top | item 42047003

(no title)

rcstank | 1 year ago

Alice is not maintaining ownership of the land at all once it is sold to Bob.

She owns specific rights separate from the ownership of the land.

discuss

order

derekp7|1 year ago

What is property ownership, really? Isn't it the exclusive right to do things with that property, and exclude random others from it? You buy a standard city lot, you have the right to build a house on it and to keep others off your property.

If Alice still has some say over what can be done with a property, even if it is through a contract with Bob, then how is Alice able to tell Charlie what he can do with the property once Bob sells it to Charlie? When Charlie never signed any paperwork with Alice? That sounds like something that comes with still having some level of ownership, even if the law that enables the restrictions to be enforced don't word it that way. And that is where I'm saying that the county can write into the tax law that this type of control is taxable with property tax (because even if it isn't technically ownership of the land, the right of enforcing the restrictions is still something that Alice owns).

I'd also like to see taxes on property that is underutilized (for the zoning that it is in). For example, some landlords would prefer to not rent out units rather than lower the rent to market rates (either housing or storefront properties), contributing to a constrained supply. If property taxes are raised on a unit that is unoccupied for a specific length of time, that would encourage the owner to rent it out at what the market is willing to pay instead of artificially keeping the rent higher and therefore the building empty.

sooheon|1 year ago

This is a distinction without a difference if those rights constrain what can be done with the land.

ttyprintk|1 year ago

She has a good posture in court; or in mediation or arbitration. That’s all. The deed restriction might grant her hunting privileges, but she can’t cut a lock.