LVT in Practice and Resources
Explore how land value taxation works in the real world. From long-standing case studies to modern policy proposals and global examples, these resources highlight how shifting taxes toward land can support development, reduce vacancy, and return value to the public.
Video Resources
Henry George’s Land Value Taxation
Rory Sutherland
Is Land Value the Best Tax Option
Chuck Marohn, Strong Towns
I Found The Least Bad Way to Tax
Mr.Beat
More videos: Council of Georgist Organizations YouTube Channel
Land Value Tax in Practice
These examples highlight cities and countries around the world using Georgist principles to support development, reduce vacancy, and strengthen their communities.
Pennsylvania provides one of the longest and most significant real-world examples of land value taxation in the United States. Since 1913, state law has allowed municipalities to adopt a split-rate property tax, where land is taxed at a higher rate than buildings. This approach shifts the tax burden away from construction and maintenance and toward the underlying land value.
Several Pennsylvania cities adopted the policy during periods of economic stress, particularly after the decline of the steel industry in the mid-twentieth century. The goal was simple: discourage speculation on vacant land while encouraging redevelopment and investment in existing communities. Over time, about a dozen municipalities experimented with this system, creating one of the most important case studies of land-focused taxation in the United States. (Marohn 2019; Chicago Federal Reserve 2023)
Case Study: Pennsylvania Split-Rate Tax
Chicago Fed Letter (2023)
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Analyzes Pennsylvania’s split-rate property tax system and finds that taxing land more heavily than buildings can support development and reduce vacancy across cities.
https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2023/489
Land Value Taxation in Pennsylvania
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
A detailed examination of land value taxation in Pennsylvania, highlighting how shifting taxes toward land has influenced investment patterns and urban development.
https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uploads/legacy-files/pubfiles/banzhaf-wp08sb1.pdf
Harrisburg
Harrisburg provides one of the most widely cited examples of land value taxation in practice. In 1982, when the city faced near bankruptcy and widespread vacancy, officials expanded their split-rate property tax so that land was taxed at four times the rate of buildings.
The policy aimed to discourage land speculation and encourage property owners to build, renovate, or redevelop underused parcels. Over the following decades, Harrisburg experienced significant reinvestment.
More than $1.2 billion in new investment flowed into the city, vacant structures declined dramatically—from over 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500 by 2001—and the number of businesses on the tax rolls increased substantially. City leaders credited the land-heavy tax system as one of several policies that helped reverse long-term decline and stimulate redevelopment. (Marohn 2019)
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh was the largest city in the United States to adopt a split-rate property tax. The system was introduced in 1913, with land taxed at a significantly higher rate than buildings for most of the twentieth century. Economists studying the policy found evidence that it helped encourage construction by reducing taxes on improvements while increasing taxes on underused land.
Research by Oates and Schwab found that during periods when the tax differential was strongest, construction activity in Pittsburgh grew significantly compared with similar Midwestern cities, with the average annual value of building permits rising from roughly $181.7 million to $309.2 million between earlier and later study periods. Although the city later returned to a single-rate property tax after reassessment controversies in 2001, the Pittsburgh experience remains one of the most studied examples of land-focused taxation influencing urban development. (Chicago Federal Reserve 2023)
Scranton
Scranton was one of the early adopters of split-rate taxation, implementing the policy in 1913 alongside Pittsburgh. Like many industrial cities in northeastern Pennsylvania, Scranton struggled with economic shifts as coal and heavy industry declined.
By taxing land more heavily than buildings, the city aimed to encourage redevelopment of vacant or underused lots while lowering taxes on improvements. The policy reflected the broader idea behind land value taxation: that cities should avoid penalizing construction and investment while ensuring that the value created by public infrastructure and community growth is reflected in land taxation. (Marohn 2019; Chicago Federal Reserve 2023)
Allentown
Allentown adopted a split-rate property tax in 1996, setting a land tax rate nearly five times higher than the tax on buildings. The reform was approved by voters and implemented as part of a strategy to strengthen the city’s tax base and encourage investment.
