I figured it out.

[tat2kc]

well now, Land Tax in Wyco might just work. It would be such a radical departure that it may appeal to a wide range of folks. Is it something that could be done on a county wide basis only, or would there need to be a change at the state level?

[bahua]

I think they could set it up however they want. Kansas seems to be great about piling mounds of paperwork on its residents and out-of-state employees, so I don't think it'd be a great problem for them to arrange a "Land Tax Zone," that would bypass the rest on the metro in wealth, economic opportunity, culture, nightlife, dining, and tax revenue pretty quickly.

But, make no mistake. It's not something that would just be good for KCK. It would work anywhere and everywhere it is employed. I only mention the idea of bringing it into a test area to prove to people that it works, and is the correct thing to do.

[tat2kc]

True, but with the extremely high tax burden in KCK, this would be the ideal place to show that something this different would work.

[staubio]

I'm not sure if the land tax will work unless it is universal. This zone might just cause people to continue thinking shallowly and they'll avoid it.

As far as land tax, can it make a consideration on whether or not the land can be realistically developed? Some of the steep slopes in KCK probably are best left as is. I would hate to see tax incentives destroying the topography. I suppose there are drawbacks to all systems, but maybe a benchmark could be employed to avoid this from happening.

In places where this has happened, has it put pressure on public spaces because of the potential revenue that could be garnered should it be taxed?

Just playing devils advocate -- I've always liked the land taxation idea.

[bahua]

I'm not sure if the land tax will work unless it is universal. This zone might just cause people to continue thinking shallowly and they'll avoid it.

If people avoid it, others will be happy to take advantage, and use the land more efficiently than anywhere else in the metro.

As far as land tax, can it make a consideration on whether or not the land can be realistically developed? Some of the steep slopes in KCK probably are best left as is. I would hate to see tax incentives destroying the topography. I suppose there are drawbacks to all systems, but maybe a benchmark could be employed to avoid this from happening.

I honestly wasn't aware that there was undeveloped land in KCK that people were hoping to ecologically preserve. It being in the middle of a city makes it difficult to protect, but its nature might make it difficult(expensive) to develop on. In that case, it can just be turned into a park, if people really want to keep it.

In places where this has happened, has it put pressure on public spaces because of the potential revenue that could be garnered should it be taxed?

By public spaces, do you mean parks and plazas? If so, these are natural parts of cities, and have been, for as long as cities have existed. They dramatically raise land and property values, rather than hinder them. If the Boston Common was razed for new condos, the land value and property values all around it would plummet. The same would happen with Central Park in New York, Lincoln Park in Chicago, and Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Cities need parks, and benefit from them financially.

Just playing devils advocate -- I've always liked the land taxation idea.

Ha! nice.

[bahua]

if i'm not mistaken, the high schools in kck are already focusing students into "themes" based on what their potential career choices are. But, as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water put you can't make it drink.

So their plan is to improve education by stopping the process of education earlier? Sound screwy to anyone else?

[tat2kc]

uh, no. The elective that the students choose allow them a more focused look at what is required for their careers. The graduation requirements are the same. This has raised graduation rates, and improved test scores. The approach is working quite well.

[staubio]

I honestly wasn't aware that there was undeveloped land in KCK that people were hoping to ecologically preserve. It being in the middle of a city makes it difficult to protect, but its nature might make it difficult(expensive) to develop on. In that case, it can just be turned into a park, if people really want to keep it.

It seems like KCK is built around a lot of cliffs and plateaus. When I mentioned that, I was thinking about the ridge that runs along the sides of I-35. This land slopes downward so there is some square mileage involved, but it would be difficult to develop. How would land taxation accomodate a property owner who bought the land at the apex and down the side of a steep cliff? We wouldn't want to attempt to level this area and develop it. Perhaps these spaces would just have to be put under public ownership and all developable land would be on the tax rolls.

[bahua]

uh, no. The elective that the students choose allow them a more focused look at what is required for their careers. The graduation requirements are the same.

So, their workload increases(added hours of at-school work) with this course election? If that's the case, then I have no problem with it, but I, as usual, am skeptical.

[tat2kc]

there is no increase in the school day. They have expanded the types of electives and the depth and scope of the subjects studied. They focus on those careers that the kids can move into. For example the journalism electives focus more on college level writing, etc. The information technology track would focus more on progamming, computer repair, etc. , instead of the regular high school classes teaching word processing programs and such.

KCK schools are doing a good job in improving academic acheivement, and lowering drop out rates. They are moving their urban school district in the direction that KCMO schools should be going.