Educational Overview of Land Value Tax for Connecticut

Center for the Study of Economics www.urbantoolsconsult.org

Center for the Study of Economics Mark Speirs Office: 215-923-7800

413 South 10th Street 480-282-1280

Philadelphia, PA 19147 [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Land Value Tax - Bringing Transparency & Efficiency to Connecticut’s Property Tax System

Submitted to the M.O.R.E. Commission

Municipal Tax Authority Working Group

by

The Center for the Study of Economics

Representative Jeff Berger, 73rd District -

Chairman of the M.O.R.E. Commission Municipal Tax Authority Working Group

http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/�

http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/�

jvincent

Typewritten Text

jvincent

Typewritten Text

Joshua Vincent, CEO

jvincent

Typewritten Text

Land Value Taxation 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 3

I. Introduction 3

II. Can the LVT model be applied elsewhere? 7

A. Legal status 7

B. Assessments 8

C. Legislative history 8

D. New London 11

E. Institutional support 13

F. Pathways to Implementation 14

III. Economics and Impacts of a Land Value Tax 16

A. Urban renewal 16

B. Anti-speculative, infill development 17

C. Smart growth 18

D. Job creation 19

E. Economic development 20


F. LVT as a substitute or complement for other development tools 21

(abatements, enterprise zones, etc)

G. Transit oriented development (TOD’S) 22

H. Environment 23

I. Issues relative to implementing a land value tax 24

IV. Study examples of a Land Value Tax in Connecticut 26

A. Hartford 26

V. Conclusion 40

VI. References 41

VII. Appendix 43


Executive Summary

The M.O.R.E. Commission was created by Speaker Brendan Sharkey to discuss,

formulate and implement innovative tools, strategies and solutions for Connecticut

municipalities to deal with long-term fiscal and structural issues. The Center for the Study of

Economics would like to offer a flexible program of real property taxation called the land value

tax (LVT) to stabilize revenues, provide substantial tax relief to hard-working and productive

citizens and business, and grow municipal tax bases by leveraging private investment dollars

back into older municipalities.

LVT can be deployed with adoption of the annual property tax ordinance of the

municipality. Implementation is possible on a gradual schedule, and unlike other tax incentive

and abatement programs may be altered or rescinded as needed.

I. Introduction

What is LVT? LVT is an alternative version of the real property tax, used in 20 cities,

school districts and counties in the United States, as well as most municipalities and states in

Australia and New Zealand. Traditionally, property tax mill rates fall equally upon land values

and building values. LVT shifts the greater share of property tax revenue from buildings (both a

product of private capital and private labor) to the assessed value of land (a public good created

by public and community investment).

For example, the city of Allentown Pennsylvania has dual tax rates of 50.38 Mills on land

values and 10.72 Mills on building values. The land mill rate is therefore nearly 5 times greater

than the building mill rate. Under a standard tax, Allentown would have a single rate of 17.52

Mills, collecting the same revenue.

What is the benefit of the shift of tax from buildings to land value? Without LVT, nearly

80% of Allentown's property tax revenue would come from what it needs most: continual


injections of capital into building construction and maintenance. To perform these tasks, jobs

must be created, and eventually homeowners and tenants come into the city, as the city then

becomes more competitive in attracting private capital and people.

Without LVT, 20% of Allentown's property tax revenue would come from land values.

The value created by government investment and the desire of the market to take advantage of

that investment (roads, sewers, police protection, fire protection and schools), would sit fallow

or be pocketed by speculative rather than productive investors.

LVT as practiced in Pennsylvania and elsewhere addresses several known flaws in the

property tax as practiced.

1. Taxing land value removes incentives that reward private land banking as a viable

business model. As a commodity in finite supply, municipalities must get the most

"bang for the buck" from land that is liable to taxation.

2. Taxing land value provides permanent incentives for growth and reinvestment that go

beyond temporary and targeted tax incentives.

3. Taxing land value ensures that the value created by the community is recaptured by the

community in the form of taxation.

4. Taxing land value can serve as a partial or full replacement of other taxes known to be

economically corrosive (i.e. sales, business, or income tax).

It is well recognized in Connecticut that the current property tax creates a powerful

disincentive for strong cities and economically empowered populations.

LVT is designed to reverse that disincentive, and create new incentives by removing tax

barriers to investment. LVT is intended to achieve Smart Growth objectives without using the

implied coercive powers of government.

Where used, most economists and public officials believe LVT works to achieve the

outcomes desired from smaller towns to larger cities. An analysis of the effect of LVT in the


small city of Clairton Pennsylvania, was studied by the center and published in the American

Journal of Economics and Sociology, in October 20121

“ABSTRACT: When a neighborhood declines, the poor get poorer, crime rises, and those who can leave

the area. The tax base shrinks, so the rates paid by those least able to pay increase. The prevailing system

of a low tax on land values leads to land speculation and private land banking, assuring that the landowner

can hold out for a very high price for a very long time. A higher tax on land values (coupled with reduction in

building taxes) creates an incentive to sell that land or do something with it rather than waiting. In cities that

use land-value taxes, real-estate markets start to work again and neighborhoods recover. Clairton,

Pennsylvania's adoption of a land-value-taxation system demonstrates the neighborhood revitalization to

which it leads, as owner-occupied residences and multi-family units saw a relief in their tax burden. In

contrast, vacant properties' contribution to the city budget tripled, providing the resources to pay for the

education of Clairton's children and liberate working and middle-class families from the bonds of labor and

capital taxation.”

:

Examining a much larger municipality, University of Maryland economists Wallace Oates

and Robert Schwab examined the effects of expansion of the land value tax in the city of

Pittsburgh during the collapse of the steel industry from the late 1970s to the early 1980s.2

1 Neighborhood Revitalization and New Life: A Land Value Taxation Approach

By

studying taxable building permit issuance during this recessionary era, the researchers

concluded that the incentive effect of down taxing buildings helped the city of Pittsburgh buck

the trend of disinvestment in the rustbelt.

