Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I’d like to see how the land is classified, regardless. If it’s genuinely urban land, it should be taxed heavily enough to make it hurt if it is appraised correctly.

It’s possible this land is subject to delinquent taxes that, in Texas, incur significant interest.

Also, I’d want to know about zoning to see if the city has restricted the use of the land. Zoning is a double-edged sword as well.



If land is actually abandoned, taxation makes no difference. Land with abandoned biuldings can often cost more to redevelop than green fields (asbestos remediation, buried oil tanks etc). An owner dies, a holding company folds, and land sits vacant. Tax it all you want, nobody is around to pay. Of course the city or other government can take the land, but they dont want it either.


The owners of polluted industrial sites always manage to disappear when it comes time to clean them up. Socialise the losses and all that.


> Tax it all you want, nobody is around to pay

Why wouldn't this land immediately be forfeited to the city?


Nothing in land is ever immediate. Is it worth the legal efforts to force throufh a forfeiture? Does the city even want the land? Perhaps the land is tied up in a disputed estate. Such things can take a decade to resolve. Perhaps some holding company is using the land as an investment vehicle and is paying the taxes, if any are due. Owners have the right to let land sit.


> Owners have the right to let land sit.

Yes, hence the point of a vacancy tax, but that’s not relevant in the scenario here where they’re not paying. Having a short period, especially for non-residential property, is a good way to discourage tax cheating and it also helps with cleanup: the best time to deal with toxic waste was when it was generated but the second best time is now and absentee owners aren’t going to volunteer to do that. Seizing the land at least lets the government plan to do something useful with in an orderly manner before it starts causing problems too big to ignore.


Even if it does escheat to the city, the city has to pay for the various abatements.



No, no, no. You don’t understand. He wanted to see something that validated his completely unresearched yet strangely strongly held theory.


The idea that the owners of "brownfield" land (either undeveloped or in disrepair) might have taken advantage of tax loopholes to avoid a tax penalty is ridiculous? I see why they pay you the big bucks.

The map shows numerous parcels in metropolitan Houston classified as "Ag" property. The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection.


> The devil is in the details, but the map justifies (and encourages) closer inspection.

Wake me when you’ve been encouraged enough to complete your (justified) close inspection.


One of the problems Boston had a couple decades ago is actually figuring out who owns those abandoned lots.


>Also, I’d want to know about zoning

There is no zoning, that would be kind of dumb and self-defeating in Houston.

Houston was a planned industrial community.


Too late to edit now, but it might help to remind that it's always possible for people to indicate they are not very aware of a subject by their superstitious or misleading behavior, without having anything factual to add whatsoever, or even anything at all.

Which is well recognized as even dumber.

You don't see anybody trying to point out when actual zoning was enacted, or that Houston was founded where it was when it was for any other reason than to be the industrial powerhouse of the independent nation of Texas.

Except to serve as the Capitol of the new Nation too, but those guys moved to higher ground one day, I wonder why.

No brag, just fact.

Enquiring minds wanted to know.

Remember what Davy Crockett said when he was going back to Texas that time?

To some people it applies more than others.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: