, presumably would be flocking to buy it at the prices set based on that highest and best use concocted by a bunch of city planners and approved by Council. That would make those taxes flow in fast and furious.
|
But if the use category of the land makes taxes lower than a different use category you change the underlying value for each use.
This is essentially the royalty problem. If Quebec chooses not to develop fossil fuel resources it’s economic capacity does not consider fossil fuel resources. In the same way by not maximizing land use the golf course never has to pay more taxes.