Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
Weaponizing taxes to force people out of their homes would be very unpopular and borderline fascist. It is also a terrible way to govern and, in my opinion, you are approaching the problem backwards.
To recap - there is a point that a few posters have hinted at but perhaps not outright called out as the reason these 'old' people are still in their bungalows: There are no places being built that meets the needs of these people and makes them want to sell their home and downsize.
If you want empty nesters who are aging out of their family homes to move then you need to build homes & neighbourhoods that meet their needs in such a way that they are excited to move into them. You need a strategy that draws them into their new home (and specifically avoid a strategy that forces people out of their home). This is not a strategy that you can implement by building one or two infills. You would need to execute a few 1000+ house communities with a specific set of requirements in mind.
Think about who these people are: - These empty nesters are likely between 45-65 and are not ready to move into a senior's home.
- They have kids that may boomerang back into their living situation because no one can afford a home.
- They are likely still working and are potentially at the peak of their careers, earning more than when they were younger
- Still active and about in the city.
- Probably enjoy the yard they have now and might want one in their new place.
- Still need a car to commute.
- After living on their own land and in their SFH, they are probably not keen to move into a condo where you have to share spaces and deal with the mess of condo boards.
Instead of a hodgepodge of infill development that is doing nothing to fix your problem, you need a strategy to build an empty nester community: - There would need to be a blend of condos, infills, townhomes, and small SFHs to fit the needs of the various empty nesters
- These houses would need to be less expensive than the houses you want these people to vacate so they can benefit from the equity gained from downsizing (otherwise why would they bother moving??)
- You would need to ensure services are set up to meet the needs of these empty nesters (clinics, etc. - not schools and daycares)
- Great amenities (restaurants, grocers, gyms, pools, etc.)
Once you have that inventory of houses that can draw these empty nesters in then you will see them buy into the idea of downsizing and moving out of their old homes. They can then stay there for a couple of decades until they need to graduate to the seniors home or assisted living facility.
In my opinion, this is the kind of strategy that would get you the result that you want. Blanket re-zoning won't because it isn't really a strategy, it is just wishful thinking that by deregulating an industry that it will magically give you the outcome that you want. But it won't because the corporations do not care about your wishful thinking, they care about profits. |
It isn’t weaponizing taxation to charge people based on best use. It’s charging people based on the amount of revenue the city should be making from a given property.
At grade Private Parking lots downtown probably shouldn’t exist. If they were taxed at the rate of the developed property the land value of that land would be substantially less and the holding time between acquisition and development would be less. The city would also be realizing the income through taxation from parking rather than the land owner due to the high tax levels.
Things like golf courses would be much more fairly taxed on a best use model and would encourage them to land swap with outskirts of cities and allow densification.
Your listing of traits is people who probably are willing to pay to stay where they live and aren’t moving to this low density bungalow community. Given that they want to continue to use a scarce resource the taxation level should reflect the opportunity cost. It isn’t that there is no place to meat there needs, it’s that the place they currently are meets their needs. The cost of development without density is too high to replicate what they are looking for
Your proposed solution doesn’t solve the development challange. It’s still going to be a hodge podge of infills propping up as people choose to leave their homes for other housing.