The results were notable. Roughly 70 percent of residential parcels saw tax reductions, and in older neighborhoods with aging housing stock, the share receiving tax cuts rose to around 90 percent. Construction activity increased as well, with building permits rising by about 32 percent after adoption of the policy. The reform shifted more of the tax burden onto vacant or underused land while reducing taxes on productive property improvements. (Marohn 2019)
Marohn, Charles. “Non-Glamorous Gains: The Pennsylvania Land Tax Experiment.” Strong Towns, 2019.
Chicago Federal Reserve. “Split-Rate Property Taxation and Land Value Taxation.” Chicago Fed Letter No. 489, 2023.
Alaska Permanent Fund (Resource Revenue Sharing)
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
A real-world model of shared resource value, where oil revenues are invested and distributed to residents, reflecting principles similar to land value return.
https://apfc.org/
The Alaska Permanent Fund is often cited as a modern example of Georgist ideas in practice. While it is not a land value tax, it reflects a core principle of Georgist economics: the value of natural resources should belong to the public and be shared broadly rather than captured privately. Alaska applies this idea by collecting a portion of the revenue generated from oil extraction and distributing it to residents of the state.
The fund was created in 1976, when Alaska voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring that at least 25 percent of the state’s oil royalties be placed into a permanent investment fund. Rather than spending all of the oil revenue immediately, the state invested it so that the wealth generated from Alaska’s natural resources would benefit both current and future residents. The fund has since grown into a large public endowment, with investment earnings supporting government services and an annual dividend to residents. (Goldsmith; Brookings Institution)
Beginning in 1982, Alaska introduced the Permanent Fund Dividend, which distributes a portion of the fund’s investment earnings equally to every eligible resident of the state. This annual payment reflects the idea that the value generated by natural resources—such as oil—comes from assets that belong to the people collectively. Researchers have described the dividend as a direct distribution of resource rent, returning part of the economic value of Alaska’s oil fields to the public rather than concentrating it among private owners or corporations. (Goldsmith)
The Alaska model demonstrates how governments can capture value derived from natural resources and return it to citizens. In Georgist economic theory, land and natural resources are considered part of the common wealth of society, and the economic rent generated from them should benefit the public. By collecting oil revenues and distributing dividends to residents, the Alaska Permanent Fund provides a real-world example of this principle in action. The program has distributed billions of dollars to Alaskans since the early 1980s and is frequently studied as a model for sharing the value of natural resources more broadly. (Brookings Institution; Widerquist & Howard)
Sources
Goldsmith, Oliver Scott. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: A Case Study in the Direct Distribution of Resource Rent. University of Alaska.
Brookings Institution. Africa’s Natural Resource Revenue for All: The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Model.
Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard, eds. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining Its Suitability as a Model. Palgrave Macmillan.
Detroit Property Tax Reform
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Explores a proposed shift toward land-based taxation in Detroit, suggesting it could reduce tax burdens on buildings, encourage redevelopment, and address widespread vacancy.
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/detroit-property-tax/
Detroit has recently explored adopting a split-rate property tax, a policy closely related to land value taxation. A study from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy examined how taxing land at a higher rate than buildings could improve the city’s tax system and encourage redevelopment. Under this approach, taxes on structures would be reduced while higher taxes on land would discourage speculation and vacancy. Researchers found that such a reform could reduce tax burdens for many homeowners, stimulate investment in buildings, and increase property values by encouraging development on underused land.
The proposal has gained attention because Detroit faces unusually high property tax burdens alongside widespread vacant land. By shifting taxes away from improvements and toward land value, a split-rate system could reduce pressure on productive properties while encouraging owners of vacant or underutilized land to develop it.
More broadly, the reform reflects the core idea behind land value taxation: that communities should not penalize investment in buildings, but instead capture the value of land created by public infrastructure and economic activity. In Detroit, this approach is being considered as a way to support neighborhood revitalization, improve equity in the tax system, and strengthen long-term economic development.
