[pjc50]

A good summary: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-...

The Guardian argues that it's effectively cartelisation of building land by restricting the rate of building. There is a discussion of whether or not planning permission is a limiting factor - I think this is the main reason why you get almost no individual building in the UK, it's a lot of work to get the approvals so it's only worth doing on a big site for lots of houses.

There's no regular tax on unused land, and there is a tax on selling it, so there's a big incentive to just sit on it. I'd much rather see those two positions reversed. Not to mention the whole pseudo-property-tax system for funding local government needs drastic reform.

[Nasrudith]

The ironic thing is that land bankers appear to do a useful service in that context - they go through the approval to 'process' the input land into something more valuable - land that is preapproved to build on. Of course that it is so valuable is in itself symptomatic of a larger dysfunction. In a more functioning system it should give far more modest returns since developers would have an option to do it themselves and cut out the middleman. It suggests that the process should be far more streamlined if possible and more broad in use permission categories when possible.

There are valid discussions to be had and due diligence involved in investigating the fitness of land for given purposes - it is more appropriate to use a heavy metal contaminated site for a garbage dump or factory than farm or residential for instance and industrial processes at risk of explosion shouldn't be kept near residences and schools.

I could see unused land being a tax break having some utility if there is some positive externality to it - especially if left accessible. Say that if you have some woods at the fringe of your property you could get some degree of property tax relief since keeping some wilderness does larger service to the environment. A derlict brownfield site however should have no bonus - it serves society best to get rid of it as soon as practical. This tax-break land could be developed if it is more lucrative to buy it and do so. The two could combine in a form of urban renewal incentives by at least encouraging landowners to clean up after themselves by transforming abandoned buildings to greenfield or parkland for tax purposes.

[jimnotgym]

That is a good summary.

In terms of commercial property, in the UK a landlord will have to pay property rates on an empty factory or office related to a theoretical rental value. If you take a piece of wasteground and build a skyscraper on it you will be liable for the rates on all of the offices you can't rent out. This means developing comes with a risk.

This in my view is a good arguement for Land Value Tax, where you would be paying an amount based on the unimproved value of the land. If you put the land to good use you are not penalised.

A lot of commercial property in my part of the UK is owned by the Regional Development Agency, which are EU funded bodies that help regions attract investment. This would seem to suggest that the commercial realities of owning a warehouse are tough.

[growlist]

I wouldn't trust the Guardian alone.

[tomcam]

Which information in the linked article was incorrect?

[amanaplanacanal]

Do you have another source you could share with us?