I may be wading into quicksand on this one, but are folks opposed to paying more property taxes if a home actually does increase in value? It seems many neighborhoods are working to increase property values and, when they do increase on account of neighborhood efforts, shouldn't the corresponding responsibility be to pay more in taxes because of that increased value? I know we get into issues of folks on limited or fixed incomes and the gentrification that goes along with increased property values (and we have a responsibility to deal with these issues), but it seems counterintuitive to me to work to increase property values and then to raise an issue of taxes when property values actually do increase. Not to say Wizard and Dean are complaining about this, but just wondering.
Gregory Luce N. Phillips > Dean Carlson wrote: > >> My 2002 property taxes will be $7.50 MORE than the 2001. Where's my >tax >cut? I >guess it got caught up in the school and library >referendum and the fact that the >assessed value on my house went up >$10,500 > Wizard Marks wrote: >> My property taxes went up $54.98 because my property was >> raised in value. Since I'm still at the corner of Lake and >> Oakland, a rise in value seems more like an insult than >> anything else. > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
