Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to forward to you my comments on the proposal to tax land belonging to buildings on which there are no buildings or which exceeds the spatial standards, which was forwarded in an open letter to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia, Alenka Bratušek (Finance, 24.6.2013).
Proposal:
The tax rate for land belonging to one or more buildings on which there are no such buildings (clarification: these buildings are on adjacent land), but the co-ownership of each of the owners or floor owners of this building or several buildings on this land has not yet been determined, is 1.50 per cent of the value of the land, valued on the basis of the intended use.
Comment:
Who, how and when SHALL decide which pieces of land should belong to each building? This means a complicated procedure of verifying documents from the time of construction, on a case-by-case basis! Since the ownership is also unregulated in the documents, this leads to serious irregularities; the only solution is, first of all, the prior compulsory regulation of the "building plot", as it was defined at the time of construction by the planning permission and in accordance with the zoning act in force at that time, for all buildings that do not have this information regulated in the land register, which has been prescribed all along but not implemented. It is essentially a case of "legalisation" of the PARCEL PARCEL PARTIES of built-up building land!
The prerequisite should be the same ownership with the building (according to the current Civil Code, but also to the prior planning and building legislation); when it comes to renting a "building right", the same should apply - for the whole "building plot", or nothing! Switzerland also has such a provision in its spatial planning legislation - they are obliged to establish a unified registered plot of land that functions together with the building before construction can start.
Proposal 2:
The land directly intended for the regular use of a building or several buildings or having the characteristics of a functional land or building plot according to the provisions, criteria and/or conditions of the zoning acts in force at the time of the construction of the building or several buildings is considered to be adjacent land.
Comment:
The same applies as above.
Proposal:
The tax rate for that part of the land attached to one or more buildings which exceeds the size of the functional plot or building plot according to the provisions, criteria and/or conditions laid down in the zoning acts in force at the time the building or buildings were constructed shall be 1,50 % of the value of the land, assessed on the basis of its intended use.
Comment:
Again - who, how and when will ASSESS which pieces of land should belong to each building? This means a complicated procedure of verifying documents from the time of construction, on a case-by-case basis! Since the ownership is also unregulated in the documents, this leads to serious irregularities; the only solution is first of all the prior compulsory regulation of the "building plot", as it was defined at the time of construction by the planning permission and in accordance with the zoning act in force at that time, for all buildings that do not have this information regulated in the land register, which has been prescribed all along but not implemented. It is essentially a case of "legalisation" of the PARCEL PARCEL PARTIES of built-up building land!
4. Proposal:
This proposal resolves what the draft law does not, and which was not had the courage to be implemented under the ZUJF, the taxation of the wrong ownership of the land belonging to buildings for their regular use, as the actual use most often referred to as a yard.
Comment:
Land for the regular use of buildings is not always necessary, as a building can also function from "public areas" if these have been arranged around it in this way (pavements next to houses, park arrangements to buildings, shared or public parking areas, etc...).
5. Proposal:
An appropriate level of taxation will be an incentive for the proper settlement of land titles.
Comment:
It is necessary to regulate these situations, given the situation in which they exist, but it is problematic to count on the "tax" to provide sufficient and proper incentives to do so - it may lead to even more serious irregularities in the activities of those affected.
6. The proposal
In the context of the complex construction of large neighbourhoods, we use the term functional land or building plots to refer to these courtyards, which include - access to the buildings, - the hygienic lawns around them, - children's play areas and - the associated car parks.
Comment:
In many cases, the 'courtyards' have never even been 'designated' and entered in the cadastre and land registry, but in several neighbourhoods there is even a basic parcelisation and registered use from the time of construction - an example is even the already built blocks which have a registered agricultural use underneath. In many cases, however, neighbourhoods are built in such a way that the buildings have "building sites", but all the areas around them have been designated as "public" and accessible to all. In such cases, the functional areas have not been defined, and even today cannot be, or even need not be, defined on the existing "legal bases". New land arrangements require a specific procedure (Article 217 of the PGI).
 
7. Proposal:
The historical terminology for these plots of land, paid for by the communal contribution of the unit owners, also summarised in the original Housing Act, has evaporated in all housing, planning and real estate legislation in the context of the "national" project of the securitisation of built-up building land, and the builders and land managers, including the municipalities, who, after the completion of the neighbourhood, did not hand over ownership of the functional land to the owners when handing over the "keys" to the flats, but use and possess it anyway, have taken possession of the land as "owners".
 
Comment:
The "functional land" or "building plots" were not paid for as part of the "communal contribution" (which was transferred from the total "purchase price" always collected to the municipality, which in turn was obliged to finance the public works), but were paid for in the same way as the flat in the building (which was only charged to the municipality as a "communal contribution", but did not give it any rights to the ownership of the "communal contribution" and of what was paid for with it); but each owner of a building (even an individual one), by paying the "communal contribution", acquired the RIGHT TO USE ALL THAT WAS PROVIDED AS "PUBLIC PLAN" IN THE BUILDING CHARGE; he acquired the right to use, but he did not acquire the "right of use", which was purchased and registered in the Land Register as a substitute for the "right of ownership"!
 
Proposition 8:
Except in the case of "free economic initiative", further resale and quantification of parking lots on foreign (owned and) owned property under the auspices of the city authorities. Another characteristic phenomenon should be taxed. It is the usurpation of common and public areas in these neighbourhoods, often as a transfer for payment or for nothing, and of course the oversized standard of such 'yards'.
 
Comment:
'Public areas' are not (or should not be) registered as 'courtyards'. 'Yards' are landscaped areas serving a particular building, i.e. 'functional land', or part thereof. Designating "functional land" in residential neighbourhoods everywhere and in every way, as I understand it, is not always an option. This is not unconditionally the case even in the courts that have dealt with disputes over "functional land", which was also the basis for the amendments to the Building Construction Act (Article 216, in conjunction with others such as 211 to 217, and others) and later to the special law ZVEtL. ZVEtL, in Article 30, prescribes the use of the starting points of the documents and spatial planning acts from the time of the construction of the buildings in question, which do not have the land duly regulated, for all built-up areas. In neighbourhoods where new spatial and functional arrangements (bypassing the initial zoning plans and the administrative permits issued on their basis, and the way in which private and public developments are to be financed), and thus new spatial demarcations, are to be made, the procedure of Article 217 of the ZGO - with the inclusion of the contractual consolidation of the area - is prescribed, although these provisions are quite neglected in practice. Even under the ZVEtL, the courts do not always follow the content of Article 30 of the ZVEtL strictly enough, but only Article 7 (which means NEW zoning - i.e. the enactment of Article 217 of the ZGO?!), which is not the correct starting point for OLD neighbourhoods built before 2003 (since in such a case Article 30 of the ZVEtL means nothing anymore).
 
My proposal is to heavily tax areas that "would have" the status of "built public good" - GJD, (but don't have it yet!), in order to incentivise such a status to be regulated, but NOT to tax areas that already have the status of GJD regulated - I think this would be a more fair and efficient way to regulate the situation.