The vacancy tax took effect July 1 and has already produced a successor proposal. Baltimore is weighing a split-rate structure that would tax land and buildings at different rates, shifting a portion of the burden off improvements and onto the underlying land. The framing is vacancy: the city's vacant-property count, cited at roughly 11,600 in the current debate and closer to 13,000 in earlier reporting depending on the counting method, has begun edging down after years at much higher levels, and the argument for a land tax is that it puts every underused parcel on a clock rather than only the ones the Department of Housing and Community Development has formally noticed.

For commercial property owners inside managed districts, the distinction between the two policies is the entire story, and it is a balance-sheet distinction rather than a philosophical one.

The vacancy tax is targeted and escapable. It applies to structures carrying a Vacant Building Notice, at three times the standard rate in the first full tax year, $6.744 per $100 of assessed value against a standard $2.248, rising to four times, $8.992, thereafter. On a property assessed at $1 million that is the difference between a $22,480 annual bill and $67,440, climbing to $89,920. It is escapable in a defined way: obtain a valid Use and Occupancy certificate, the VBN lifts, the rate reverts. Whatever else one thinks of it, an owner can compute the exposure and can act to end it.

A split-rate land tax is neither targeted nor escapable by leasing up. It would reach land across the city, including parcels never formally labeled vacant, and it reprices holding costs on land regardless of what sits on it. A surface lot, a low-rise on a high-value corridor, and a fully leased two-story building on a parcel zoned for eight stories all become more expensive to hold. That is the intended effect. It is also a materially different exposure for a district's assessment base than a targeted vacancy penalty, and no district in Baltimore has been formally consulted on the design. That is the same governance gap Plat Street documented in Issue 2's "Vacancy Gap" piece and Issue 1's Baltimore platcard.

Baltimore: Two Instruments, Two Exposures on a M-Assessed Property
Rates: .744/0 AV (3x) rising to .992/0 AV (4x), vs. .248/0 AV standard. Effective July 1, 2026. A split-rate land tax would not appear on this chart at all; it reprices the land component of every parcel, including those never designated vacant. Source: Baltimore City Code §14-8.

The opposition argument deserves to be stated at its strongest, because it is the one owners will need to make in writing. In testimony against a similar measure, NAIOP Maryland warned that land-value taxation can produce sharp assessment increases concentrated on lower-priced properties, and pointed to Pittsburgh's history of tax appeals and political backlash under a two-rate system. The mechanism behind that warning matters more than the citation.

Split-rate systems depend entirely on the accuracy of the land-versus-improvement allocation in the assessment record, and that allocation is the least rigorously maintained field in most jurisdictions' data. Under a single rate it does not matter much whether a parcel's value is booked 30/70 land-to-improvement or 50/50, because the two components are taxed identically and the total is the only number that reaches the bill. Under a split rate, that field is the bill. Every allocation that was never scrutinized because it never mattered becomes a tax determination overnight, which is precisely the condition that produces an appeal wave.

What owners should do now, before any ordinance is drafted.

Pull your current land-versus-improvement allocation from the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation record for every Baltimore parcel you hold. Note the percentage split. If you have never looked at it, that is normal, and that is the problem.

Model your bill at two or three plausible split rates using your existing allocation. You are not modeling the policy, which does not exist yet. You are identifying whether your portfolio is allocation-heavy on land and therefore exposed. Owners of surface parking, low-density buildings on high-value corridors, and land banked for future development will find they are.

If the allocation looks wrong, appeal it now, on the merits, under the current single-rate system. An allocation correction obtained before a split rate exists is a routine assessment matter with no political charge attached. The same correction sought after enactment is a tax dispute in a queue with every other owner who did not look, in front of a board that will have been told to expect exactly this.

Reconcile against your vacancy tax position. A successful assessment appeal reduces the assessed value base, which reduces vacancy tax liability on a VBN property proportionally. Owners carrying both exposures should sequence the appeal before the next assessment cycle rather than treating them as separate matters.

And for district managers: request a seat. The vacancy tax was designed without district input and produced a VBN error rate districts are now absorbing operationally. A split-rate proposal has a longer design runway. Ask for a formal role before the ordinance is drafted, not a comment period after it. The specific ask is a district seat on whatever working group produces the rate structure, and the specific argument is that districts hold parcel-level operational knowledge the assessment record does not.

Watch line: Whether the split-rate proposal is introduced as legislation and on what timeline, and whether SDAT publishes anything on the reliability of its land-versus-improvement allocations in Baltimore City. The second document, if it exists, decides how this goes.

Duplicate check: Issue 1 platcard (Baltimore vacancy tax), Issue 2 (implementation guide), Issue 2 MB ("The Stick Hits Your Balance Sheet"), Issue 5 BO-F-2 and FR-F-1 (tax live, day two and week two). This is the first Plat Street coverage of the split-rate successor and the first to treat the land-improvement allocation as the operative risk. Pairs with FR-P-1 in this issue.

Source: Baltimore City Code §14-8; Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation; NAIOP Maryland testimony; Hoodline, July–August 2026; Baltimore Banner reporting on vacant property valuation.

Verification note: Confirm the current vacant-property count the city is using in the split-rate debate and whether any councilmember has formally introduced a split-rate bill or only requested a study.