Comparison: NYC's 1920s Henry George-Inspired Property Tax Reforms vs. Seattle's 2025 Property Tax PolicyThe 1920s NYC reforms embodied Georgist principles by using separate assessments to shift the tax burden from buildings (improvements) to land values, aiming to spur development and curb speculation. In contrast, Seattle's 2025 policy (administered via King County) is a conventional ad valorem property tax on the total assessed value (land + buildings combined), with no differential taxation. While Seattle offers targeted exemptions for new affordable housing, there's no systemic shift toward land value taxation (LVT)—though newly elected Mayor Katie Wilson has advocated for it as a future progressive revenue tool. Taxes in 2025 rose modestly overall (1.6%), but some areas saw sharp increases (up to 15%) due to voter-approved levies and rising property values. Key Structural Differences

Aspect

NYC 1920s (Georgist Reforms)

Seattle 2025 (King County)

Assessment Method

Separate values for land and buildings; allowed differential rates.

Combined total value (land + buildings); no separation.

Tax Rate Structure

Buildings: 1.00% (cut ~50% from 1.89%); Land: Higher rate (2%+ effective), bearing 85–90% of burden.

Uniform ~0.92% ($9.19 per $1,000) on total value; no land/building split.

Burden Shift

Heavy emphasis on land (unearned value capture); minimal on improvements to encourage building.

Evenly distributed based on proportional values; taxes both land and buildings equally.

Exemptions/Incentives

10-year exemption on new building taxes (not land); broad for residential/apartments.

Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE): 8–12 year exemption on increase in assessed value from new affordable multifamily construction (partial relief on building value); sunsets Sep 2025, reauthorization pending. Also, senior/disabled exemptions on certain levies.

Levy Limits

No strict cap; revenue from higher land assessments offset building cuts.

1% cap on annual revenue growth (proposed adjustments to 100% + population change); voter lid lifts drove localized spikes.

Total Levy & Growth

Peaked ~$500M (adjusted); funded by land value boom post-WWI.

$7.7B total (King County); +1.6% YoY, but median home taxes up ~8% due to 4.8% value growth.

Georgist Alignment

High: Partial "single tax" on land; explicit policy to tax unearned increments.

Low: Standard system; LVT discussed (e.g., by Mayor-elect Wilson) but not implemented—advocacy to join Spokane's model.

Philosophical & Practical Comparison

  • Core Philosophy: NYC's approach was transformative, treating land as a community-created resource to tax heavily while sparing productive buildings—leading to a residential construction boom (doubled in early 1920s). Seattle's remains regressive in practice (hits lower-income homeowners harder amid rising values), with exemptions as bandaids for housing affordability rather than systemic incentives. Public frustration is evident, with reports of 50%+ tax hikes in some cases.

  • Development Impact: NYC reforms directly boosted building by slashing improvement taxes. Seattle's MFTE has added ~10,000 affordable units since 1990 but is narrower (affordability requirements, geographic limits) and doesn't penalize vacant land speculation—unlike Georgist ideals.

  • Equity & Revenue: Both fund public services (NYC: infrastructure; Seattle: schools, fire, transit). But Seattle's uniform tax exacerbates inequality in a high-value market (median home ~$800K), while NYC's land focus captured windfalls from urban growth more progressively.

  • 2025 Outlook: With Wilson's election (Nov 2025), LVT could gain traction in 2026 budgets, potentially mirroring NYC's shift—but for now, Seattle lags far behind the 1920s boldness. No major reforms were enacted for the 2025 levy cycle.

In summary, Seattle's 2025 policy is a status quo property tax—reliable but uninnovative—lacking the Georgist dynamism that made NYC's experiment a historic benchmark for urban development. If LVT advocacy succeeds, it could close the gap.