• Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    In places it’s not implemented yet it’s because of mostly the work of lobbiests and land owners engagement in politics.

    Things and policies in a democracy don’t just catch on, they must be fought over. Thankfully the fight is mostly by political activisn and nothing worse

  • Schlemmy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    What do you mean? Where did it not catch on? In Belgium (Flanders) you pay taxes on unused property, whether it is a building or a vacant plot.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    This might not be the reason but in the US a lot of land is privately owned undeveloped land. If you taxed undeveloped land you may incentivize the destruction of habitats of a lot of wildlife.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not sure what an exception could look like that wouldn’t swallow the rule. Maybe a requirement for a minimum of a certain sq footage of undeveloped land. But that might not work in areas where many lots have a small amount of habitat land that together forms a larger habitat.

        I think it might have merit on a municipal level in very urban areas but not on a state or national basis because of this.