JOSHUA VINCENT Article first published online: 26 SEP 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2012.00849.x 2 http://econweb.umd.edu/~oates/research/The%20Impact%20of%20Urban%20Land%20Taxation.pdf

http://econweb.umd.edu/~oates/research/The%20Impact%20of%20Urban%20Land%20Taxation.pdf�


Ironically, Pittsburgh suspended the land value tax after a controversy over

reassessment in the year 2000. As the United States in general entered a period of extended

growth especially in the real estate industry, Pittsburgh saw taxable building permits decrease

by 21%. 3

Mayors and other public officials in the state of Pennsylvania have confirmed that the

land value tax program is of benefit to their cities. This is especially important in the context of

the analogues that exist between Pennsylvania cities and Connecticut cities: disappearing

manufacturing base, growing poverty, and spreading blight.

As former Mayor Steve Reed of Harrisburg said of the land value tax:

3 http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/upload/IT200306JUNE.pdf

http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/upload/IT200306JUNE.pdf�


"The land-value tax policy is not a cure-all but, without it, it would be particularly more difficult to attract and retain taxable real estate investment. Economic development in an urban community should not be based solely upon a land-value tax policy. Rather, the tax policy should be part of a package of other incentives, which include various low-interest loans, the availability of low-cost vacant land, tax abatement, and the like. Without hesitation, we can commend the importance and benefit of the land-value tax policy. It has worked in Harrisburg and in other communities where it has existed."

In a traditional small town (15,000), Washington Pennsylvania, Mayor Anthony Spossey

had this to say in 2009 about how the land value tax has affected his town:

“It’s been a good thing. We brought it in after a reassessment, as we saw LVT as the only way to help poor and elderly taxpayers to be relieved of what would have been an added burden. LVT still helps reduce taxes for our most vulnerable citizens. We have an aging demographic, like the county, region and the state. Taxpayers everywhere are less able to keep up with taxes, and that hurts revenue. LVT helps us mitigate the impact both to them and the city. It’s a win/win.”

II. Can the LVT model be applied elsewhere?

Simulation studies have been conducted in Connecticut and many other states.

Generally, the outcomes match the Pennsylvania experience. Each community has its own

character, economics and demographics; therefore there is no uniform outcome, but clustered

similar outcomes.

Our regional office based in Bristol Connecticut, is examining municipalities in

Connecticut with current Grand Lists

LVT in Connecticut: legality, legislative history, and appropriate application

A. Legal status

Connecticut state government and municipalities have been intrigued by the LVT

concept for some decades. The Connecticut Constitution and Statutes have no provisions


permitting or forbidding land value taxation, with the exception of a 2009 pilot LVT program

defined to the limit implementation to the city of New London (discussed in detail in section D).

Connecticut Statutes define real property as land and all improvements (Sec. 12-64.

From the Office of Planning and Management: “Real estate is all land and all improvements on

or to land (such as buildings, fences, and paved driveways), as well as easements to use air

space.”). The Connecticut Statutes in Section 203 provide many examples of alteration of pre-

existing property tax statutes for the benefit of particular municipalities, economic sectors and

other entities.

B. Assessments

Connecticut's assessments are generally acknowledged to be reliable, with regular

revaluation mandated every 10 years, and statistical updating in the interim. An assessment

ratio of 70% to market value is used. The larger municipalities of Connecticut have

standardized and digitized records. Land and building values are generally calculated

separately. These records, combined with GIS shape files can produce clear analysis of property

tax incidence, value trends, and economic health (i.e. vacant lots).

C. Legislative history

There have been 35 bills entered in to the hopper since the late 1980s (see appendix).

Many of these bills died in committee, or passed from one chamber to another with no action

taken.

In the past several years, along with the New London pilot program, bills permitting

larger communities or a few communities have passed out of the house and into the Senate the

most recent being SB 130 sponsored by Sen. Martin Looney:


General Assembly File No. 439 January Session, 2011

Substitute Senate Bill No. 130

Senate, April 7, 2011

The Committee on Planning and Development reported through SEN.

CASSANO of the 4th Dist., Chairperson of the Committee on the part of the

Senate, that the substitute bill ought to pass.

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Assembly convened:

Section 1. Section 12-63h of the general statutes is repealed and the

following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2011):

(a) The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management shall establish

a pilot program in [a single municipality] up to three

municipalities whereby the [municipality]selected municipalities shall

develop a plan for implementation of land value taxation that (1)

classifies real estate included in the taxable grand list as (A) land or land

exclusive of buildings, or (B) buildings on land; and (2) establishes a

different mill rate for property tax purposes for each class, provided the

higher mill rate shall apply to land or land exclusive of buildings. The

different mill rates for taxable real estate in each class shall not be


applicable to any property for which a grant is payable under section

12-19a or 12-20a.

(b) [To be eligible for the program a municipality shall (1) be a

distressed municipality, as defined in subsection (b) of section 32-9p; (2)

have a population of not more than twenty-six thousand; and (3) have a

city manager and city council form of government.] The secretary shall

establish an application procedure and any other criteria for the

program and shall send a copy of such application procedure and any

other criteria to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly

having cognizance of matters relating to planning and development.

The secretary shall not select a municipality for the pilot program unless

the legislative body of the municipality has approved the application.

The secretary shall send a notice of selection for the pilot program to the

chief executive officer of the municipality and to the joint standing

committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters

relating to planning and development.

(c) After receipt of the notice of selection provided by the Secretary of

the Office of Policy and Management pursuant to subsection (b) of this

section, the chief executive officer of such municipality shall appoint a

committee consisting of relevant taxpayers and stakeholders to prepare

a plan for implementation of land value taxation. Such plan shall (1)

provide a process for implementation of differentiated tax rates; (2)

designate geographic areas of the municipality where the differentiated

rates shall be applied; and (3) identify legal and administrative issues


affecting the implementation of the plan. The chief executive officer, the

assessor and the tax collector of the municipality shall have an

opportunity to review and comment on the plan. On or before

December 31, [2009] 2012, and upon approval of the plan by the

legislative body, the plan shall be submitted to the joint standing

committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters

relating to planning and development and to finance, revenue and

bonding.

