Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM
I however vehemently disagree with the idea that the city should impose a tax/fee penalty on those that own property and choose to keep it a gravel parking lot or vacant. The use of re-zoning as a tool to encourage development is one thing, hey even offering tax incentives to do something.... however the city has no right to come in and force their will on a property owner to do something unless it is a public safety matter or zoning violation. At last check doing nothing with a raw piece of property is pretty much acceptable in any zoning district. I cringe at the thought that this is considered to be acceptable to force a land owner to do things just because everyone thinks it's a good idea or face a financial penalty for it. Guaranteed if that was your house and everyone thought it was a great idea to knock it down to do something else with it or else your opinion would be different.
|
You make a good point that taxing a landowner for not using or developing property is problematic at multiple levels.
But there's more than one way to skin a cat. As has been discussed in other threads, the towns can tax bike week businesses as a way of offsetting bike week expenses for safety, etc. So while I agree it's wrong to put a surcharge on an empty lot, it might be perfectly reasonable to charge a landowner for a permit (or to increase fees that may already exist) to run a bike week business on the lot that sits empty the rest of the year.