What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    61
Stevey_G said:
What about a post-construction tax rebate for the time the land was left vacant? As in, a site like Regency's on 101st continues to be taxes at estimated assessed levels had the building been there, but that money is placed in an interest bearing trust so that when the next project is completed, the developer gets a substantial rebate back with interest based off the difference between a bare land and developed tax.

It would add a bit of certainty for honest developers who are facing hold-ups on dependencies and whatnot.
Click to expand...
Would this work as desired? Knowing they are getting the money back might not provide the encouragement that is required. Sure it impacts cash-flow, however; they are still benefiting from others investing in the area which makes their vacant lot worth more. Personally I think putting it all in a fund to accelerate those investing in the area and meeting quality design standards more valuable. A portion could also be allocated to accelerate public infrastructure renewal. For Downtown this can help tackle some of the other reasons people don't want to go.
 
Stevey_G said:
What about a post-construction tax rebate for the time the land was left vacant? As in, a site like Regency's on 101st continues to be taxes at estimated assessed levels had the building been there, but that money is placed in an interest bearing trust so that when the next project is completed, the developer gets a substantial rebate back with interest based off the difference between a bare land and developed tax.

It would add a bit of certainty for honest developers who are facing hold-ups on dependencies and whatnot.
Click to expand...
An interest bearing trust might have the opposite effect of its intended goal. Instead of encouraging a project to proceed, a developer might delay a project on the grounds that they're receiving interest compensation for not doing anything. So for a developer with projects in different jurisdictions, the one with the least carrying cost could be the last one to be developed.
 
Out of Towner said:
An interest bearing trust might have the opposite effect of its intended goal. Instead of encouraging a project to proceed, a developer might delay a project on the grounds that they're receiving interest compensation for not doing anything. So for a developer with projects in different jurisdictions, the one with the least carrying cost could be the last one to be developed.
Click to expand...
Agreed we want the incentive to be to build sooner, not build up a fund for the property owners. Again, the less complicated solution is best.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top