D. New London

New London was directed by 2009 legislation Senate Substitute Bill 379 signed by

Governor Rell to prepare for OPM a program of implementation:

Substitute Senate Bill No. 379

Public Act No. 09-236

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A LAND VALUE TAXATION PILOT PROGRAM.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) The Secretary of the Office of

Policy and Management shall establish a pilot program in a single

municipality whereby the municipality selected shall develop a plan for

implementation of land value taxation that (1) classifies real estate included in

the taxable grand list as (A) land or land exclusive of buildings, or (B)


buildings on land; and (2) establishes a different mill rate for property tax

purposes for each class, provided the higher mill rate shall apply to land or

land exclusive of buildings. The different mill rates for taxable real estate in

each class shall not be applicable to any property for which a grant is payable

under section 12-19a or 12-20a of the general statutes.

(b) To be eligible for the program a municipality shall (1) be a distressed

municipality, as defined in subsection (b) of section 32-9p of the general

statutes; (2) have a population of not more than twenty-six thousand; and (3)

have a city manager and city council form of government. The secretary shall

establish an application procedure and any other criteria for the program. The

secretary shall not select a municipality for the pilot program unless the

legislative body of the municipality has approved the application. The

secretary shall send a notice of selection for the pilot program to the chief

executive officer of the municipality.

(c) After receipt of the notice of selection provided by the Secretary of the

Office of Policy and Management pursuant to subsection (b) of this section,

the chief executive officer of such municipality shall appoint a committee

consisting of relevant taxpayers and stakeholders to prepare a plan for

implementation of land value taxation. Such plan shall (1) provide a process

for implementation of differentiated tax rates; (2) designate geographic areas

of the municipality where the differentiated rates shall be applied; and (3)

identify legal and administrative issues affecting the implementation of the

plan. The chief executive officer, the assessor and the tax collector of the

municipality shall have an opportunity to review and comment on the plan.


On or before December 31, 2009, and upon approval of the plan by the

legislative body, the plan shall be submitted to the joint standing committees

of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to planning

and development and to finance, revenue and bonding.

Approved July 1, 2009

The committee assigned by the city of New London to prepare the plan instead defied the

state’s directive and refused to make any recommendations, although five implementation

options were included.

http://ci.new-

london.ct.us/filestorage/3390/3215/Land_Value_Tax_Committee_Implementation_Plan.pdf

The pilot program was unique in that it was a citizen supported and generated idea.

With support from New London’s Mayor, Council and legislative delegation, the LVT pilot

program Bill was passed with a clear mandate to enact LVT. Members of the New London

community, still reeling from fiscal imbalance and mounting blight ought to be invited to testify

to the history of this effort.

E. Institutional support

Land value taxation in Connecticut has been impressive. The past 10 years have seen

consistent support from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the Connecticut

Homebuilders Association, most of the larger municipalities in Connecticut as well as

organizations known for promoting environmental conservation and Smart Growth objectives.

For example, the 2009 pilot project bills signed by Governor Rell, was supported by these

disparate organizations and individuals:

http://ci.new-london.ct.us/filestorage/3390/3215/Land_Value_Tax_Committee_Implementation_Plan.pdf�

http://ci.new-london.ct.us/filestorage/3390/3215/Land_Value_Tax_Committee_Implementation_Plan.pdf�


New London City Council Mayor John DeStefano

AFSCME District Council 4 New London Day Newspaper

Southeastern Connecticut Sierra Club New London City Councilor Peg Curtin

Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding Rivers Alliance

New London Landmarks Connecticut Farmland Trust

Hartford Preservation Alliance Homebuilders Assn of Connecticut

Metro Hartford Alliance Ct. Forest & Parks

Connecticut Conference of Municipalities New London Main Street

Farmington River Watershed Association Connecticut Sierra Club

Stamford Urban Redevelopment Commission

F. Pathways to Implementation

Presently, the property tax is the primary source of revenue for Connecticut's

municipalities. Property tax per se does not inhibit a thriving community and economic growth.

Regionally, New Hampshire depends at both the state and local level on property taxation

nearly exclusively. Nationally, the undeniable growth of the state of Texas and Virginia both in

urban and suburban jurisdictions occurs despite the overwhelming significance of the property

tax. Reshaping and reframing property taxes may be preferable for financially distressed

municipalities rather than shifting to other forms of taxation which may have the unintended

consequence of forcing economic activity (labor and capital) out of those jurisdictions.

While the current property tax is undeniably a barrier to growth as structured, reducing

tax incidence on the labor and capital intensive part of the property tax – buildings – would

shift the burden of taxation on to that one taxable subject that is by definition immobile and

permanent: land and its value.


Conversely, reducing the millage rate on the mobility of the subjects of taxation in a

larger municipality will make it competitive with surrounding towns that enjoy – and tout –

their lower millage rates to builders, business and prospective homeowners.

A land value tax in and of itself levels the playing field on a long-term and significant basis.

When the municipalities of Connecticut are viewed comparatively, the need to reduce

the disincentives of the property tax on buildings is stark: this map denotes the effective tax

rates of municipalities in Connecticut. Hartford and its analog cities will need assistance, help

and luck to halt and reverse the downward spiral of disappearing tax base and corresponding

higher tax rates.


III. Economics and impacts of a Land Value Tax

A. Urban renewal

With the traditional property tax, if someone invests money in their home or makes

improvements, that person will pay a larger tax increase than with a land value tax. This not

only keeps people from making large investments in their home, it is a disincentive to apply for

a building permit to make small changes, costing the government money and possibly

introducing safety issues since there is no inspection of work completed. With a land value tax,

homeowners can build additions, improve their houses, or renovate run down dwellings

without being punished with as large a tax increase. This in turn creates neighborhood stability,

since people that invest in their homes are more likely to remain there.

