Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

beerbeer

Interesting tax scheme by the city

Recommended Posts

This is lifted from an article in the Courant

"In the current formula, Hartford buildings are taxed about three times more than the land on which they sit. Thus, the owner of the Hilton had an incentive to tear down the hotel. What if the incentives were reversed? I think there'd be a building there."

This was compared to other cities that tax empty land at higher rates than land that has buildings. Ever wonder why there are so many emty lots in downtown Hartford? The tax system rewards empty lots.

Considering the obstacles thrown into its path by the state annd city government, Hartford is a truly amazing city. Imagine if the laws actuallly helped people to live, play, build and prosper in the city rather than punish almost any economic activity.

Take off the chains and you will be astounded by what spouts in this town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Are there proposals in the works to correct this problem? This is an issue that has come up several times on this forum, but has anyone heard talk among politicians on the urgency of pushing new tax legislation through the city council?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had brought this up on skyscraperpage when Eddie Perez first suggested it about a year ago. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but the parking "industry" has influence with city government and will fight this every step of the way. We have a strong mayor now - lets see what gets done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to go against this one on everyone. A law that would tax land that is not developed (built on) discriminates against people who have nothing built on there land as everything that is built is on land that was once vacant.

There are also hundreds of instances where this law would be good in the city and where this would would be bad in the city. There are some areas of the city that cannot be developed for various reasons (i.e. size of the lot)

For example: My family owns a lot on Ann Street in the area demmed "Downtown North"- that area cut off by I-84 by the proposed public safety complex on High Street and possibly the future site of a new condo tower at the "Butt Ugly Building" site. This lot is not part of the public safety complex plans meaning it is not one of the lots/homes/businesses being taken by eminent domain nor is it very close to the "Butt Ugly building" which will hopefully become a new condo tower site. Back in it's heyday the lot was home to a historic rooming house which was part of a vibrant neighborhood but as the neighborhood declined people moved out, the rooming house was closed and one day without telling anyone the city knocked the building down. The lot is not big enough for an office building- not that anybody would locate there, is big enough for possibly a single family home but that home would be near the public safety complex and that's it and there have always been thoughts of making it a parking lot but the state cannot even fill its lot next to this lot so there is not enough demand so why waste money to develop this site?

And also keep in mind my family (grandparents, parents, etc) have owned properties on Albany Avenue then this Ann St house then on Farmington Avenue in the West End and has never been late paying there taxes and yet this is how the cities repaies them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea cut taxes all around. High taxes in general are hurting CT and it's cities. The property tax itself is getting out hand now and some reform needs to be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.