Jump to content

Nashville Bits and Pieces


smeagolsfree

Recommended Posts

Yeah I think this would probably have to be a state level committee, as they enjoy making mandates on what cities can/cannot do. There is surely some kind of independent commission that could be form and using the enormous amounts of data from our own city and across the world to come up with valuations for properties. 4 years seems too long to me though, especially with the level of automation could put on this. The review process would have to be super fast and transparent though, which would help a lot of people from being disgruntled I would hope.

I like the idea of thinking of it in loops. Everything in the inner loop, boom, this is the law of the land now. You have this year to request any exemptions, but they will be on a severely limited basis. 

The 440 loop, this will happen in the next 3-5 years, with more but also a limited amount of exemptions based on, historic value, location, etc, etc.

Like you said though, I would grant ZERO exemptions for land on main roads. I would go as far to say parcels in neighborhoods that have been sitting empty for years with no improvements while the city/state have been struggling to build new housing for it's citizens build on it or sell it! It's great that you own it and it's your but you must contribute to the city, no more free rides with your tiny tax bills, just because there are no improvements. 

I'm sure the stink that would be raised by citizens and groups would be large. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think another step that would have to be taken is to exempt ALL the R and RS zoned parcels. This may drive the conversation about removing all of those zoning districts, but I don't think any person could justify taxing those property owners who bought within those zones for "not contributing to the city". The "potential" of those properties are limited anyways to literally single family homes so they are technically already taxed at their potential. The funky part of that is there is A LOT of single family zoning tracts within the 440 and Briley Parkway loops.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to halt the other component of the housing crisis though in which investment groups are buying up the single family housing stock around the world. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh see, I don't think we would want to exempt R and RS. There are too many empty lots just sitting there that are only able to do that because they aren't getting taxed on the actual value of their land.  

I think if the city tied it into banning all SFH in the inner loop and all new permits for SFHs in the 440 loop it could work.

 

The uproar that would cause I assume would be monumental. But by grandfathering in current single family homes, I think it would alleviate the change over time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

There is already people deciding what property taxes are. 

It seems like a simple solve to a large problem. You can do whatever you want with your property but a city has a finite amount of land. So sure you can use your property in the urban core for a parking lot or leave it empty but you will pay the same in taxes as the residential skyscraper or duplex right next to you. Because that land could be better used for housing/offices/retail. 

The transition from property taxes to land value tax would be an intersting one, long how long is the transition period, who gets relief, etc.

 

Sorry Paul , but I think this idea largely sucks.   Firstly, small holdings that have been owned for years would suddenly pay exhorbitant taxes based on an arbitrary standard of development?  I think the courts would overrule this idea very quickly.  Secondly, Nashville has a plethera of land, enough to build the city 5 t0 10 timws over.  We have been eating away at it for the past 4 decades as we demolished so much in the 70s and 80s.  As far as promoting density along the main roads, I am already beginning to tire of the monoblocks of housing going up  all the same height due to the building of 5 or 6 stories of wood over a concreted parking base.  That needs to go as it seems to limit the construction of complexes with som variety and interest in height.  Empty lots can be quite good id they have some trees.  What is needed is limiting the percentage of vacant lots that can be surface parking.  And how about ENFORCING Metros tree laws to keep nice old trees.   Making every piece of land taxable would absolutely make trees too expensive to keep or plant for that matter. I don't think this kind of tax proposal will result in quality and good design Nashville needs.

 

Edited by Baronakim
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never heard of it until this past Friday, but there definitely seems to be some success stories.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-gains-the-pennsylvania-land-tax-experiment

In regards to trees, I don't see why this would stop developers/builders from putting trees on their projects, there would still be regulations around trees and what you can and can't do with them. Buyers aren't going to suddenly stop wanting trees all of a sudden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I'd never heard of it until this past Friday, but there definitely seems to be some success stories.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/3/6/non-glamorous-gains-the-pennsylvania-land-tax-experiment

In regards to trees, I don't see why this would stop developers/builders from putting trees on their projects, there would still be regulations around trees and what you can and can't do with them. Buyers aren't going to suddenly stop wanting trees all of a sudden. 

