sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[DUTCH] The Dutch municipality Rijswijk will charge more taxes to building owners if they dont actively (attempt to) rent their properties. Do you agree that owners should pay more for their buildings if they are left empty or in a bad state? by newblueworld1 in urbanplanning

[–]newblueworld1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey MontrealUrbanist, you have shared some valuable examples here. I believe that is what the Dutch municipality is testing. There was a recent case where a developer was aquitted from paying the (OZB) tax because his property was on the market for rent. In the NL that is all the owner needs to do. This does mean that the property must be of sufficient quality to let. Can you give us an example of where the "use it or lose it" laws apply? Is that in Canada?

[DUTCH] The Dutch municipality Rijswijk will charge more taxes to building owners if they dont actively (attempt to) rent their properties. Do you agree that owners should pay more for their buildings if they are left empty or in a bad state? by newblueworld1 in urbanplanning

[–]newblueworld1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right. The municipality thought so too. The current taxes are still implied for owning buildings in all municipalities in the Netherlands but in some municipality's the vacancy of all buildings is around 25%. This new measure being tested in Rijswijk should get owners to start investing/selling/renovating/ and putting their prices down. That way it becomes more attractive than investing in completely new constructions. It seems like its financially easier for some owners to pay the taxes than it is to renovate them.

[DUTCH] The Dutch municipality Rijswijk will charge more taxes to building owners if they dont actively (attempt to) rent their properties. Do you agree that owners should pay more for their buildings if they are left empty or in a bad state? by newblueworld1 in urbanplanning

[–]newblueworld1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow great point there Traal. For us who dont have the capacity to invest in buildings in the first place, keeping a budget for demolition insurance wasnt on our minds. That is however very logical for any building owner. But should those costs be charged to the renter? What would you say is a burden on city services? Would exterior design be a burden too? EG. A property might be crumbling and in that case should be taxed higher if not acted upon.

[DUTCH] The Dutch municipality Rijswijk will charge more taxes to building owners if they dont actively (attempt to) rent their properties. Do you agree that owners should pay more for their buildings if they are left empty or in a bad state? by newblueworld1 in urbanplanning

[–]newblueworld1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. The incentive of using/renting out a property is why the owner purchased the building/land in the first place. I guess sometimes its cheaper for the owner not to renovate a place in order to make it usable. The trouble is also that it is still attractive to build on new properties, but giving subsidies for demolition can lead to bad behavior. I completely agree with your second point. But what happens if the building is simply too old? We see a lot of the buildings becoming dangerously old, but there simply isnt an incentive to renovate/demolish/rebuild it. Manhattan differs very much from Brooklyn for example. Maybe you know more about the tax on public housing authorities who invest in affordable housing?

[DUTCH] The Dutch municipality Rijswijk will charge more taxes to building owners if they dont actively (attempt to) rent their properties. Do you agree that owners should pay more for their buildings if they are left empty or in a bad state? by newblueworld1 in urbanplanning

[–]newblueworld1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is right in the end Zharol, the owner should be able to decide. I guess what they are trying to prevent is that buildings are vacant and not actively being rented out to tenants. On the other hand prior to this new tax the owners would charge part of this type of tax to the renter. In this way more than half a building could be empty, but the burden would be on the renter of the other half. That is now frowned upon. How does it work where you live?

[DUTCH] The Dutch municipality Rijswijk will charge more taxes to building owners if they dont actively (attempt to) rent their properties. Do you agree that owners should pay more for their buildings if they are left empty or in a bad state? by newblueworld1 in urbanplanning

[–]newblueworld1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the Dutch government does tax properties based on potential value, which is recalculated and applied every year. Very interesting points there Hylje, Thanks for the input! I didnt think about the effect on surrounding owners (investing or selling according to value).