Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm easy going with a live and let live philosophy but I have a real problem with this new $6,000 extra tax on vacant parcels in the city of Oakland... it is not just as if a property owner can build on a whim... it can take years to build if even possible.
Plus… what constitutes a vacant parcel???
Mom has an odd property in that here home is one parcel and her back yard is another... she has her vegetable garden on the vacant parcel... at 84 will she need to appear at city council each year to detail how many figs, apples, plums, pears and tomatoes she harvested???
This just seems wrong in so many ways unless I am missing something?
I'm easy going with a live and let live philosophy but I have a real problem with this new $6,000 extra tax on vacant parcels in the city of Oakland... it is not just as if a property owner can build on a whim... it can take years to build if even possible.
Plus… what constitutes a vacant parcel???
Mom has an odd property in that here home is one parcel and her back yard is another... she has her vegetable garden on the vacant parcel... at 84 will she need to appear at city council each year to detail how many figs, apples, plums, pears and tomatoes she harvested???
This just seems wrong in so many ways unless I am missing something?
Come on, Ultrarunner. Yes, there are odd parcels like your Mom's. I bet if you approached the city on your Mom's behalf, they'd happily help her unite the two parcels, easy, peasy. Or, they could say its not vacant, she's doing something productive on it, so even uniting may not be neccessary.
The larger issue is whether a landowner in an impacted city can be allowed to hold a parcel vacant for 10, 20, 30, 50 years, doing nothing with it, while it becomes a site for dumping, drug detritus, and crime. If those effects were confined to the parcel, maybe you'd have a case. But, actually, they spill over to negatively effect the neighborhood.
If a landowner can't put something on the site, they should have to pay for the costs associated with a vacant lot. If those costs become too much, the landowner can sell the property. This law is actually pretty tame--a more draconian law would just seize the vacant lot after a decade, and then auction it off to the highest bidder. Would that be better?
I'm easy going with a live and let live philosophy but I have a real problem with this new $6,000 extra tax on vacant parcels in the city of Oakland... it is not just as if a property owner can build on a whim... it can take years to build if even possible.
Plus… what constitutes a vacant parcel???
Mom has an odd property in that here home is one parcel and her back yard is another... she has her vegetable garden on the vacant parcel... at 84 will she need to appear at city council each year to detail how many figs, apples, plums, pears and tomatoes she harvested???
This just seems wrong in so many ways unless I am missing something?
This just seems wrong in so many ways unless I am missing something?
It is wrong, it's draconian, and is completely unnecessary and unjustified.
There's no need for this law. If there's a vacant law strewn with trash or migrants, the city or county can send a notice to the landowner to clean it up "or else." They can fine or bill the landowner to recover the cost of staff time spent on the complaint. That's fair and reasonable.
What's wrong here is there is no connection between the $6000/year and services provided. Also wrong is that you could have a conscientious landowner who keeps his or her lot meticulously maintained and they still have to pay the extra tax.
I suspect the real goal here is to goad people into selling their empty lots to developers who will build housing on the lots. The city has an interest in doing that; they would collect a lot more property tax from an improved lot versus an empty one.
It is wrong, it's draconian, and is completely unnecessary and unjustified.
There's no need for this law. If there's a vacant law strewn with trash or migrants, the city or county can send a notice to the landowner to clean it up "or else." They can fine or bill the landowner to recover the cost of staff time spent on the complaint. That's fair and reasonable.
What's wrong here is there is no connection between the $6000/year and services provided. Also wrong is that you could have a conscientious landowner who keeps his or her lot meticulously maintained and they still have to pay the extra tax.
I suspect the real goal here is to goad people into selling their empty lots to developers who will build housing on the lots. The city has an interest in doing that; they would collect a lot more property tax from an improved lot versus an empty one.
Perfectly stated Elliott! And you're absolutely correct Ultrarunner. It's just one more punitive measure designed to serve the government's agenda and try and circumvent Prop 13 on a local basis since that would fail a swift death if it went statewide. Typical BS. Next step will be to try and claim Eminent Domain for some other BS reason which they'll claim is completely justifiable.
Last edited by JJonesIII; 11-18-2018 at 10:53 AM..
It is wrong, it's draconian, and is completely unnecessary and unjustified.
There's no need for this law. If there's a vacant law strewn with trash or migrants, the city or county can send a notice to the landowner to clean it up "or else." They can fine or bill the landowner to recover the cost of staff time spent on the complaint. That's fair and reasonable.
What's wrong here is there is no connection between the $6000/year and services provided. Also wrong is that you could have a conscientious landowner who keeps his or her lot meticulously maintained and they still have to pay the extra tax.
I suspect the real goal here is to goad people into selling their empty lots to developers who will build housing on the lots. The city has an interest in doing that; they would collect a lot more property tax from an improved lot versus an empty one.
First, the law seems to apply to vacant storefronts as well, not just lots. If so, that's GREAT!
Second, obviously I cannot know the motivation of individual people in the city government. Nor can you, it seems. Even so, there is nothing wrong with a city saying "If this is zoned residential, MAKE IT RESIDENTIAL!". It is not zoned as parkland. So if someone is not going to make it housing if it is a residential zone, or commercial if it is a commercial zone, they really don't occupy some kind of moral high ground. They are basically wasting a resource, and violating the zoning of the parcel as well.
When residential land is taken off the market, it contributes to a tight housing market, to little good end. If the market were not tight, such slack could be ignored. In a crisis situation, ignoring it would be leadership malpractice.
