Cam Gordon provided a list of proposals for discussion
concerning affordable housing. In the midst of the
political season warming up I find it interesting that
by lack of ommission he has ignored the crisis hitting
many current Minneapolis citizens. That crisis is
rising real estate taxes.
I have not remodeled or added on to my house during
the last ten years. I might add that my income
increased during the early nineties and dropped
sharply the last two years. My real estate taxes
showed no such decline, more than doubling during the
same period. The average annualized increase was 8.5%
per year. That's worth repeating, 8.5% each and every
year for ten years. This raises an interesting
question. How many people had annual pay increases of
8.5% the last ten years? How are retired people who
want to stay in their homes during their retirement
years dealing with that pace of inflation? Are their
social security payments keeping up? How are renters
dealing with the increased tax costs passed on to them
by their landlords? How long does our government
intend to keep up this pace of inflation?
A lot of proposals for solving the affordability issue
involve government programs. The problem is those
programs have to be paid for by someone. Cam's
proposals sound good when first viewed, but when you
do not list the effect high real estate taxes have on
the affordability issue, you are missing a major
factor in the discussion of how to deal with the
question of what government can afford to do.
If you consider the costs to tax payers, you might
look in different directions for solutions. Some of
Cam's proposals are taxpayer friendly. Lets sell city
owned lots. Lets even require affordable housing be
built on them. Lets ease the process for developers
that want to work in Minneapolis. If they need city
help lets then require them to provide a percentage of
affordable housing.
Some of Cam's other proposals are not taxpayer
friendly. To stop demolishing housing units in favor
of preservation and renovation sounds good, but have
you ever looked at a house that is ready to be torn
down and estimated the cost to renovate? I have. Often
the bulldozer is the best way. If a developer wants to
develop a multi-housing complex on a block and needs
to tear down a few houses that need rehab, what makes
the most sense? Sometimes the biggest step forward
might include a few steps back and those houses might
need to go. Speaking of developers, Cam suggested
providing them with incentives to develop housing.
Incentives cost money. Who pays for that? Some would
say that's no problem, just tax the other people of
the city. Kind of like subsidizing Target downtown.
Take money from the regular citizens (don't forget to
include here retired folks, first time home buyers on
a tight budget, workers whose income has not kept pace
with tax inflation) to give to developers. Yea sure,
your idea is based on good intentions. Most stuff
proposed by government is based on someone's good
intentions. That doesn't mean it should all be done.
Am I concerned with affordable housing? Sure. My
concern however includes a more widespread and diverse
segment of the population than what politicians are
currently hot to serve. I would like them to consider
tax payers as well.
Bob Gustafson
13th
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
