[APP] 162 -166 GOUGER ST | 57m | 16 Levels | Residential

[SouthAussie94]

You can't ban the practice out right, however a vacant land tax would certainly be doable.

Time limit restrictions on selling the land could be enacted. i.e. 2 year rule for any land allotments exceeding X square metres - you'd have to set a minimum square metreage so as to not accidentally capture people looking to sell their terrace houses. I don't think any houses with actual "quarter acre" traditional backyards exist in the CBD anymore? (not counting North Adelaide).

The exception would have to be if a development company enters administration or foreclosure necessitating an immediate sale.

That comes back to the thing I've mentioned in the past, how do you define vacant land?

A weed filled block, that's obviously vacant land.

A fenced allotment with a gravel pad that's occasionally used as a carpark? What if it's asphalt instead? Underutilised, most definitely. But is it vacant? The ground level carparks on Hutt St and Pulteney are prime examples of this.

How about someone who owns two adjacent titles, one has a house which they live in, the other is a manicured garden or tennis court. Functionally its the one property, legally its two. Is the second allotment vacant? No one lives or works there, similar to the carpark scenario above. There's plenty of examples of this through the metro area.

How about if the allotment has a building on it that isn't occupied. If the carpark scenario above isn't vacant land, how can a site with a structure on it be vacant?

While I don't disagree with the concept in the slightest, it's not just a simple as saying vacant land should be taxed, without first defining what constitutes vacant land. Otherwise there will be countless loopholes exploited to avoid the tax, while others will need to pay it who probably shouldn't have to.

For discussions sake, let's stick to the CBD square mile as the basis for a vacant land tax.

An open air carpark, although not vacant, but certainly should be discouraged as a land use. One could argue for a lower vacant land tax rate than the normal rate for weed / grass vacant blocks.

Having said that, that could well incentivise developers to just convert vacant land to carparks to avoid the higher tax rate, so you might as well just apply a blanket rule.

An empty building is a bit of a tricky one. You can't really force the market to operate or lease a premises if the demand isn't there. I think they should be exempt initially, however, again, say a 2 year rule applies, if no business is operating, then they are subject to the tax.

I think vacant land tax should be applied right up until the point of site works commencing, not just approval. Look how many developments have been approved but nothing gets done for years.

Putting yet another tax on the sale of a property is a bad look for investment - we already have stamp duty, foreign buyers tax, etc.

Given the state of the housing market lately, I can tell you a lot of people are buying property, doing fuck all with it and still making very sizable profits a few years later. It's purely land value gains, not gains on the structure itself.

Again, I'll just reiterate that I'm far from opposed to a vacant land tax. There is so much underutilised land within the CBD that could be developed rather than extending the sprawl out to wherever. Any tax would need to be implemented very carefully to ensure that it targets the intended properties and doesn't unfairly target unintended ones.

Take for example 43-69 Sturt St (ie the old New Mayfield site).
https://imgur.com/a/AcUQ4N4

This is 1 title which encompasses the north western vacant portion of the New Mayfield Site and a portion of the abandoned basement, along with a 2x story building in the north east corner, and an open air/under cover single story carpark in the south east corner. The 2x story building takes up roughly 10% of the total site, but appears to be fully occupied and used, 40% of the site is covered by carparking (and seems to be used regularly), with the remaining 50% being a weed filled block.

How do you quantify the tax liability of this allotment?

Does the fact that the 2x story building is occupied mean that this parcel of land isn't subject to the vacant land tax? Or does the 50% of the allotment thats a weed filled block mean that it is subject to the tax?

How about 89 Gilles St and 95 Gilles St?
https://imgur.com/a/1Da4095

From a pure practical perspective, both are part of the Gilles St Primary School, with 89 Gilles St being a asphalt carpark and 95 Gilles St being a basketball court. Both sit on separate titles. Does the Education Department need to amalgamate the separate titles of the school to avoid paying a vacant land tax on the various allotments that make up the school? If the carpark at 89 Gilles St is somehow exempt, does that mean other asphalt carparks are also exempt?

These are just two ambiguous examples I've found in a quick visual search. Imagine how many others there would be once the lawyers became involved..