When commercial land is taken off the market, all the nearby businesses suffer (less customer foot traffic, fewer workers to spend money nearby) and workers suffer as there are fewer jobs. Even if there's no blight, this is a cost everyone else pays.
Finally, a lot of vacant parcels (and storefronts) are kept that way to provide paper losses for corporations to balance off massive real profits elsewhere, to lower their tax bill. No community should be treated as the paper-loss source for someone's tax bill. It's long past time some costs got attached to such behavior.
Last edited by SocSciProf; 11-18-2018 at 11:24 AM..
Reason: Corrected a spelling error, fixed spacing
I suspect the real goal here is to goad people into selling their empty lots to developers who will build housing on the lots. The city has an interest in doing that; they would collect a lot more property tax from an improved lot versus an empty one.
Come on, Ultrarunner. Yes, there are odd parcels like your Mom's. I bet if you approached the city on your Mom's behalf, they'd happily help her unite the two parcels, easy, peasy. Or, they could say its not vacant, she's doing something productive on it, so even uniting may not be neccessary.
The larger issue is whether a landowner in an impacted city can be allowed to hold a parcel vacant for 10, 20, 30, 50 years, doing nothing with it, while it becomes a site for dumping, drug detritus, and crime. If those effects were confined to the parcel, maybe you'd have a case. But, actually, they spill over to negatively effect the neighborhood.
If a landowner can't put something on the site, they should have to pay for the costs associated with a vacant lot. If those costs become too much, the landowner can sell the property. This law is actually pretty tame--a more draconian law would just seize the vacant lot after a decade, and then auction it off to the highest bidder. Would that be better?
My Dad attempted to combine and the city said it could not be done administratively... actually it was the county that said this...
I take issue with the other statements... the key is ownership... a Landowner that pays taxes and maintains the property is not the problem.
We have code compliance and weed abatement, etc... that can do levy fines and sometimes liens that lead to forfeiture.
Oakland already requires many vacant lots to be secured... any dumping will result in a citation.
None of the options is better... this is still America.
As to building... there was a 7 year fight pitting a property owner who had submitted plans to build housing on a parcel of residential zoned land... the owner submitted and then all He!! broke loose... seems the land was a neighborhood spot for dog walkers and hikers... 27 acres with great views and sewer already in place.
The fight dragged on until the owner was bankrupt... he spent over 300k in design, engineering, soil test, planning, fees.... etc. and then the market collapsed... the property is in Montclair... lots of well to do homeowners who said nothing will ever be built and they won...
Akin to urban terrorist...
Another example... Oakland has one of the most stringent tree and view ordinances in the nation and many vacant lots are subject to an extensive design review... which means years from conception to fruition if even possible.
On one hand property owners are faced with Draconian barriers to build and now the city can punish owners for not building...
I pray this measure goes all the way to Supreme Court if necessary...
When private property is needed for the public good Eminent Domain is how it is done...
What my elected officials have forgotten is Eminent Domain requires Just Compensation to the land owner and this measure is simply a Taking and not only without compensation but imposes penalties to boot.
I love Oakland dearly and 5 generations of my family have or call Oakland home... I'm one of the last from among my High School Class that still calls Oakland home...
I sweep the streets, adopted storm drains, haul garbage from the creeks... started a neighborhood watch, speak at council meetings, sponsor youth but will not stand by as rights are trampled...
My Dad attempted to combine and the city said it could not be done administratively... actually it was the county that said this...
I take issue with the other statements... the key is ownership... a Landowner that pays taxes and maintains the property is not the problem.
The key is not ownership. Not really. The key is what does ownership mean. Anyone who thinks just because they own property they can do what they want knows no history and, if they act on that assumption, may find themselvs in prison. The entire history of the rise of democracy is about the limitations that can be placed on ownership. So, we do not speak in absolutes. Ownership provides certain rights, but it entails certain obligations. Those rights and obligations are not etched in stone; they change over time. This change--saying a property zoned as X cannot stay forever as not-X without incurring a cost--is just another clarification of those rights and obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
We have code compliance and weed abatement, etc... that can do levy fines and sometimes liens that lead to forfeiture.
Oakland already requires many vacant lots to be secured... any dumping will result in a citation.
None of the options is better... this is still America.
Actually, they just passed a law that IS better. You don't like it, but it is still better.
The thing that gets me is that nothing in your or others who've written takes seriously ANY of the social cost of having vacant lots in a neighborhood, or of having empty storefronts. In your world, those who live or work near such places are irrelevant. They can only complain if there is blight. It doesn't matter that the entire economy of the commercial district is harmed by a few landlords with empty storefronts waiting to be called by Starbucks or Chipotle. It doesn't matter that neighbors who've lived in a neighborhood for decades have to put up with living in a place that looks like bombed out Dresden, with empty lots abounding, and all the risk that imposes for squatting, fire, rodents, and so forth. Cleaning up problems is not enough--PREVENTING them is what is needed. The needs of those people and businesses vanish to nothing in your statements.
If someone wants to buy and hold a vacant lot, they should do it where no one else will be affected. This modest tax is to create an incentive for people to do something productive with the property (and I count a garden as productive).
So, I ask you, honestly, forthrightly, with integrity, a real question: Instead of simply complaining and threatening (all the way to the Supreme Court!), I ask you what, if anything, would you do to reduce vacant lots and storefronts? Or is your view that the social and economic cost of vacant lots and storefronts is someone else's problem?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
