Logan Jensen, Master of Public Administration Candidate
Recently, I encountered a mini social media debate about the merits of redeveloping an urban golf course into housing. One side championed the creation of thousands of desperately needed homes, while critics warned this represented a slippery slope toward communism and the destruction of well-maintained land.
I don’t think this tension between redevelopment and preservation requires us to choose sides. Instead, I propose a balanced approach that accomplishes both aims without coercion or waste. We should 1. Update tax the true "par value" of land by eliminating special tax code carve-outs for different land uses and 2. Maintaining property rights by ensuring any transfer of ownership happens in full accordance with the law. This would allow the market to naturally determine the highest and best use of land and eliminate both wasteful land uses and coercive land reform, all while generating tax revenue that can be reinvested in improving local communities and services.
By aligning economic incentives with optimal land use, we can create a system where property transitions naturally to its most productive purpose—whether that's housing, commercial space, or even recreation—based on genuine market value rather than artificial subsidies.
When Land Use Gets in the Rough
Venezuela offers a striking case study of what happens when a golf course is overtaken not by planned redevelopment but by collapse. Once a pristine and exclusive space, a Caracas golf course became an informal settlement as economic instability drove people to build makeshift homes on its fairways. The course, unable to sustain itself amid political and economic turmoil, withered away, leaving behind a chaotic and unsustainable landscape.
This failure, however, was not due to the concept of redevelopment itself but rather to poor policy, misaligned incentives, and a lack of structured transition. When people argue that redeveloping golf courses into housing could follow a similar trajectory, they are reacting to the worst-case scenario. But there is another way—one that allows land to transition naturally to its best and most productive use without forcing the extremes of abandonment or decay.
The Hidden Handicap for Golf Courses
Take Los Angeles, where golf courses enjoy an artificially low property tax rate due to carve-outs in the law. The LA Country Club, for instance, sits on 300 acres of land valued at roughly $8 billion, which should generate around $80 million annually in taxes. Instead, thanks to special exemptions, it’s assessed well under it's par value at $22 million, leading to a tax bill of a mere $220,000. That's quite the handicap. This is a wildly distorted incentive structure: it’s not that a golf course is the best and highest use for this land—it’s that the tax code makes keeping it a golf course far cheaper than it should be.
This raises a key point about how the way we tax land and property affects how it’s used. Right now, it takes just one of its $250,000 memberships to cover the $220,000 tax bill, but if the LA Country Club were taxed at its true land value it would take 320. The club could likely still afford it, but we wouldn't be subsidizing a playground for a handful of wealthy golfers at the expense of tens of thousands of potential housing units.
If that land were redeveloped with densities similar to major California downtowns, it could house 20,000 to 30,000 people across the 300 acres (0.5 square miles). Under a properly structured land tax, this would generate at a minimum $2,000 to $4,000 in annual land taxes per resident—a reasonable and sustainable amount. The key here isn’t forcing this redevelopment to happen, but removing the distortions that artificially prop up one use over another.Land Value Tax: The Fair Way to Land Use Reform
This is where a land value tax (LVT) comes in. Instead of taxing buildings and improvements, which discourages development, an LVT taxes the land itself based on its market value, regardless of what’s built on it. Under our current system, a landowner can buy a parking lot, leave it empty, pay minimal taxes, and profit when the land appreciates. Meanwhile, a developer who builds a mixed-use project gets hit with a higher tax bill simply for making better use of the land. That's neither fair to the developer nor beneficial to the local economy. LVT flips this: the owner of an underutilized property pays relatively more, while those who develop land productively pay relatively less. This ensures that land is put to its best use—whether that’s housing, commercial space, or even a golf course if the numbers truly justify it.
A system like this wouldn’t just lead to voluntary redevelopment of golf courses wherever it makes sense; it is also a fair way to encourage the development of vacant lots, underused surface parking, and other unproductive land. Instead of pushing a hasty and coercive one-time intervention to develop subsidized and underused land, we create a framework where the incentives for each are balanced naturally through the market.
Henry George's Hole-In-One
This idea isn’t new. It was championed over a century ago by Henry George, an economist whose ideas on land and taxation were considered radically progressive in his time. His concept of a single land value tax was like a hole-in-one—a simple, elegant solution that eliminated unnecessary complexity while driving the right incentives. Just as par value in finance refers to the true worth of a security, a Land Value Tax ensures that land is taxed based on its par value, without artificial subsidies or distortions.
Today, George's ideas represent a pragmatic blend of free-market efficiency and fair social outcomes. He argued that land value taxation creates the right incentives for growth while avoiding the excesses of speculation and monopoly. In essence, his approach prevents both extremes—the failure of over-subsidized golf courses and the failure of poorly planned shantytowns—by letting market forces and low regulation incentivize and enable productive development.
A New Approach that Putts People in the Driver’s Seat
If we implement a land value tax, we won’t have to debate whether to forcibly redevelop golf courses for housing or fear the economic collapse that comes from distorted land policies. Instead, we’ll create a system where land transitions naturally to its most productive use, while those who contribute to its value benefit along the way.
Whether that means a golf course remains in operation or a thriving neighborhood takes its place, the outcome won’t be dictated by coercion or artificial subsidies. It will be shaped by which use creates the most value for both its owners and the community. Aligning these incentives ensures development happens organically, without the need for crisis-driven interventions or heavy-handed mandates trap or destroy value.
In golf, playing a good hole requires a strong drive, a well-placed approach, and a precise putt. A powerful, well-aimed first shot sets up the stage for success. A smart approach brings the ball onto the green while avoiding potential hazards. Finally, a good putt that carefully follows the contours of the green before sinking in the hole culminates golfer’s skill and hard work.
Likewise, smart land policy starts with the drive for bold reform—implementing a land value tax that aligns incentives and clears the way for productive use. The next step is a well-planned approach: intelligent urban planning that allows flexibility while reinvesting land value tax revenue into infrastructure and services that benefit the community. With those elements in place, the final putt—construction and development—becomes a smooth and predictable process, bringing the right buildings to the right places at the right time. By getting each stage right, we create a system that fosters both economic productivity and fair, sustainable land use. With a land value tax, prosperous, pleasant, and productive cities will soon become par for the course.