What are the risks in getting it wrong?
The whole world is a narrow bridge; the important thing is not to be afraid.
I propose a modifiable systematic approach which works in steps; one which is assessed at each step so as to determine, in order to publish, not only the effectiveness of the outcomes but also to count any externalities produced by the actions performed. For this author it’s not assumed that all the answers, or even most of the answers, are known but I’m willing to think that enough people—with the necessary backgrounds, experiences, ideas, energy, time, and space—are gathering to enable experiments not only at the municipal level but also outwards toward the county, and region. For instance, I live in a subdivision. That subdivision is part of a small neighborhood. That small neighborhood is part of a larger recognized neighborhood. And that larger neighborhood borders other similar larger recognized neighborhoods. In the Greater Orlando area there are 109 recognized neighborhoods and it seems like new ones are being recognized each year.
What if only the land was taxed, exempting the structures, in neighborhoods 110-112; and, in addition, in neighborhoods 113-127 only land was taxed and there were applied NO SALES TAX (or SALES TAX REBATES) upon construction materials? So that in the region of the next three major recognized neighborhoods property tax revenue was derived from the unimproved value of the land ONLY and in the fourteen neighborhoods after that additionally the costs to construct would be at the discount of sales taxation. These are two distinct experiments which, because they move at the speed of construction, could have measurable effects. I’m not proposing more tax or less tax but tax shifting towards means which are about eliminating deadweight loss — that portion of economic activity which isn’t occurring since our existing forms of taxation discourage it.