Kudos for another great insight! Amazingly it's even started directionally downtown in a consequential manner. CBD is a yawn, it was mapped in the streetcar era, but this mindset can help better align the built environment with Austin’s 21st century mobility model & central city goals. We have some downtown SF3 zoned lots (lol) TCAD reappraised at $200 per square foot in 2026 just for land <=> only one of those can be right <=> both SF3 & $200/SF for land tax can only co-exist on Bllionaires Row, and NYC ain't conceding that to us.
seems like a really interesting idea in the CBD. and maybe less interesting elsewhere but it does feel like a split tax could increase pressure to develop vacant lots. i’d want to understand the impact on long term home owners who haven’t built their mc mansions :) i think we’ve all been okay with the new monster house paying more in tax
Step One would be to model it out to see what the impact would actually be. I’m mostly concerned with incentivizing the development of vacant or under built land in Central Austin, but the actual impact on homeowners would inform the politics!
and I think those are solvable problems by either having different tax increment zones or a balance of land/property tax. and a tax scheme that encourages homeowners to downsize when they don't need all the space has some benefits. just need to figure out how it affects every neighborhoods' "Charlie Brown house" :)
The state's extra homestead exemption for senior citizens likely discourages downsizing. I know the city has used various TIFs and TIRZes to redevelop targeted areas like Seaholm and Second Street, and that model might work for larger contiguous areas (maybe the east side of Downtown north of 6th St?). But the vacancy/underbuilt problem is across a much wider area, and I don't know if those tools would allow for a less-targeted blanket approach to, say, the entire Central City District. The city should evaluate all options, though.
Charlie Brown might be an apt comparison for what could be a political football!
Kudos for another great insight! Amazingly it's even started directionally downtown in a consequential manner. CBD is a yawn, it was mapped in the streetcar era, but this mindset can help better align the built environment with Austin’s 21st century mobility model & central city goals. We have some downtown SF3 zoned lots (lol) TCAD reappraised at $200 per square foot in 2026 just for land <=> only one of those can be right <=> both SF3 & $200/SF for land tax can only co-exist on Bllionaires Row, and NYC ain't conceding that to us.
Thanks, Phil! I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it's the zoning that's not right. 😂
I like the idea of the split tax rate; I think it provides both greater and more stable revenue.
I think it’s more politically palatable, too, and still achieves a lot of the objectives.
Agreed.
seems like a really interesting idea in the CBD. and maybe less interesting elsewhere but it does feel like a split tax could increase pressure to develop vacant lots. i’d want to understand the impact on long term home owners who haven’t built their mc mansions :) i think we’ve all been okay with the new monster house paying more in tax
Step One would be to model it out to see what the impact would actually be. I’m mostly concerned with incentivizing the development of vacant or under built land in Central Austin, but the actual impact on homeowners would inform the politics!
and I think those are solvable problems by either having different tax increment zones or a balance of land/property tax. and a tax scheme that encourages homeowners to downsize when they don't need all the space has some benefits. just need to figure out how it affects every neighborhoods' "Charlie Brown house" :)
The state's extra homestead exemption for senior citizens likely discourages downsizing. I know the city has used various TIFs and TIRZes to redevelop targeted areas like Seaholm and Second Street, and that model might work for larger contiguous areas (maybe the east side of Downtown north of 6th St?). But the vacancy/underbuilt problem is across a much wider area, and I don't know if those tools would allow for a less-targeted blanket approach to, say, the entire Central City District. The city should evaluate all options, though.
Charlie Brown might be an apt comparison for what could be a political football!