StamfordCT

Lawson Purdy: The Influence of Taxation on the Prosperity of Cities

Reprinted in The Public, October 6, 1906

THE INFLUENCE OF TAXATION ON THE PROSPERITY OF CITIES

A Paper Read by Lawson Purdy of New York
Before the League of American Municipalities,
in Session at Chicago, September 26, 1906.

In 1873, Enoch Ensley, a wealthy planter of Tennessee, wrote to Governor Brown asking him to call a special session of the legislature to amend the constitution so that changes could be made in the tax laws of Tennessee. The tax rate of Nashville was three and one-half per cent and of Memphis four per cent, and Mr. Ensley said that the burden on business was insupportable. Great land owner as he was, however, Ensley did not urge a search for new sources of revenue, but rather the application of the "rule or motto" which, he said, "It would be well for the State to adopt and have cut into the stone at the capitol (in large letters and have them gilded), in the Senate chamber, the hall of the House of Representatives and in the governor's office, . . . to-wit:

"Never tax anything
That would be of value to your State,
That could and would run away, or
That could and would come to you."

This rule laid down by Ensley has become an axiom, but before it can be applied the constitutions of about thirty-five States must be amended by repealing those despotic limitations on legislative power which are not found in the earlier constitutions, and which should find no place in the constitution of any free people. Because of constitutional and statutory restraints upon the power of cities we need discuss only what can be accomplished in most cities by executive officials under existing laws.

Conditions of Prosperity.

City officials often regard the city as apart and distinct from the individual citizens, and sometimes therefore uphold policies which appear to be in the interest of the city corporation, although opposed to the interests of the citizens. This is, of course, a short-sighted view. In reality nothing can be good for the city which is bad for the citizen, nor bad for the city which is good for the citizens. Again, many consider the interest of classes and speak of what will be advantageous to manufacturers or shopkeepers or land owners. This, too, is a mistaken attitude. Citizens should be regarded alike as men, and not as the owners or users of some kind of property. All depend upon the workers who render service for service, and it is fair therefore to consider the interest of all citizens as bound up in the interest of those who earn their living; and that city may be regarded as the most prosperous in which it is easiest and most agreeable to earn a living.

The interests of the city and of its citizens are identical. Nevertheless, they may be viewed from both standpoints.

Valuing "excess" land

I've come across another interesting group of assessments, just down the street from those in the post below this one.  They are at 320,  334,  336 and 333 Stamford Avenue.  (These are all "70% values" -- divide each by 0.7 to get to the market value the assessor is assigning.)

• 320 and 334 Stamford Avenue are each 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre), and is assessed at $536,970;
• 336 Stamford Avenue is 20,000 square feet (0.46 acre), and is assessed at $574,420;
• 333 Stamford Avenue is 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre), and is assessed at $628,110.

So the first 10,000 square feet in this immediate neighborhood is assessed at $536,970.  The incremental 10,000 square feet is $37,450 more -- 6.97%.  The difference between the 20,000 sq ft property and the 30,000 sf property is $53,690.  These values prevail until one reaches the direct waterfront properties -- despite the fact that every non-waterfront property that has even seasonal water views mentions that prominently in every real estate ad.

Puzzles in Stamford's 2007 assessments

I'm finding some puzzling things in the October, 2007 Stamford assessment database, and wonder how they might be explained.

How might we best raise the revenue we need?

How might we tax ourselves more efficiently and more justly, and avoid the high housing costs that plague our part of the state?

A simple tax reform will go a long way: Land Value Taxation.

At its simplest, LVT is a reform of the existing property tax, starting with reducing the tax burden on buildings, while increasing the tax load on land (remaining revenue neutral). This will produce more housing, more commercial space and lower rents and selling prices for both.

I suspect that we might find its results so desirable that we might then considering shifting some of our other taxation off of sales and off of wages.

Funding Infrastructure: A Dedicated Funding Stream

A recent article in the Stamford Advocate, Dodd touts transit-funding bill in Stamford (3/25)

STAMFORD - During an appearance yesterday at the Urban Transitway construction site, U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., called for major national investment in roads, trains, bridges and other infrastructure.

Dodd came to town to promote his bill that would set up an independent national bank for such projects. The bank would designate regionally significant projects for loans, loan guarantees or other financial help and issue tax-exempt bonds to finance them.

Dodd said the United States needs a national policy and a dedicated funding stream for maintaining infrastructure, rather than leaving it to politicians to fight for money for individual projects.

It may be a dry topic, but it's important, he said.

"It normally glazes over the eyes of the most determined listener," Dodd said. "I'm proud to be in a city that cares about it."

