[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SG-W:/taxes and incentives [was "lawsuits and zoning"]

Your remarks were right on target with how I see this issue and how
we're trying to address it through the Great Lakes Commission's
BRIDGES project. Basically, what you outlined is at the heart of what
we call "linking brownfields and greenfields."   As you noted, a
system that would create direct linkages that mutually support
brownfields/urban revitalization and greenfields protection--such as
true and full-cost accounting for greenfields and putting surpluses
from that towards urban revitalization-- is a critical tool that's
missing in the present toolbox for controlling/managing growth!!  It's
great to see others thinking along these lines.  It may be difficult
to implement, but if we can get more people thinking this way is a
first start!  Do you know of any instances where this is actually
happening?  We're trying to profile case studies of
brownfields-greenfields linkages, but having a hard time finding real
life examples.


Steve Bean wrote:

> Remove the economic incentive for development--tax developments at a fair
> level for the infrastructure and environmental and social impacts they
> create, and then tax them some more and use the surplus from those that
> go through to purchase development rights to other lands and provide
> economic incentives for building and living in urban zones.

smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info