I support HB10, to allow (not mandate) localities to tax improvements on land at a different rate than the land itself. This idea gives cities more autonomy, so that local governments can make local decisions. Further, this capability gives localities a tool to use that can be used to incentivize development of vacant land - which is a big problem in my hometown of Newport News. Splitting the tax rate by lowering the tax on improvements can incentivize development, and it also just makes sense. Why punish someone for building a nicer house on the same size land as someone who builds a shack? We should be incentivizing efficient development, not punishing it. Similarly, in an area like downtown Newport News, why would we want someone to tax someone more who has invested their money in building a parking garage or commercial complex than someone who is just speculating on land or using it inefficiently as a surface parking lot? To summarize, we should be incentivizing efficient, productive development rather than land speculation, which is what this bill allows localities to do. At worst, it just gives local governments the autonomy to make their own decisions, which is a positive feature in a republic. Please support HB10 moving forward.

HB 10 - Virginia First Cities is supportive of HB 10 as it gives all our cities/local governments the option to reclassify improvements to real property as a separate class for tax purposes. We think this can be a strong tool (a carrot and not a mandate) for encouraging more affordable housing, primarily by incentivizing higher-density development and reducing land speculation. This approach might also help our cities as it can be a disincentive to holding vacant or underutilized land and reward the construction or improvement of housing units.

I was an assessor with the City of Alexandria for 10 years. I am now a retired real estate appraiser. This proposed law has a huge potential for confusing taxpayer. The value of the improvements is much less important than the land value and the total value of a property. The value of the improvements is a hypothetical number. "Improvements" do not sell by themselves. Vacant land sells and improved broperties (land and buildings) sell. The value of the improvements should be the difference between the the value of the land the total value. Will assessors pay closer attention to the highest and best use of each property if this law is implemented? Will it be applied to all properties (residential, commercial, and industrial) if a jurisdiction chooses to implement it? There will be endless arguments about how much of a property's total value should be allocated to the land as opposed to the improvements. Owners of more valuable properties will have "tax reps" and attorneys to argue their cases. Single family homeowners will not. If this proposed law is to be implemented properly, the assessor will need additional staff. It's a bad idea to implement policy through tax rates.