The mayoral race in New London has resurrected the debate over whether the city should experiment with a Land Value Tax (LVT). Daryl Justin Finizio, the Democratic nominee, finds himself out on a political limb as the only candidate in the race ready to try it.

A group of local citizens who want to change the property tax dynamic to award property owners who undertake improvements, or build on empty lots, or fill vacant buildings, first proposed it a few years back. The traditional property tax system does the opposite. Fix up a property and the taxes go up.

Now a political pariah, LVT once had the support of the City Council.

Enough support, at least, to make a pitch to the state General Assembly. The legislature eventually approved legislation that would allow New London to attempt a pilot LVT program as a substitute to the conventional property tax system allowed by state law.

In 2009 the council appointed a "Land Value Tax Committee" to assess four LVT models provided by the Center for the Study of Economics and recommend an implementation plan. But instead of providing a plan the committee, on a 4-3 vote, came back with a "recommendation and conclusion that LVT not be implemented in the City of New London."

After that February 2010 vote by the committee, political support faded. In the mayoral election only Finizio has called for resurrecting a pilot LVT program as a means to help drive redevelopment in the downtown business district. Councilor Rob Pero, the Republican nominee; the current council-appointed mayor, Martin T. Olsen Jr.; and another candidate, Lori Hopkins-Cavanagh, all oppose it. (Olsen and Hopkins-Cavanagh are petitioning candidates.)

LVT assesses taxes based on land value, not the properties built on it. So the owner of a small downtown lot with a thriving retail operation on the first floor and a couple of apartments upstairs would get the same tax bill as someone across the street with the same-sized lot, but who has a run-down empty building on it.

The incentive to the guy across the street is obvious. Fix up and improve the building and pay no penalty in additional taxes. LVT discourages investors from land banking properties, leaving buildings and lots vacant while they wait for sure-fire signs of an economic turnaround before they are willing to invest in their properties.

It can work in a downtown commercial district, which is where those on the losing end of the 4-3 vote in 2009 recommended implementing it in their minority report. And they did not seek a radical change, but rather only a 10 percent shift from buildings and land to just the land in the first year, beginning a gradual change. Combined with other incentives, such as rental subsidies and seed money, LVT can encourage property owners to fix up their commercial space or sell to someone who will.

Yet the land-value approach spooks some prominent city land owners and not without good reason. Implemented outside the downtown district it could hurt businesses with a lot of land to tax but few buildings, such as car dealerships, ferry services and shopping centers with large parking lots. It was this fear that any LVT could lead to citywide implementation that killed the proposal. Supporters of the concept say it can be restricted to appropriate sections of the city.

Olsen says he is ideologically opposed to changing tax law to try to coerce people into doing something different with their property. Pero says there are existing incentives and better approaches available to encourage revitalization. Hopkins-Cavanagh states, "The free market is the only fair way to tax. The government should not set value."

This is why we have elections. The Land-Value Tax is an intriguing proposal. Maybe it will finally receive a fair debate.

Paul Choiniere is the editorial page editor.