Square foot of land or square foot of improvements (ie residence/garage/workshop/patios/decks)? Or a combination thereof? Its a complex calculation, any way you look at it. And land values, at least in Virginia, are already calculated based upon local values on a per sq foot basis – with allowances for things like type of access, type of surface/ground, etc. Improvement values could also be argued to say that they are also driven by square footage. The larger the house, the more taxes you will pay – in Virginia.

But what about the old and crumbling 3500 sq ft house that is too expensive to renovate and is ready to be bull-dozed? How do you tax that house compared to a 2000 sq ft house which was just built?

It is a hot topic – and very complicated.

Values are the easy way out and the lowest common denominator in the discussion. They are easy to define and there is a third-party database (the MLS system), not influenced by local politicians, that can be used to compare one property to the next and the values generated vary with the economy. I agree that improvements could be made to the system. However, throwing out the baby with the bathwater is shortsighted.

Empty and blighted land sits idle and ugly in cities. Cheaper to hold decayed land than to invest in it. So we now have a shortage of land for homes, and an excess of old ugly buildings.

IF the property tax were averaged by square foot over a zip code so that all land paid evenly then the owners of the blighted land could not afford to hold it empty.

I’m curious, though, about how siding materials like stucco and vinyl compare in terms of long-term energy efficiency. Do you think one has a clear advantage when it comes to insulation or overall environmental impact? I’d love to hear your perspective!