by bpt3 | 2025-08-07 19:17:42+00:00
> Absolutely valid to say that "best and highest use" is vague and untrustworthy at best, but it's said this way to avoid getting trapped in the weeds of what exactly it means.

I want the government to be "trapped in the weeds" of specific definitions of terms, not free to define them as whomever is in charge at the moment sees fit.

> Broadly speaking, "best and highest use" is entirely contextual to the land in question. The "best" use for 40 acres of nutrient-rich soil an hour away from the nearest city is going to be agriculture. While a plot of land smack dab in the middle of mainstreet in a rural town would probably be a commercial building or a mixed use building offering an apartment(s) above a shop or restaurant of some kind. Downtown in a metropolis would be some multi-storied residential or business/commercial building, while the middle of nowhere filled with trees is forestry and maybe mining. Everything is contextual.

Absolutely, and I believe the landowner (influenced by the market of potential alternative landowners) is the person to make that decision, not the taxing agency.

> Who determines the "best" use case is usually delegated to a free market of land value appraisers. It seems counter-intuitive to leave so much leeway at this part, but consider that land value taxation is attempting to best capture the true value of the land. Meaning that land owners want the lowest possible valuation of their land to pay less taxes, but since land can't be hidden, it's (in theory) hard to fake the value of your land. I can't argue my house in an urban community is relatively worthless when A) every neighboring piece of land will have more or less the same value, and B) everyone can see where the land my house is located and what's around it.

It seems like zoning and other restrictions are also very important here, which provides yet another conflict of interest.

> This plays into your first comment, if your neighbor adds a bunch of improvements to his land, if you and your other neighbors gain benefit from those improvements (they opened a store, or a school, or installed a modern sewer system or clean drinking water system, or created a private land reserve, and you and your property have access to these), then yes your land would see an increase in value as a result. However, these types of improvements are rarely the case, and are mostly handled by some form of government. The same with a neighbor "overpaying", since in theory they wouldn't "overpay", they'd just be paying the value that the land is assessed at.

> Alternatively, if your neighborhood is run down compared to something brand new and shiny, and all of your neighbors decide to clean things up and do renovations and increase the overall perceived value of the neighborhood, then yes you'd see your property value increase as a result of others actions. But this is no different than when communities go through "urban renewal" and other programs that artificially increase the communities' value as a result of private and public funding.

No argument from me here. In both these cases, I would think that the land value would increase independent from any improvements made, which can be addressed through the current assessment methods based on fair market value instead of highest and best use.