Comments
AbsentEmpire t1_j15rmlc wrote
Shame, I liked that dinner.
CerealJello t1_j15tbma wrote
I hate that the diner is closing, but having a small parking lot like that next to a damn subway stop is ridiculous. We really need a land value tax.
[deleted] t1_j15tn8x wrote
[removed]
sarahpullin8 t1_j15x7vv wrote
It always smelled like rancid mop water.
throwawaitnine t1_j15xfvp wrote
We already have a land value tax don't we?
CerealJello t1_j15xy66 wrote
We tax the property itself, but most of the tax is on the "improvement value" of the lot.
https://whyy.org/articles/a-progressive-approach-to-taxing-land-gains-traction-in-philly-council/
[deleted] t1_j15zx5k wrote
[deleted]
throwawaitnine t1_j160oe5 wrote
Wow that is a profoundly unfair idea. I mean, I'm shocked at how unfair that is.
NoREEEEEEtilBrooklyn t1_j160qjq wrote
Could add even more if they make it really tall.
CerealJello t1_j160vuh wrote
Unfair to who? Those sitting on valuable land and doing nothing with it?
bukkakedebeppo t1_j163gjs wrote
Unless you have an abatement, in which case the city will juice the land value to do an end-run.
throwawaitnine t1_j164wm2 wrote
This is shifting the tax burden from people building and buying brand new homes in neighborhoods they gentrify to people in established neighborhoods in old ass houses.
tkdsplitter t1_j16nwhh wrote
They were open last night when I walked past it
RoverTheMonster t1_j17gk9v wrote
What does “gentrify” even mean anymore?
SouthPhilly_215 t1_j17mlyp wrote
The owner of Broad Street Diner and Melrose Diner (same guy) is an absolute crumb. He’s what you get if a slumlord did the same slumlord thing with a landmark business instead.
Since he took over the Melrose, he stopped advertising almost completely. (When is the last time you heard the jingle: “Everybody Who Knows-Goes-To-Mel-rose!”) He closed the back of the house bakery and started ordering cheap bread that they used to make on site regularly. He also started hiring trash management and cooks all while prices increased. He also started cutting costs in the form of quality food and ingredients he ordered. All while the surrounding neighborhood prices skyrocketed and socioeconomic status of residents has improved.
He sneakily got a demo license ahead of the city granting it a historic designation. So he can still demolish it and build some crap ugly hipster palace we don’t want. He’s doing similar shit with Broad Street now. Fuck this guy. The city should step in.
geeivebeensavedbyfox t1_j18d3qx wrote
Na, property assessment is imprecise. New homes and old home "improvement" values are similar. Taxing the land shifts the burden to empty lot owners.
doc89 t1_j18ich7 wrote
The land in nice/rich neighborhoods is more valuable than the land in poor neighborhoods, so the tax burden would still fall disproportionately on the rich with a LTV. It's just now the landowners would not be punished for turning their empty lot into an apartment building or business.
throwawaitnine t1_j18joxi wrote
It shifts the burden to people in established neighborhoods who can't unlock the equity in their home because of their income.
throwawaitnine t1_j18juvd wrote
Can you explain that more clearly?
doc89 t1_j18kb5i wrote
An empty plot of land in Rittenhouse is worth more than the same sized empty plot of land in Kensington. Therefore a land value tax will collect more from the Rittenhouse land owner than the Kensington land owner.
throwawaitnine t1_j18q7xm wrote
We already have that...
doc89 t1_j18qiq7 wrote
No, we have a property tax which punishes development.
The key difference between a land value tax and a property tax is that a land value tax does not increase when you develop a property. Imagine an empty lot right next to an apartment building. They are the same dimension. The empty lot and apartment building have the same "land value" and therefore would pay the same land value tax.
flamehead2k1 t1_j18t0vc wrote
The land component for property tax is different for Rittenhouse than Kensington.
We have a land value tax and an improvement tax packaged together.
doc89 t1_j18w219 wrote
Yes a property tax is essentially just a land value tax + an improvement tax.
Advocates of a land value tax think the land piece should be expanded and the improvement piece should be diminished/abolished.