Fixing Wages, and Fixing Housing Affordability -- for All of Us

By this, I mean fixing the problem of low wages -- wages insufficient to support an individual or a family in conditions we consider acceptable on a reasonable number of hours of labor per week. I don't mean minimum wage legislation, or living wage legislation, both of which I regard as well-intentioned but ultimately destructive for the community they intend to help.  I don't mean measures like the Earned Income Tax Credit, either.  It appears that people must jump through high hoops to get those dollars (which often seems to require professional advice, at a price), and then a significant portion of the money goes not to the wage earner but to his tax preparer/advisor, in the form of fees and interest.

Earmarks, nightlights and windfalls - Individual, or Community?

I've heard this point made a couple of times recently, but particularly liked the way Gail Collins expressed it in her recent column, George Speaks, Badly:

Besides being incoherent, this is a perfect sign of an utterly phony speech. Earmarks are one of those easy-to-attack Congressional weaknesses, and in a perfect world, they would not exist. But they cost approximately two cents in the grand budgetary scheme of things. Saying you’re going to fix the economy or balance the budget by cutting out earmarks is like saying you’re going to end global warming by banning bathroom nightlights.

The relative magnitude of earmarks relative to total federal spending or total discretionary federal spending may be rather small.  But earmarks do have tremendous potential to do good locally. They can fund projects that may not be feasible for local government to fund, which can contribute mightily to local economic activity and economic rent.

The question, I think, is what happens AFTER the earmark project. Will the local community that benefits from that federal spending collect the benefit from the local residents who are benefited, or will that benefit keep accruing to particular individuals, and continue to be just a nice permanent federal gift to them? 

Working harder, making others richer

Bob Herbert wrote, in his 3/11/08 column entitled "Sharing the Pain", in part,

The American dream is on life support because men and women by the millions who want very much to work — who still have in their heads the ideal of a thriving family in a nice home with maybe a picket fence — are unable to find a decent job.

For years, families have been fighting weakness on the employment front with every other option imaginable.

• Wives and mothers have gone to work.   
  
• People have been putting in more hours and working additional jobs.
• And Americans have plunged like Olympic diving champions into every form of debt they could find.

Who has gotten the benefits of women spending many more years and many more hours per year in the workplace?  Who has benefited from Americans carrying more and more debt?  How does this relate to the run-up in the price of housing?  I said I'd write about these issues in another post.   This is it.

The Taxpayer at 72nd and Madison

In a recent NYT, there is an article about the building on the southwest corner of 72nd and Madison in NYC. Twice in the article and once in the caption to the photos, the building is referred to as a "taxpayer" or "taxpayer-style building."

The article describes the 2 buildings which have occupied the 48' by 100' lot on the sw corner of 72nd and Madison: the first was a 5-story mansion built in 1894, which was occupied by an ex-wife of William K. Vanderbilt II.  On the northwest corner stood Louis Tiffany's grand house, and Gertrude Rhinelander was building her chateau, now the Ralph Lauren store, on the southeast corner.  The mansion remained a private home until 1951, when it was

... replaced with a two-story-high taxpayer-style building, designed by Boak & Raad with severe simplicity.

Ralph Lauren acquired the old Rhinelander mansion for its flagship store in 1986, and seven years later took over the taxpayer on the site of the Cutting house. It has operated a store there since then.

Affordable housing -- for all of us. What policies promote it?

Link: http://www.sun-herald.com/Newsstory.cfm?pubdate=030808&story=tp1ch5.htm&folder=NewsArchive2

A front-page article in the 3/8/08 Charlotte (County, FL) Sun entitled "Not Affordable Enough" speaks to some interesting and important issues regarding Florida's housing.  A few excerpts:

The current downturn in residential real estate sales has created the closest thing to a buyer's market Florida has seen since the 1990s.

While that might be great news for a Northern couple looking to retire in Punta Gorda or Port Charlotte with their life savings, Charlotte County's median home price -- about $175,000 according to recent Florida Association of Realtors figures -- is still a barrier for many local wage earners ...

Despite North Port's reputation as a haven for working families, the median sale price in the Sarasota-Bradenton market remains about $260,000

Referring to recent problems in the housing market,

"It's a blip on the screen really, and in a year, we're going to be thankful that we did some investing in affordable housing," said Ron Thomas, executive director of Enterprise Punta Gorda, the city's economic development bureau. "When everybody says that there's plenty of affordable housing, we have to qualify that by saying that there is plenty of affordable housing for people who are in the 80 percent or above the median income. This doesn't have any positive effect for anybody in the 30 to 80 percent median income bracket."

"Even as low as (housing) has come down, it still might not suit firefighters, police, and school teachers. They're still struggling," said Bill Albers, Punta Gorda city councilman. Albers is the council's liaison to the Punta Gorda Housing Authority.