Baltimore is flirting with a tax rewrite that would make vacant land the expensive part of the property equation. A City Council proposal would explore taxing land and buildings at different rates, with supporters saying it could push owners to build on or sell off long-idle parcels while helping attack roughly 11,600 vacant properties. The idea is still at the hearing stage, but it arrives as the city’s separate vacancy tax begins taking effect.
David Williams of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance told WBFF that a split-rate system could encourage development and improve the condition of Baltimore’s nearly 12,000 abandoned properties. The pitch is straightforward: Make it harder to profit from sitting on empty land and easier to justify investing in the buildings that sit on it.
What The Council Is Actually Considering
A bill introduced by Councilman Zac Blanchard calls for a public hearing on how a split-rate property tax could affect Baltimore, according to a Baltimore Sun report carried by ArcaMax. The proposed hearing would bring in the city departments overseeing housing, finance and planning, along with the Baltimore Development Corporation, Live Baltimore and the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation.
This would not instantly create a new citywide tax rate. Instead, the Council would be weighing whether Baltimore should tax land at a higher rate while taxing buildings and other improvements at a lower rate, a structure supporters say could reward construction, rehabilitation and denser development.
In written testimony to Maryland lawmakers, Blanchard described the system as a way to make boarded-up homes, empty commercial shells and surface parking lots less attractive to hold indefinitely. A Maryland fiscal note for related 2026 legislation said the authority would allow Baltimore and counties to create separate subclasses for land and improvements, with different rates applying uniformly within each subclass.
How This Differs From Baltimore’s New Vacancy Tax
Baltimore already has a more targeted tax penalty for properties formally classified as vacant. Under the city’s ordinance, an eligible vacant structure can be taxed at three times the regular rate in its first full tax year and four times the rate in later years, beginning with the tax year that started July 1, 2026, according to Baltimore’s ordinance.
The split-rate concept would go wider than that existing policy. It could affect land across the city, including parcels that are not formally labeled vacant, while shifting some of the tax burden away from buildings and onto the underlying land. Hoodline’s prior report detailed how the current vacancy tax is already creating headaches for some buyers whose renovated homes still carry Vacant Building Notices.
Baltimore’s Vacancy Numbers Are Finally Moving
The policy debate comes as Baltimore’s vacant-property count has begun edging down after years of hovering far higher. Baltimore Fishbowl reported that the city recorded 11,558 vacant houses in July, compared with roughly 16,000 when Mayor Brandon Scott took office in December 2020.
City records cited in that report showed 848 houses listed as rehabbed so far this year and 36 demolitions, suggesting that rehabilitation—not just removal—is driving much of the recent progress. That makes the tax debate more than an argument over spreadsheets: Officials are trying to decide which policies can turn a downward trend into a lasting neighborhood recovery.
The financial stakes are substantial. The Abell Foundation has estimated that Baltimore’s vacant housing costs the city at least $100 million annually in lost tax revenue and public expenses, while also depressing nearby property values and increasing pressure on city services.
Critics Say The Tax Shift Could Create New Problems
The proposal is not guaranteed to produce a clean redevelopment win. In testimony opposing a similar measure, NAIOP Maryland warned that land-value taxation can produce sharp assessment increases, especially for lower-priced properties, and pointed to Pittsburgh’s history of tax appeals and political backlash.
The state’s fiscal analysis also warned that separating land and improvement values would require major technology and data changes at the assessment agency, with local revenue effects depending on the rates Baltimore eventually chooses. In other words, the policy may be revenue-neutral by design, but it would not be consequence-neutral for every homeowner, landlord or developer.
For now, Baltimore is debating the tool rather than pulling the tax lever. The central question is whether putting a higher price on idle land can move vacant properties into productive use—or whether the city first needs to make construction, permitting and financing easy enough for owners to act.