Unfamiliar_Word t1_j1955yv wrote
Twenty nine units almost literally on top of a subway station is pretty disappointing. I would like to see something at least in the range of double to triple as many apartments.
I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised by this unambitious proposal. The land use along much of Broad Street and most of the zoning have never really reflected the transit assets serving it.
throwawaitnine t1_j199wvk wrote
And does the unfairness of raising taxes on people who can't afford to improve their property while lowering taxes on people who can improve their property register with you at all?
doc89 t1_j19ec7l wrote
Yes, it registers with me. I think the city would function better if people who can't afford to develop their undeveloped properties sold those properties to people who can afford to develop it. In many cases these properties are worth several hundred thousand or millions of dollars. These are not "poor people" generally.
People sitting on empty lots/abandoned buildings because they either cannot afford to or don't want to develop is a major inhibitor of growth. This behavior should be discouraged through the tax code.
flamehead2k1 t1_j19m9e8 wrote
I'm ok with tweaking the rates to tax land more but complete removal does shift a burden.
It isn't a punishment for developing a property the same way it isn't a punishment getting taxed on each additional dollar you earn.
Larger buildings with more occupants will require more services and should pay tax to help cover that.
Something like taxing land at X and taxing improvements at .25-.5X would motivate landholders to put that land into productive use but also raise revenue as the city takes on new residents who need services.
flamehead2k1 t1_j19mjsb wrote
>I think the city would function better if people who can't afford to develop their undeveloped properties sold those properties to people who can afford to develop it.
The biggest holder of unproductive property in the city is the city itself.
Don't need to dramatically change the tax code, just get those sheriff sales moving!
doc89 t1_j19ow9b wrote
>Larger buildings with more occupants will require more services and should pay tax to help cover that.
Remember that everyone in the building will presumably be paying city wage taxes and sales taxes, it's not like they are free-riding.
On balance most of the residents of market rate new housing are going to be contributing much more to the city budget than they are going to be drawing in expenses. We should encourage buildings like this as much as possible.
>Something like taxing land at X and taxing improvements at .25-.5X would motivate landholders to put that land into productive use but also raise revenue as the city takes on new residents who need services.
Most of the advocates of a land value tax would consider something like this a huge win, myself included.
ringringmytacobell t1_j19pura wrote
It also still hasn’t reopened since the fire
flamehead2k1 t1_j19r8wz wrote
>Remember that everyone in the building will presumably be paying city wage taxes and sales taxes, it's not like they are free-riding.
That's true but I don't think we should further rely on city wage tax. It has seriously hurt our development and I don't think lower property taxes on high density housing is going to offset that enough.
The 10 year tax abatement is a temporary land value tax because it only includes the improvement portion.
I think between keeping this and encouraging the city to get rid of lots they are holding, we could do a great job infilling the city.
[deleted] t1_j1al4mb wrote
[removed]
SouthPhilly_215 t1_j1bjs3d wrote
The “accidental” fire. Yeah.
ringringmytacobell t1_j1bmnbm wrote
Ha yeah. I’m a Melrose Stan so I was giving the benefit of the doubt but that’s suspect
[deleted] t1_j1dl9xt wrote
[removed]
DeltaNerd t1_j1dt05r wrote
A lot of Broad street is under utilized. We have North Philadelphia station that is criminally underused. I'm happy that the bus revolution will make more use of the BSL now is keeping business and housing on the BSL
DeltaNerd t1_j1dtawy wrote
Yeah for sure, the BSL itself is under utilized. More zoning and more bus service to the BSL will change that
gijyun t1_j1loai5 wrote
Where do you see 29 affordable units? I only see 29 transit-accessible units mentioned
whatsasyria t1_j1tockt wrote
29 units... Moving to Philly from Miami and I'm shocked by the rents in the city and Miami is one of the most expensive rental markets. Is there no real density growth in Philly.
PatAss98 t1_j15prfr wrote
Since it's next to a metro line, they really need to upzone and increase the building height limit in South Philly. 29 affordable housing units is a good start, but they could easily add another ten or twenty units in that lot if the building height limit was higher