Many homes in older neighborhoods are attractive to younger professionals due to the

architecture and character of these buildings. The business model of modern construction

makes it difficult to reproduce homes or buildings with the same craftsmanship and attention

to detail that can be found in these older homes and commercial buildings. Unfortunately,

many of these fine older buildings have fallen into disrepair or been abandoned. If someone

wants to invest $100,000 or more in renovating one of these older buildings, the taxes on that

property will increase dramatically. With a land value tax, home renovators can invest, live in

the home and not be punished as severely for these efforts with a large tax bill. Using a land

value tax allows investment in neighborhoods without the corresponding large increase in

property taxes, increasing the likelihood of more investment, and thereby allowing for the

rehabilitation of many of these older buildings.

Housing is not only about affordability; quality is also important be it low income or middle

income housing. One of the problems of the current property tax structure is it rewards

absentee landlords who allow their rental properties to fall into a deteriorated condition.


Financially speaking, this makes ‘slum housing’ or ‘slum land lording’ a highly profitable form of

real estate investment.4 LVT can help alleviate this quality problem. With a traditional property

tax, if the landlord makes any improvements, they are reassessed and their tax bill will increase.

Conversely, if they allow their building to deteriorate, they will ask for a reassessment and their

tax bill will decrease. While there is no direct financial incentive for landlords to maintain their

property with an LVT, there is also not the financial incentive to purposely allow their

properties to fall into disrepair. Landlords would not be rewarded for ignoring their property,

but instead for upkeep.5

B. Anti-speculative, infill development

It is typical to find a building lot in a blue collar residential area with an assessed value of

around $12,000. The property tax per year on this lot at a typical 31 mill tax rate (which is

3.1%)is $372 a year, or about $31 a month. For $31 a month the owner of this lot can hold it for

10, 15 or 20 years with little impact on the bottom line; if this lot is held by a speculator that is a

very likely outcome. A speculator holds a lot in the hope of at some point in the future some

type of capital improvement such as a transit or trolley line will be put in the area, or something

like a hospital or university looking to expand will be interested in the area or in the area

nearby. If this happens, the owner of this lot can sell it for three or five times the amount they

paid for it. So if they bought this lot for $12,000 they could sell it for $36,000 or $60,000. The

only person benefiting from this arrangement is the lot owner. A land value tax would

discourage this lot holder from sitting on the lot and instead either developing it himself or

herself or selling to someone who would.

4 Dale Bails, “Two Municipal Revenue Sources Contrasted: The Land Value Tax and the Property Tax,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology (1974): 187. . 5 E. P. Tanzer, "The Effect on Housing Quality of Reducing the Structure Tax Rate." Journal of Urban Economics 17(3): 305-318 (1985): 305.


We know that with a traditional 31 mill tax rate the taxes on this lot are $372 a year. Let's

say this municipality enacts a land value tax, what would happen to the taxes on this lot? A

typical land value tax on land is 110 mills which is .11%. At that tax rate the taxes on this piece

of property would go to $1320 a year. That is close to 10% of the assessment value. With this

yearly tax bill this property owner will not want to hold on to this land for 10, 15 or 20 years.

This is an example of how land value tax encourages infill development, by discouraging owners

of these infill lots from holding them out of the market.

With a traditional property tax, developers and home owners who improve their property

are penalized by having to pay taxes on value they created. Landowners, on the other hand,

when they sell their land are often the recipients of windfall profits that are the result of no

effort or investment of their own but are the result of investment and improvements of the

larger community.

C. Smart Growth

In addition to the goal of encouraging development, LVT has been promoted by supporters

as providing an added incentive to many of smart growth’s design patterns. These patterns

include compact building design, dense neighborhoods, distinct communities, the re-population

of downtowns and elimination of blight, economic vitality, and increased transit options.

From the definitions of Smart Growth and land value taxation, the common purpose can be

easily seen. Both strategies are land use centric as well as comprehensive. Both strategies

revolve around directing development into urban areas while keeping it from greenfields. Both

are holistic in their plans for community improvement. Finally, the goals and objectives of both

are the same, only the methodologies may differ.

A land value tax helps promote and support principal Smart Growth objectives. A land value

tax promotes the objective of infill development by creating a disincentive to hold empty lots.

This is the result of the increased holding cost from the higher taxes, freeing lots for building.


Since land is fixed in supply this has a tendency to lower the selling price, bringing the price

more into line with its true market value.

A land value tax promotes compactness and density by producing more efficient

consolidated units with an incentive to build upward with more units. This is caused by the

increased tax on land combined with the decreased tax on buildings resulting in the economic

incentive to construct more building on less land.

A land value tax helps make communities more distinctive and sustainable by allowing

investment in homes with smaller tax increases. Homeowners can build additions, improve

their houses, or renovate run down dwellings without being punished with as large a tax

increase.

A land value tax makes neighborhoods more mixed-use and walkable since density draws

stores and retail. It also supports transit oriented development through its ability to act as a

land value capture tool. Using land value capture allows project expenses to be paid for through

the capture of the resulting rise in land values. And lastly, while not as effective as other

program in protecting the environment, it has been shown that with proper zoning and

regulations, LVT does not reduce open space or impact the environment negatively.

D. Job Creation

Economists, such as Gregory Ingram of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, like a land value

tax for its ability to be an efficient tax that produces few unintended costs while still raising

revenue. To economists, a tax on land is different than a tax on other things like cars,

appliances or buildings. Economists talk about the efficiency of a tax, which means how the tax

affects other goods and services in the economy. With a building tax, the tax increases the cost

of the good sold. If you put a tax on buildings or other real estate improvements, the selling

price of those products will go up. This diminishes the quantity demanded for the product, so

less is sold. This leads to decreases in production by the companies building or developing the


product. Less production leads to fewer jobs, which leads to less money spent in the economy.

