In 2007, staff of the Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester turned the demolition of several of their buildings into big parties and press bonanzas. These implosion events doubled as product launches/hearty celebrations.
Why wouldn’t Kodak be happy? By demolishing these buildings, Kodak trimmed its property taxes significantly. This is because Rochester, like most cities, levees its property taxes overwhelmingly on buildings and improvements, and very little on the land underneath.
Why is this a problem? In the Kodak case, the company and community loses solid, usable buildings; and the City of Rochester loses critically important tax revenue. Also consider that a property tax so heavily weighted on buildings and improvements and so little on land encourages dilapidation, underutilization, speculation and sprawl. At the same time, those who put time and money into making their properties, neighborhoods, and city durable and beautiful are rewarded with hiked assessments and taxes. What’s more, under the current system, we give tax breaks to a select few to achieve the kinds of urban development that the land value tax would enable across the board—LVT essentially gives the tax break to everyone without the city giving up the tax revenue. Most cities saddle themselves with a regressive system of property taxation that discourages good development, encourages bad development and neglect, and ensures local government dependence on the wild volatility of building values.
If you are toiling nobly to restore and revitalize your city, you owe it to yourself to learn more about land value taxation. This is not a new or unproven idea. Check out www.urbantools.org to learn more.
Click here to see photos of the implosion, and here to see a video of the destruction.
Well-said, Evan! I wish you the best of luck in getting Rochester’s city council to listen attentively to Josh Vincent’s upcoming presentation on the subject. I visit Rochester 3-4 times a year — love the Lilac Festival — and hope LVT finds a home there.
Dear Evan:
Great to hear that you are promoting the shift to land value taxation. I’ve been involved in the movement for 40 years now, so you are not alone. There are probably thousands of people in favor of the idea, but there are only dozens of people actually promoting it at any given time.
Good luck,
Mike Curtis
Hi Evan - Josh Vincent passed your page along - the pictures are great, and so is the story!
I am forwarding it to a few people I know who live in New York state who I’ve been trying to tell about LVT for years. Maybe the pictures and the local aspect will finallly have an impact.
Once you know about this, isn’t it amazing how logical it is???? And yet it seems like the world’s best-kept secret, unfortunately. best wishes, cathy orloff
Dear Evan:
You captured in a nutshell the upside-down tax policy that currently prevails in our municipalities. You might want to connect up with Art Costa of New London, CT who is promoting LVT in that community as part of a program of sustainable development.
Best wishes,
Gil Herman
Welcome Evan:
I’m Al Hartheimer, VP of CSE and step-father of Josh Vincent,
I’ve been an advocate for LVT for about 40 years. I lived in the Albany area for about 50 years and worked hard for LVT there in my time. Now I live in the Berkshires and am pushing for LVT there.
In 1992-3 I worked to implement LVT in Amsterdam with Don Reeb. If you’re interested to learn about that experience, let me know.
Today I’m in Philadelphia visiting Josh. Email me your email address and I’ll email you a bunch of stuff that may be useful.
Good luck with Rochester,
Al
hello Evan, we do indeed hope that Rochester can be the LVT breakthrough city for new york. last week I was in Southampton to speak at the 1st Women’s Sustainability Conference of NY. Land value tax shift connects to so many environmental, social and economic issues.
How disheartening! As a former resident (Rochester and Canandaigua) it’s hard to believe that a policy could produce such counterproductive results - - madness!!!
[...] this year, I wrote about the gigantically good sense of land-value taxation (LVT), and the madness of not doing LVT. (I also wrote a letter, published in City newsweekly, on [...]