[Ericson2314]

This only happens because our terrible land use is inflating the real estate market + terrible policy like prop 13.

In an LVT world, the value of land (overall-inflation-adjusted) should basically track the population, and virtually no one will own land they could no longer afford to buy.

[Spooky23]

That’s why LVT will never happen and is a dumb idea.

If a freeway exit gets built a block away from my house, my taxes will reflect the value of a Walmart or whatever instead of my house.

[paconbork]

In which case you should sell your property and make bank on what Walmart would be willing to pay for it. (If you wouldn't make bank then your taxes wouldn't be prohibitively high)

[Spooky23]

Why would Walmart make a deal when they could just wait for or lobby the county to valuate your land at some excessive value and force a sale in distress?

LVT is just bad policy that sounds ok in concept. In my city, inner city residential property is near worthless once it falls below section 8 standards. The taxes are low too as result. With a LVT scheme, someone would cook up some “true” value subjectively, which has obvious potential for abuse.

[paconbork]

Can't Walmart already do this? Property assessors already estimate the value of your property and the value of the land plays a part.

[Spooky23]

Generally no. Values are usually based on sales history.

[throwaway201103]

Value is whatever someone will pay. If Wal-Mart offers $1MM for your land, that is what it is worth, even if the next-best offer is $500K.

[arrosenberg]

Or the very questionable use of eminent domain that some municipalities engage in.

[throwaway201103]

It's really the same as eminent domain. Wal-Mart wants your property for a store? They just need to offer to pay enough that the LVT is unaffordable to you. You'll have no choice but to sell, even if you don't want the money and would rather keep the property.