Put in economic terms; “the resulting reduction in production and consumption of the good is a

distortion caused by the tax, and this reduction imposes an additional cost on the local

economy.”6

Land is fixed in quantity. It is not manufactured in its raw state by humans so production of

it cannot be decreased. Since the amount is fixed permanently, “when a tax does not affect the

amount of the commodity produced or consumed, there is no additional cost, and such a tax is

more efficient (less costly to the local economy) than other taxes that reduce production.”

7

By penalizing non-production, a land value tax encourages landowners to develop their

land, thereby creating jobs and other benefits. It also reduces speculation, bringing land prices

more into line to true market rates, eliminates ‘deadweight’ loss, and helps foster employment.

E. Economic Development

A land value tax does not need any investment from the local government. It can be used to

effectively stimulate downtown revitalization without the necessity of capital flow from public

coffers. Conventional property tax increases, income taxes, and special sales taxes are a

deterrent to businesses locating in downtown areas. A land value tax can help mitigate the

negative impact of other taxes without a loss of revenue from these other sources.8

6 Richard Dye and Richard England. Land Value Taxation: Theory Evidence and Practice. (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2009) ix.

The cost to

do this would be relatively insignificant given most other major policy changes. Costs involved

would be labor in changing forms and software and other administrative expenses. There

7 Dye ix. 8 Thomas Shepstone, “Land Value Tax: A Planning Tool?” http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/upload/Land%20Tax%20and%20Planning2005.pdf.

http://www.urbantoolsconsult.org/upload/Land%20Tax%20and%20Planning2005.pdf�


would be no ‘growing of government’ since a land value tax does not necessitate any additional

labor in its management than what is common for a traditional property tax.

A land value tax creates mixed-use and walkable neighborhoods by increasing the

population density that generally draws retail. When we talk about mixed-use and walkable we

generally mean that there are retail stores that are within a short distance of living

accommodations.

Knowing that location decisions for retail businesses are subsequent to customer dwelling

decisions, it can be surmised that the density of the population is the determining factor in

drawing mixed use retail. This gives the order of precedence in creating mixed use

neighborhoods to developing higher residential densities and, with proper zoning, allowing the

market to incorporate the retail businesses into that area.9

F. LVT as a substitute or complement for other development tools

(abatements, enterprise zones, etc)

A land value tax is not a standalone concept but can be combined with other economic

incentive programs. Using a combination of economic incentives with LVT as the base can have

strategic advantages. A land value tax is a general tax that covers an entire taxing district.

Abatements, TIFs and BIDs are targeted to precise areas and certain businesses. Depending on

the priorities for the district, a land value tax can be used in combination with other incentive

programs for greater effect.

Abatements, TIFs, and BIDs have negative aspects associated with them that are not found

with a land value tax. Abatements are only temporary, most not lasting longer than ten years.

Once this period is up, the business has a strong incentive to relocate, which often happens.

LVT is permanent so businesses are encouraged to stay. If expansion or growth is wanted, the

9 Dr. Albert E. Myles, “Understanding Your Trade Area: Implications for Retail Analysis,” Mississippi State University, Pub 2321 (2003).


business has a financial reason to stay in the area. TIF’s and abatements are often targeted to

bigger business. Small businesses have to pay the full tax burden. For many communities the

small business is the main supplier of jobs and revenue. A land value tax supports the small

businesses as well as the large. This makes it fairer and more inclusive.

G. Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

With a traditional property tax, one of the benefits not taken advantage of is the ability of a

transit system to pay for itself. Tax policy can be a major factor for transportation funding. Since

transportation systems are a result of public investment, the increase in land value should be

captured and returned to the public from where the investment came. Taxed in this way, there

would be less dependence on Federal, State, and Regional funding that is derived from income

taxes. These taxes could then be used for other purposes. LVT is one of the methods available that

can capture these values to be used to finance urban mass transit systems. “The tax in this case

creates an incentive for households to locate in high accessibility urban areas, thus increasing their

use of public transport services. Value capture taxation aims to create a financial tool capable of

sponsoring public transport.”10

The greatest beneficiary of TOD’s is the real estate market surrounding transit facilities.

Studies by Robert Cevero and Michael Duncan of the University of California, Berkeley have

shown capitalization benefits of twenty three percent for a typical commercial parcel near a

TOD and more than one hundred and twenty percent for commercial land in business district

within a quarter mile of a commuter rail station. These studies are important to commercial

developers and lenders as well as rail transit agencies that need to answer questions on

10 Francesca Medda, “Land Value Tax as an Investment Mechanism for Public Transport Assets,” UCLA (2009): 1.


assumed negative impacts associated with being near rail. These studies can also help in

designing creative financing, such as value capture programs.11

H. Environment

Many present tax and land use policies encourage consumption of land for low density uses,

pushing back the boundaries of rural areas and encouraging urban sprawl. Sprawl has the effect

of eliminating productive farming land while ignoring the benefits of urban life such as

interpersonal contact, cooperation, and exchange.12

Other environmental benefits of a land value tax are, as with transit oriented development,

it is a land value capture tool that can be used to finance open space and green projects such as

parks. LVT’s use as a land value capture tool can be compared to tax increment financing where

the financing comes from the projects themselves, rather than the general taxpayer.

LVT slows sprawl by encouraging density.

Lowering the tax on structures will encourage more structures to be built on a given land area

so the same population can be housed in a smaller area.

13

When directed properly, tax policy is a valuable tool in preventing sprawl. Tax policies such

as land value taxation must be designed so they do not impede other resources of sprawl

prevention, such as land conservation. As with most strategies to protect the environment, the

prevention of sprawl and protection of open space using tools such as land conservation and

This land

value capture can be used to finance community projects or to support environmental projects

that are important to the community.

11 Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan, “Rail Transit’s Value-Added: Effects of Proximity to Light and Commuter Rail Transit on Commercial Land Values in Santa Clara County, California,” Urban Land Institute National Association of Realtors (June 2001): 1.