Source:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Split-Rate Property Taxation in Detroit.
Estonia provides a modern example of how land-based taxation can function within a broader, well-structured tax system. For more than a decade, Estonia has ranked first on the International Tax Competitiveness Index, reflecting a system designed to be simple, transparent, and supportive of economic activity.
One of the defining features of Estonia’s tax system is that property taxes are applied only to the value of land, not to buildings or improvements. This approach avoids discouraging construction and investment, while ensuring that the value of land—often created by public infrastructure and community growth—is captured as a source of public revenue.
This system builds on major reforms following independence in 1991, when Estonia transitioned from a centrally planned economy to a market-based system. The government restored private land ownership, developed land valuation systems, and introduced a land tax in 1993 as part of a broader effort to establish efficient and stable public finance.
Land taxation was designed to serve as a reliable revenue source for local governments, with municipalities receiving the proceeds. Because the tax is based only on land value, it minimizes distortions to economic decision-making while encouraging more efficient land use over time.
Today, Estonia’s broader tax system reinforces these principles. Corporate taxes are applied only to distributed profits, and the overall structure is designed to reduce compliance costs and complexity. Together, these policies create a predictable and transparent system that supports both residents and businesses.
The Estonian model demonstrates how taxing land rather than buildings can support long-term economic development. By avoiding penalties on construction while capturing land value for public use, the system encourages productive investment, efficient land use, and stable public revenue. It is frequently cited as an example of how land-based taxation can be integrated into a modern, competitive tax system.
Sources:
Estonia’s Tax System and Competitiveness — e-Residency (2026)
https://www.e-resident.gov.ee/blog/posts/estonias-tax-system-most-competitive-in-the-world-3/
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Land Reform and Taxation in Estonia
https://www.lincolninst.edu/es/publications/articles/land-reform-taxation-estonia/
Baltimore has been exploring changes to its property tax system to address challenges such as high vacancy rates, housing affordability, and uneven economic development. Like many older cities, its current system places a heavier burden on buildings rather than land, which can discourage investment and contribute to underused properties. Recent discussions have focused on giving the city more flexibility to adjust tax rates to better support development and reduce speculation.
The Maryland Tax Parity Act of 2025 would allow Baltimore City and counties to set different tax rates for different types of property. This would make it possible to shift toward taxing land at a higher rate than buildings, encouraging redevelopment, reducing vacancy, and lowering tax burdens for many homeowners and businesses without reducing overall revenue.
Baltimore Thrive is one of the organizations advocating for this shift. Their work focuses on promoting fair property assessments and policies that support stronger, more equitable communities, particularly in neighborhoods facing disinvestment.
Source:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Split-Rate Property Taxation in Detroit.
Reports
Explore research from organizations working on land value taxation to better understand the ideas and evidence behind this approach.
Assessing the Theory and Practice of Land Value Taxation
Richard F. Dye & Richard W. England — Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
A comprehensive report f. examining land value taxation across more than 30 countries and U.S. cities, offering practical guidance for policymakers on assessment, implementation, and equitable tax reform.
The Hidden Taxable Capacity of Land: Enough and to Spare
Mason Gaffney
A foundational analysis showing that land rents are often underestimated and could provide a much larger share of public revenue than commonly assumed, supporting the case for land value taxation.
The Ultimate Tax Reform: Public Revenue from Land Rent
Fred Foldvary
Outlines a comprehensive vision for shifting public revenue away from taxing labor and production toward land rent, arguing this approach can reduce economic distortion and support long-term economic growth.
The Fallacy of the “Three- Legged Stool” Metaphor
H. William Batt
Challenges the idea that a balanced tax system must rely equally on income, sales, and property taxes, instead making the case for land as a more efficient and stable source of public revenue.
More Data and Case Studies on Land Value Taxation
Center for the Study of Economics
Explore research and real-world examples showing how land value taxation shapes development and supports more efficient, equitable communities.