It's not about planting them .  It is about both preserving mature ones  internally on the site and planting limited new ones in rows at streetscapes.  Making the value per square foot so high reduces the probability of retaining good specimens in favor of boring cookie cutter plantings.  Examples of preservation or replacement  I recall that were very desirable were the tree in front of the new Belmont concert hall, the large tree at the corner of stadium at the pedestrian bridge or the magnolia in the front of Loews Hotel.  When you destroy a large existing tree, there is a formula for new trees to be panted based on the size of the removed tree in terms of caliper and the number and size required as replacement.  This idea of taxation seems to me to assure probabilty of being boring and contributing to the sameness I see in these megablock complexes.   It looks to be weighted to havens rather than Albions IMO.  This is a qualitative rather than quantitative issue I am inclined to believe.

 

Edited by Baronakim
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok…so thinking ahead a bit.

We have several sections in or near DT with multiple tall towers on the horizon.  I’m thinking of Nashville Yards / YMCA…Music City Roundabout area…River North (hopefully)…Beaman…Reed District…and Titans Stadium land.  

Any thoughts on other potential areas where we may see multiple towers rise one day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it must be saved.

The problem is the property values on Lower Broadway have skyrocketed -so in order for someone to save it they will need very deep pockets.

The next problem is whether it is actually turning a profit now or could in the future-at least to the point where an investor would actually see any measurable return.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bnacincy said:

Yes, it must be saved.

The problem is the property values on Lower Broadway have skyrocketed -so in order for someone to save it they will need very deep pockets.

The next problem is whether it is actually turning a profit now or could in the future-at least to the point where an investor would actually see any measurable return.

It's definitely going to take someone interested in preserving it “as is” that is very, very wealthy…or an organization that can fundraise…like the CMHoF.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, grilled_cheese said:

Airbnb have figured out it’s not hard to get state legislators to override Metro council.  They will not stop until they have unrestricted access in all neighborhoods. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

I mean we just gotta buy a property in Dickson next to a certain state legislator to set up as a “grand old party” house (until the time we intend to return to live in that house). Would change that tune real quick.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, grilled_cheese said:

Lol I love the rep from Knoxville that basically said “dude nobody wants to do AirBnB’s in freaking Dickson, so why do you care so much?!”

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andywildman said:

I mean we just gotta buy a property in Dickson next to a certain state legislator to set up as a “grand old party” house (until the time we intend to return to live in that house). Would change that tune real quick.

I've thought about that before. And I mean no ill will against the people of, say, Dickson, or any other area. But if someone with the means could buy a meaningful amount of property in one of these areas, and absolutely exploit some of the laws that come through the TN legislature aimed at Nashville....it would be....interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pdt2f said:

Lol I love the rep from Knoxville that basically said “dude nobody wants to do AirBnB’s in freaking Dickson, so why do you care so much?!”

I know this is a flippant response but you'd be surprised. I've been on several road projects in very rural parts of the state in the past few years where we had to do commercial ROW takes because the property owners were operating them as STRs.

Airbnb, et al. market their services as facilitating vacation rentals (and we obviously see that side in Nashville and other urban areas) but it seems like people are using them for more mundane purposes. We are relocating a family right now where the dad moved here to take a job from out of state and they are staying in an STR in the middle of nowhere until they find a house (not an easy task right now). We had one that was a legit mobile home a couple of years ago, which I thought was against the terms of service of many of these companies. One guy was in effect running a timeshare near Kentucky Lake where he had a couple of houses set up for boating/fishing and apparently had regular "customers" who were coordinating when they would be able to use them on the side.

Some of these I imagine are not STRs in the legal sense but they are using STR companies, if inefficiently (the timeshare guy especially did not seem to be getting much out of his deal other than coordinating housekeeping, which I think was with Marriott or at least not one of the "retail" services). I have not been on the owner side either so I'm not sure how helpful or profitable it is. But the moral of the story I guess is that in today's world the urban/rural divides are becoming less clear and I could hypothetically see how state legislators would have a dog in the fight. It could have just as easily gone the other way in different circumstances where the state would look to restrict STRs in areas where residents/homeowners were fine with them, with a little money from, say, hoteliers greasing the skids.

Of course that's all irrelevant as this is simply an issue of politicians getting paid to do what they do, as always.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.