12 Bails 189. 13 John L. Crompton, Impact of parks and open space on property values and the property tax base, (Ashburn, Va.: National Recreation and Park Association, 2000) 22.


LVT must be planned and carried out comprehensively. Linkages between various Smart

Growth policies, both legislative like land conservation, and financial like tax policy, are

essential for the success of environmental protection.14

I. Issues relative to implementing a land value tax

Most of the known concerns and potential problems with a land value tax are related to the

following four key issues:

Taxation of unrealized capital gains: The property tax in general is an unpopular tax, largely

because it is a tax on wealth rather than current cash flow. The property’s value increases

raising the tax on it, but the owner does not receive this benefit until the property is sold. In the

meantime they still need to pay the higher taxes out of their monthly income.

Land value assessment and rate setting: Land value taxation requires consistent land and building

assessments, which may be more problematic than assessments of total property value. With a

traditional property tax, the total is the important number and how it is divided is relatively

unimportant. With a land value tax, the division takes on more significance

Winners and losers: Changing from a property tax to a land value tax creates “winners and losers”

and therefore raises concerns about fairness. This can contribute to political confrontations between

those who support and those who oppose land value taxation.

Lack of understanding: Perhaps most importantly, the land value tax and its benefits are not well

understood by many in the public arena and citizens at large.15

Other concerns: Include the market, which is the main factor in determining if construction is

economically profitable or not and whether a developer will build or not. There may be little or no

14 Gregory Ingram, Armando Carbonell, Yu-Hung Hong and Anthony Flint, Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes, (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2009) 15. 15 Dye 195-196.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Gregory%20Ingram�

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Armando%20Carbonell�

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_3?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Yu-Hung%20Hong�

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_4?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Anthony%20Flint�


demand for new or renovated buildings, meaning that lowering the tax rate on buildings will have little

or no effect on the amount of development. It will, however, cause the land owners to feel that the

property tax is particularly burdensome. If the land value tax is adopted with the unrealistic hope of

developing an area that has no market potential, the only thing a switch from a property tax to a land

value tax does is redistribute tax burdens without any efficiency gains.16

The important point to remember is that all towns are different; study is essential. Most towns will

benefit from LVT, but some won’t. The impact on each municipality individually will determine the

effectiveness of any tax structure changes.

What this means is one can

influence the market, but cannot dictate to it. There are other factors involved: the market,

political will, community buy in, the macro economy, etc.

16 Dye 207.


IV. Study examples of a Land Value Tax in Connecticut

A. Hartford

Examples of how a land value tax affects specific parcels in a section of the Upper

Albany Historic District in Hartford

This section is crucial in understanding how a land value tax works and why it is so

effective in bringing investment into a city. Here are four examples starting with a completely

empty lot, the second example is a blighted house, the third example is a 2 family home which

would be attractive to an investor, and the fourth example is for a typical 1 family owner

occupied home, a very important demographic.

These are just four examples and this analysis can be done for any lot in the city. We

focus on Upper Albany, since this part of the city is most familiar to CSE. A similar analysis can

be done for any desired neighborhood or district, or town.

In reviewing this analysis it is important to understand that a land value tax is not strictly

for the distribution of taxes from one segment of the tax base to another. It is important to

understand that whether your taxes increase or decrease, every property owner is positively

affected by a land value tax in that all properties will pay fewer taxes on any future

improvements. This is beneficial not only in being able to invest in your own home without fear

of a large tax increase, but the ability of the neighbors to do the same strengthens the

neighborhood which benefits all. A rising tide lifts all boats.


Section of Upper Albany Historic District used for examples

This map shows a targeted LVT. In other words the calculations were done capturing

just the specific area. The rest of Hartford would remain under the current tax. A targeted LVT

may be more practical if there is interest in LVT but maybe not enough support to enact it over

the entire city.

Since this area is very homogeneous there is very little shifting of taxes when switching

from the current tax to a land value tax. The biggest increases in this area are on the vacant

lots, represented by the bolder orange circles on the map.

Hartford Upper Albany taxes collected with traditional tax = $5,203,377

Hartford Upper Albany taxes collected with LVT tax = $5,203,377

Average Decrease = 9.0%

Average Increase = 9.7%


This section shows comparisons of individual lots in Upper Albany when the current tax

is replaced with a land value tax. This type of analysis can be provided for any lot in

Connecticut.

Example 1 - Empty Lot

Upper Albany, Hartford – Value $13,500

This is a typical empty lot found in Upper Albany. Although there are not as many of

these lots in Upper Albany as there are in other parts of Hartford, it would still be beneficial to

put these empty lots into productive use.


This table shows what happens to the taxes on this lot when switching to a land value

tax. The first column shows the tax shift on the empty lot when replacing the current tax with a

land value tax. As can be seen the taxes increase substantially. The second column shows what

the tax would be if someone was to construct a $150,000 building on the lot. As can be seen,

the tax bill for the LVT property is now lower than that of the current tax system.


Using the table above we can construct a graph showing exactly how a land value tax

would incentivize the productive use of this lot. What this graph shows, and it's basically in two

parts, the left half shows that the rise in holding costs is an incentive for the land owner to build

or sell. The right half of the graph shows that the decrease in tax bill allows the homeowner to

reduce their mortgage, since taxes and insurance are usually rolled into the mortgage. If built

by a builder or developer they can capitalize the savings into the selling price, giving the ability

to sell units for less resulting in more units sold. This graph is why a land value tax is sometimes

called the carrot and stick approach to development. The left side of the graph is the stick; it's a

disincentive for the landowner to hold property out of the market. The right side of the graph is

the carrot; it is the incentive for the builder to build on that property.

Rise in holding costs is an incentive for the land owner to build or sell

The decrease in tax bill allows the homeowner to reduce their mortgage bringing more buyers into the housing market pool.


Example 2 - Bank owned single family



In this example we are starting with a building already on the lot, although it appears to

be uninhabitable, given the low assessment. This house has many interesting architectural

features and some good, although overgrown landscaping, making it desirable and valuable to

the neighborhood. This house is typical of the buildings LVT could rejuvenate.


