s3mh Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 On 2/17/2018 at 2:15 PM, Ross said: I appreciate "historic" or "old but not special" architecture. However, I shouldn't have to subsidize your desire to renovate your home, simply because it's old. Your house isn't special, it isn't historic, and you do not deserve a tax abatement. If you can't afford to do the changes you desire, you either do without or find the resources to do the job. You do not appreciate historic architecture. If you did, you would want to preserve it. That is the BS conservative argument that you can appreciate something but let free markets ravage it at the same time. "I appreciate classical music, but we shouldn't have public radio to actually make it accessible to people" Same logic. I appreciate historic architecture, but so what if it all gets torn down. You aren't subsidizing anything. Your taxes are the same whether people in a historic district get a tax abatement or not. If you live outside a historic district, you do not have the burden of getting a COA. If you live in the district, you do and it only makes sense to give those people a very small tax benefit to offset the burdens of complying with the ordinance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 12 hours ago, s3mh said: You do not appreciate historic architecture. If you did, you would want to preserve it. That is the BS conservative argument that you can appreciate something but let free markets ravage it at the same time. "I appreciate classical music, but we shouldn't have public radio to actually make it accessible to people" Same logic. I appreciate historic architecture, but so what if it all gets torn down. You aren't subsidizing anything. Your taxes are the same whether people in a historic district get a tax abatement or not. If you live outside a historic district, you do not have the burden of getting a COA. If you live in the district, you do and it only makes sense to give those people a very small tax benefit to offset the burdens of complying with the ordinance. I actually appreciate architecture. I've gone to parts of town few others would go to, just to look at something architecturally cool. I appreciate property rights more. Do what you like with your property - I'm happy, you're happy. However, your desire to prevent others from doing what they want with their property is controlling behavior at its finest. And your abatement does, in fact, cost me money, since the city will raise rates to make up for the abatements. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 There IS a small loophole in the way the exemption is worded. IF you spend more than the appraised value of the structure on restoration, and IF HCAD increases the appraised value of the structure by more than the cost of the restoration, the value of the exemption can also exceed the cost of the restoration. That said, at the current city tax rate (I understand the exemption only applies to CoH, not the county, HISD, HCFCD, etc.) the exemption amounts to about a 6% subsidy to the (mostly upper middle class) people doing the restoration. Historic preservation may be a value to the city, but a discussion about whether a tax subsidy to a subset of the top few percent of taxpayers is the best way to encourage it isn't out of line. My own opinion is that much of what is called "historic preservation" in Houston is just a roundabout way to limit density and establish exclusionary zoning without calling it zoning. (The design guidelines for the Heights establish maximum lot coverage and floor area ratio for, I think, the first time in the city. These are tools many communities use to keep the poors out.) Whole problem could be avoided if we switched to a land value tax, rather than the current system, which disincentivizes improvements to structures. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 The problem with taxing just the dirt and not the improvements is that ends up really skewing things in an urban setting. The new $1.5MM McCraftsman ends up with the same taxable value as the 1926 bungalow next door that would sell for half that (if that much), and a downtown surface lot would have the same taxable value as (name the nearby trophy building of your choice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 41 minutes ago, mollusk said: The problem with taxing just the dirt and not the improvements is that ends up really skewing things in an urban setting. The new $1.5MM McCraftsman ends up with the same taxable value as the 1926 bungalow next door that would sell for half that (if that much), and a downtown surface lot would have the same taxable value as (name the nearby trophy building of your choice). Feature not a bug. Would make it much less economically viable to keep a surface parking lot in a high-value area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 It would also effectively subsidize the $1.5MM McCraftsman at the expense of the bungalow next door - who is already burdened by having a building line to building line pile looming over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 14 hours ago, mollusk said: It would also effectively subsidize the $1.5MM McCraftsman at the expense of the bungalow next door - who is already burdened by having a building line to building line pile looming over it. The bungalow getting is currently getting subsidized by being underbuilt on valuable land. The city is paying for upkeep on roads and sewers and water lines and storm drainage, the cost of which scales pretty directly with acreage (or street frontage). A bungalow appraised at $700k is consuming the same amount of that infrastructure as the new-build appraised at $1.5M or the 6-pack of townhouses appraised at $2.4M, and is therefore receiving a tax subsidy from its denser neighbors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3mh Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Angostura said: The bungalow getting is currently getting subsidized by being underbuilt on valuable land. The city is paying for upkeep on roads and sewers and water lines and storm drainage, the cost of which scales pretty directly with acreage (or street frontage). A bungalow appraised at $700k is consuming the same amount of that infrastructure as the new-build appraised at $1.5M or the 6-pack of townhouses appraised at $2.4M, and is therefore receiving a tax subsidy from its denser neighbors. Just like how Walmart and other Katyville I-10 developments are being underbuilt on valuable land, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angostura Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, s3mh said: Just like how Walmart and other Katyville I-10 developments are being underbuilt on valuable land, right? Yes. The taxable value per acre of those areas is undoubtedly far less than the high-density residential neighborhoods surrounding them. Big box retailers have a financial incentive to build as shitty a structure as possible. A land value tax would make big-box retail a lot less economically viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.