Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
CSE Testimony to Council Wednesday, March 17, 2010
"Good evening. I'm Joshua Vincent. I'm the President of the Henry George Foundation/Center for the Study of Economics. We're based at 413 South 10th Street in Philadelphia, and I'd like to say good evening to Council President Verna and the members of Council. It's been a very informative day, and acknowledging that, I'm going to skip my soda tax comments, because I think it's all been covered thus far. I'd like to move down to the trash fee or the trash tax. It's not quite a property tax. I'd call it more of an address tax." See page 422 for complete testimony.
City Controller’s Tax Structure Analysis Report 2001
"... the city can create a tax structure that encourages smart growth through local legislative action and, in a relatively short period of time, could positively affect every single business and resident in Philadelphia and dramatically improve the city’s overall competitiveness. The city can cut taxes and change how the city taxes to encourage businesses to locate and expand in Philadelphia so that the tax reductions and modifications will actually result in a larger tax base and increased tax collections in the future."
Policy Reform Efforts
Legislation Enabling LVT Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington State
TRC recommends phasing in LVT
The 2002 Philadelphia Tax Reform Commission recommended "Phasing in land-value taxation so that, at the end of 10 years, 50 percent of all real estate tax revenues will be generated from a tax on the value of land and 50 percent from a tax on the value of structures."
Understanding Land Value Tax Studies
Putting a greater reliance on publicly created value (land) rather than privately created wealth (buildings, commerce or wages).
Progressive Momentum of the Land Value Tax
Citizens determined to change the way revenue was raised to pay for public goods and services with arguments taken from the writings of political economist Henry George.
Philadelphia Home Rule Charter
NOTES Sources: First Class City Home Rule Act, April 21, 1949, P. L. 665, Section 17. Purposes: 1. The powers of the City are stated in the broadest and most comprehensive terms to assure the City the fullest possible benefits of home rule. Specification of powers is avoided because any list of powers, despite its detail, would inevitably omit some. Under Dillon’s rule a municipal corporation does not have any powers other than those granted in express words and those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient but indispensable. Dillon, Municipal Corporations (Fifth Ed. 1911) § 237. Following Dillon’s rule, Pennsylvania decisions have denied the existence of a specific power where there has been a failure to provide for it while other powers have been enumerated. LESLEY v. KITE, 192 Pa. 268 (1899); AMERICAN ANILINE PRODUCTS, INC. v. LOCK HAVEN, 288 Pa. 420 (1927); PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS CO. v. P.S.C., 115 Pa. Super. Ct. 58 (1934). However, the Constitution in authorizing home rule provides that any ‘‘Cities, or cities of any particular class, may be given the right and power to frame and adopt their own charters and to exercise the powers and authority of local self-government, subject, however, to such restrictions, limitations, and regulations, as may be imposed by the Legislature.’’ (Article XV, Section 1.) The all powers and authority of local self-government and shall have complete powers of legislation and administration in relation to its municipal functions,’’ (Section 17). Section 1-100 uses substantially the same language. Under these circumstances, the City has and may exercise any power pertaining to local self-government and to its municipal functions. Thus, it will have zoning powers, even though they are not specified in Section 1-100. Dillon’s rule does not operate by way of limitation.
Land Values and Public Transportation: An Essential Link
PA Chapter of the American Planning Association