Same graph as above using this properties land and building assessment values.

This is a good example of why looking at simply who would pay more or less when

discussing property taxes is not illustrative as to final effect and why a land value tax needs to

be explained in detail. A cursory look at this property, which is common, would only show the

taxes being raised. The initial reaction would be to say this is not desirable. The goal of a land

value tax is not so much to redistribute the tax burden as it is to spur investment in buildings

and properties. This graph shows how this is done.


Example 3 - 2 Family in Need of Repair



In this example we are looking at a two family house that needs some repairs, although

not as many as the previous example. A land value tax on this property would make it more

desirable for an investor to buy and rehabilitate.


It would be more typical for a house needing repair that the tax before investment would be

the same for both a standard tax and a land value tax. In this case the building to land ratio is

about 10 to 1. The average for the Upper Albany neighborhood is about 6 to 1, which is why in

this case the taxes before investment actually decrease with LVT. In most cases homes that are

lived in and are maintained are the properties most likely to get an initial tax decrease with LVT.


Example 4 - Single family owner occupied



These houses are more typical of properties that get an initial tax break, as can be seen in the table.



V. Conclusion

Every town is distinctive and needs to customize their plans and programs to their

unique needs. LVT has the ability to suit many towns’ unique needs. Its strongest points are; it

has a record of success where implemented, it involves minimal costs to administer, it can be

phased in over time and at various mill rates, and it can be employed with and complement

most other municipal programs

A land value tax can be used with established CBD and neighborhood revitalization

programs, tax increment financing, abatements, vacant property registration, and land banks.

It can complement suggested best practices such as those proposed in the American Planning

Association’s Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. It can be used with open space initiatives

and agricultural preservation programs. LVT works at all levels of government and private

enterprise, from low income to higher income, and from small business to corporations. This is

why LVT is unique when compared to other incentive programs. Most other programs are

limited and narrower in focus.

Attention to economic concerns should include consideration of economic development,

job generation, and in creating land use demand. Public officials and citizens must more deeply

understand how tax policy drives land decisions, job generation which affects adequate

housing, and how tax policy can be used to plan for, build, and finance infrastructure in a timely

and cost effective manner.17

It should be understood, however, that while regulation can keep owners from using their

property for any harmful purposes, in a free economy it cannot compel them to do something

with it that would benefit the community. Encouragement of development relies more on

economic knowledge of fiscal models such as the land value tax.

18

17 Stuart Meck general editor, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, (Chicago: American Planning Association, 2002) A-9.

18 Dale Bails, “Two Municipal Revenue Sources Contrasted: The Land Value Tax and the Property Tax,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology (1974): 190.


VI. References

Bails, Dale. “Two Municipal Revenue Sources Contrasted: The Land Value Tax and the

Property Tax.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology (1974).

Cervero, Robert and Michael Duncan. “Rail Transit’s Value-Added: Effects of Proximity to

Light and Commuter Rail Transit on Commercial Land Values in Santa Clara County,

California.” Urban Land Institute National Association of Realtors (June 2001).

Crompton, John L. Impact of parks and open space on property values and the property tax

base. Ashburn, Va.: National Recreation and Park Association, 2000.

Dye, Richard and Richard England. Land Value Taxation: Theory Evidence and Practice.

Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2009.

Ingram, Gregory and Armando Carbonell and Yu-Hung Hong and Anthony Flint. Smart

Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes. Cambridge: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy, 2009.

Meck, Stuart general editor. Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. Chicago: American

Planning Association, 2002.

Medda, Francesca. “Land Value Tax as an Investment Mechanism for Public Transport

Assets.” UCLA (2009).

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Gregory%20Ingram�

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_2?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Armando%20Carbonell�

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_3?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Yu-Hung%20Hong�

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_4?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Anthony%20Flint�


Myles, Dr. Albert E. “Understanding Your Trade Area: Implications for Retail Analysis.”

Mississippi State University Pub 2321 (2003).

Shepstone, Thomas. “Land Value Tax: A Planning Tool?” <http://www.urbantools.org/policy-

papers/blight-and- development/Land%20Tax%20and%20Planning2005.doc/view>

Tanzer, E. P. "The Effect on Housing Quality of Reducing the Structure Tax Rate." Journal of

Urban Economics 17(3) (1985): 305-318.

http://www.urbantools.org/policy-papers/blight-and-�

http://www.urbantools.org/policy-papers/blight-and-�


VII. Appendix

Site Value/Land Value Taxation Bills and Statute Introduced since 1989 in Connecticut

tem # Year DB Num Document

Name Document Title # of

Hits

1 1989 TOB 7018 1989HB-

07018-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING SITE-VALUE TAXATION. 15

2 1989 TOB 962 1989SB-

00962-R00-SB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF SITE VALUE PROPERTY TAXATION. 3

3 1998 TOB 382 1998SB-

00382-R00-SB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING SITE VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00382

Last Action: 4/8/1998 No Action Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee

Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

4 1998 RPT 47 98-R-0047.HTM

Property Tax Initiatives 6

Item # Year DB Num Document

Name Document Title # of

Hits

1 1999 TOB 6904 1999HB-06904-R00-HB.HTM

An Act Concerning Land Value Taxation. Information on Underlying Bill: HB06904 Last Action: 5/11/1999 File Number 0683 Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; REP. LANDINO, R. 035 Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

2 1999 TOB 1999HB-06904-R01-HB.HTM


9

3 1999 TOB 6904 1999HB-06904-R02-HB.HTM


9

4 2000 TOB 78 2000SB-00078-R00-SB.HTM

An Act Concerning Land Value Taxation In Distressed Municipalities. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00078 Last Action: 2/14/2000 Public Hearing 0218 Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee Committees: Planning and Development Committee

9

5 2001 RPT 359 2001-R-0359.HTM

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BILLS FAVORABLY REPORTED TO THE FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE

3

6 2001 TOB 6594 2001HB-06594-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: HB06594 Last Action: 3/15/2001 Favorable Change of Reference, Senate to Committee on FIN Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee

9

http://search.cga.state.ct.us/CGATextSearch/legis_info_avail.htm�

http://search.cga.state.ct.us/adv/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=11978&Index=I%3a%5czindex%5c1998&HitCount=6&hits=b19+b1a+b1b+b40+b41+b42+&hc=33&req=site+value+taxation&Item=0�









http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00382&which_year=1998�



http://search.cga.state.ct.us/CGATextSearch/legis_info_avail.htm�

http://search.cga.state.ct.us/adv/dtsearch.asp?cmd=getdoc&DocId=21785&Index=I%3a%5czindex%5c1999&HitCount=3&hits=12bf+12c0+12c1+&hc=252&req=land+value+taxation&Item=0�



http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB06904&which_year=1999�





















Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

7 2001 TOB 6594 2001HB-06594-R01-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: HB06594 Last Action: 3/15/2001 Favorable Change of Reference, Senate to Committee on FIN Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

8 2002 RPT 342 2002-R-0342.HTM

SUMMARIES OF 2002 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BILLS REFERRED TO THE FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE

3

9 2002 TOB 5069 2002HB-05069-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: HB05069 Last Action: 3/26/2002 Motion Failed Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; Rep. Mushinsky, M. 085 Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

10 2002 TOB 5069 2002HB-05069-R01-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: HB05069 Last Action: 3/26/2002 Motion Failed Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; Rep. Mushinsky, M. 085 Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

11 2003 RPT 419 2003-R-0419.HTM

COMPARISON OF THE SINGLE AND SPLIT RATE PROPERTY TAX SYSTEMS

3

12 2003 TOB 5804 2003HB-05804-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT AUTHORIZING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: HB05804 Last Action: 1/23/2003 Referred to Joint Committee on FIN Sponsors: Rep. Davis, J. 050 Committees: Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

13 2003 TOB 5903 2003HB-05903-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION AND REQUIRING A STUDY OF ITS EFFECTS. Information on Underlying Bill: HB05903 Last Action: 2/6/2003 Public Hearing 0210 Sponsors: Rep. Davis, J. 050 Committees: Planning and Development Committee

15

14 2003 TOB 538 2003SB-00538-R02-SB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING REVALUATION OF PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITIES, LAND VALUE TAXATION AND THE CERTIFICATION OF REVALUATION APPRAISERS Information on Underlying Bill: SB00538 Last Action: 4/23/2003 Referred by Senate to Committee on FIN Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; Sen. Cappiello, D. S24 ; Sen. Handley, M. S04 ... Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

9

15 2004 RPT 85 2004-R-0085.HTM

THE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND HB 6440 3

16 2006 RPT 301 2006-R-0301.HTM

COMPARISON OF EMINENT DOMAIN BILLS 3

17 2009 RPT 190 2009-R-0190.HTM

2009 MAJOR BILLS AFFECTING BUSINESS 3

18 2009 RPT 370 2009-R-0370.HTM

ACTS AFFECTING TAXES 6

19 2009 TOB 5540 2009HB-05540-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL REVENUE DIVERSIFICATION. Information on Underlying Bill: HB05540 Last Action: 2/13/2009 Public Hearing 0218

3












































Sponsors: Rep. Candelaria, J. 095 ; Rep. Dillon, P. 092 ; Rep. Megna, R. 097 Committees: Planning and Development Committee

20 2009 TOB 5542 2009HB-05542-R00-HB.HTM

AN ACT AUTHORIZING TOWNS TO LEVY CERTAIN TAXES. Information on Underlying Bill: HB05542 Last Action: 2/13/2009 Public Hearing 0218 Sponsors: Rep. Urban, D. 043 Committees: Planning and Development Committee

3

21 2009 TOB 379 2009SB-00379-R00-SB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00379 Last Action: 7/1/2009 Signed by the Governor Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; Sen. Looney, M. S11 ; Sen. Prague, E. S19 ... Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

12

22 2009 TOB 379 2009SB-00379-R01-SB.HTM

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A LAND VALUE TAXATION PILOT PROGRAM. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00379 Last Action: 7/1/2009 Signed by the Governor Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; Sen. Looney, M. S11 ; Sen. Prague, E. S19 ... Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

12

23 2009 TOB 379 2009SB-00379-R02-SB.HTM


12

24 2009 TOB 379 2009SB-00379-R03-SB.HTM


12

25 2009 TOB 392 2009SB-00392-R00-SB.HTM

AN ACT AUTHORIZING MUNICIPALITIES TO ADOPT LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00392 Last Action: 2/13/2009 Public Hearing 0218 Sponsors: Sen. Maynard, A. S18 ; Sen. Stillman, A. S20 Committees: Planning and Development Committee

12

26 2011 TOB 130 2011SB-00130-R00-SB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING LAND VALUE TAXATION. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00130 Last Action: 5/5/2011 Referred by Senate to Committee on FIN Sponsors: Planning and Development Committee; Sen. Looney, M. S11 ; Rep. Rojas, J. 009 Committees: Planning and Development Committee; Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

12

27 2011 TOB 130 2011SB-00130-R01-SB.HTM


18




































28 2011 TOB 130 2011SB-00130-R02-SB.HTM


15

29 2013 TOB 843 2013SB-00843-R00-SB.HTM

AN ACT CONCERNING REVENUE ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET. Information on Underlying Bill: SB00843 Last Action: 2/27/2013 Public Hearing 0304 Sponsors: Sen. Williams, D. S29 ; Sen. Looney, M. S11 ; Rep. Sharkey, J. 088 ... Committees: Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee

6

30 1998 RPT 611 98-R-0611.HTM

Land Value Tax 3

31 1999 RPT 483 99-R-0483.HTM

1999 Bills Affecting Municipalities 3














Documents

Educational Overview of Land Value Tax for Connecticut