Keith Linhares
Updated: 6 hours ago
Opinion
Viewpoint: Unleash Worcester's potential through smarter taxation
By Keith Linhares
Worcester is at a crossroads. As New England's second-largest city, we’re experiencing real momentum and have undeniable potential. New residents from Boston and beyond are making Worcester their home, and many are looking for things they see in other New England cities: walkability, density, and ease of access to small businesses like coffee shops or markets.
As we grow, we face a choice: do we shape Worcester into a dense, walkable city with vibrant neighborhoods—or let it turn into an overgrown suburb?
Our continual debate over the dual tax rate, which pits commercial property owners against residents, is unproductive. There’s a better way: a land-value tax (LVT).
LVT could lower residential property taxes AND boost local businesses.
Our current property tax system inadvertently holds us back. Taxing buildings and land equally penalizes investment in improvements. If you add a new apartment or fix up a storefront, your tax bill goes up. Meanwhile, a derelict building or vacant parking lot in a desirable area incurs a modest tax bill—despite gaining value thanks to public investment using our tax dollars.
This system rewards blight and speculation while fueling sprawl. That’s not how we build a vibrant, thriving city.
In its pure form, LVT taxes only the value of land, not the buildings on it. A more common model, the split-rate tax, simply taxes land at a higher rate than buildings. The impact is powerful: it becomes expensive to sit on valuable, underused land. A vacant downtown lot would face a tax bill that reflects its true potential, encouraging the owner to develop it, or sell to someone who will.
Because LVT shifts taxes away from buildings and onto land, many homeowners, especially in residential neighborhoods, could see their property taxes decrease. In Allentown, Pennsylvania, LVT lowered taxes for 3 out of 4 residents.
Imagine the change in Worcester’s landscape. Surface parking lots and neglected parcels become sites for new housing and businesses. LVT inherently promotes infill development and supports the pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods. Rather than subsidizing sprawl, we’d be investing in a more walkable, dynamic city.
LVT could ease Worcester’s housing affordability crisis. By encouraging denser development in areas with existing infrastructure, we could increase housing supply and lower long-term costs. Unlike taxes on buildings, taxing land doesn’t discourage productive behavior. It’s a fairer system, too: it captures for public benefit a portion of the value created by the community investment that our tax dollars fund—schools, parks, roads, and safety.
Implementing LVT would take work. Land assessments must be accurate, and protections like circuit breakers or deferrals will be needed to safeguard vulnerable homeowners, especially seniors. And implementing LVT would require work with the MA legislature.
But these challenges are solvable. Cities like Allentown and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, have already shown that thoughtful, gradual implementation is possible. At the time of this writing, I have petitioned the city to research LVT.
With careful study and community input, LVT could shape Worcester toward becoming a vibrant, equitable, and forward-looking city.
Keith Linhares is a candidate for District 1 of the Worcester City Council.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments