Maryland

Overview

Maryland has no land value tax and its largest city cannot adopt one without the General Assembly's permission. Property-tax bills in the state already show land and improvements separately, but Baltimore City and the 23 counties may set only a single real-property rate. A 2026 bill to change that, with a Senate cross-file, received hearings and went no further; a Baltimore City Council resolution introduced that summer asks for an informational hearing on a split-rate shift; and the Department of Legislative Services' note on the bill records an earlier attempt in 1994. The state's other encounter with rent taxation is its digital advertising tax, the first in the United States, which the wiki treats under the taxation of attention rents rather than land.

The 2026 Enabling Bill

House Bill 78 of the 2026 session, sponsored by Delegate Vaughn Stewart, is titled "Property Taxes – Authority of Counties to Establish Subclasses and Set Separate Rates for Land and Improvements to Land." It would authorise the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City or the governing body of a county to establish subclasses of real property consisting of land and of improvements and to set a separate rate for each; it contains no requirement that the shift be revenue-neutral.[1] The bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee and heard on 27 January 2026; the Senate cross-file, Senate Bill 457 sponsored by Senator Jim Rosapepe, was heard by Budget and Taxation on 18 February. Neither advanced before the session ended.[2][3]

The fiscal and policy note explains why the state's own costs loomed over the debate. Because the State Department of Assessments and Taxation values all real property in Maryland, giving counties separate land and improvement rates would require changes to its systems, data storage and staffing; under one set of assumptions state expenditures rise by about $39.1 million in fiscal 2027 and $8.1 million in fiscal 2031, with counties reimbursing part of the cost.[4] The same note sets out the comparators the sponsors drew on: twelve Pennsylvania cities and towns using split rates, the largest Scranton and Harrisburg; four Virginia cities authorised but none using the power; and Connecticut's pilot authority for up to three municipalities.[4] The Department of Legislative Services' fiscal note records that enabling legislation was passed in 1994 and vetoed by Governor William Donald Schaefer.[4]

Baltimore

Baltimore City Council Resolution 26-0062R, introduced by Councilmember Zac Blanchard on 13 July 2026 and assigned to the Budget and Appropriations Committee, invites stakeholders to an informational hearing to evaluate the benefits of a split-rate property tax, reciting that such a tax would impose a higher rate on land value and that nearby Pennsylvania municipalities with split rates see more building.[5] Baltimore's own real-property rate stands at $2.248 per $100 of assessed value, set by the annual property-tax ordinances for fiscal 2026 and 2027, with no distinction between land and improvements.[6] The advocacy group Baltimore Thrive, whose organiser appeared with Blanchard on his council podcast in September 2026, describes the goal as a land value tax shift that would cut bills for most homeowners and productive commercial property while raising them on vacant and underused land; the group's account of Harrisburg's results and of the enabling bill's prospects is its own, and the podcast gives no modelled figures for Baltimore.[7]

Significance

Maryland is one of the states where 2026's wave of enabling legislation reached hearings but not passage, alongside Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio and New Hampshire, while New York, Virginia and Kentucky expanded the legal possibility of land value taxation (2026 state enablement wave). Its case shows the practical obstacle a centralised state assessment system puts in the way of a local two-rate tax: the decision to split rates is local, but the valuation machinery that would have to carry it is the state's. Pennsylvania, whose cities the Maryland note cites, is the precedent both sides argue from.

See Also

• 2026 State LVT Enablement Wave — the national context
• Split-Rate Taxation — the instrument the bill would permit
• Pennsylvania · Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — the precedents cited in Annapolis and Baltimore
• Maryland's Digital Advertising Tax — the state's other rent-tax experiment
• Land Value Tax · United States

Sources

1. Maryland General Assembly, House Bill 78 (2026 Regular Session), first reader text. mgaleg.maryland.gov — used for the bill's title, sponsor and operative purpose (A-claim; legislative record).
2. Maryland General Assembly, HB 78 (2026) legislation page: sponsor, committee and history. mgaleg.maryland.gov — used for the referral and the 27 January 2026 hearing with no further action (A-claim; legislative record).
3. Maryland General Assembly, SB 457 (2026) legislation page. mgaleg.maryland.gov — used for the cross-file, its sponsor and the 18 February 2026 hearing (A-claim; legislative record).
4. Department of Legislative Services, Maryland General Assembly, Fiscal and Policy Note, HB 78 (2026). mgaleg.maryland.gov — used for the cost estimates, the assessment system's role, the Pennsylvania, Virginia and Connecticut comparators and the 1994 history (A-claim; nonpartisan legislative staff).
5. Baltimore City Council, Resolution 26-0062R, "Informational Hearing – Land Value Tax," introduced 13 July 2026. baltimore.legistar.com — used for the resolution's sponsor, date, committee and recitals (A-claim; official body).
6. Baltimore City Council, Ordinance 25-026 (Council Bill 25-0061), Annual Property Tax, fiscal 2026, and Ordinance 26-142 (Council Bill 26-0189), fiscal 2027. baltimore.legistar.com · baltimore.legistar.com — used for the $2.248 rate (A-claim; official body).
7. "The Case for a Land Value Tax with Vanessa Beck (Baltimore Thrive)," Blanchard on Baltimore, episode 6, 17 September 2026, with transcript. blanchardbaltimore.transistor.fm — used for the advocacy group's stated goals and Blanchard's account of his own resolution (D-claims; Tier 2 advocacy account, Tier 1 only for the councilmember's statements about his own actions; its Harrisburg figures and cost estimate differ from the official record and are not used).