I'm a novice to this debate but I can immediately see some of the concerns. In a neighborhood like Central some homes have tripled in value in the last 5-10 yrs. This looks like a wonderful return but it's not all because of efforts to improve the neighborhood and home values. There are other factors that should be included or factored out. First, some of the homes we are talking about were abandoned or bought on foreclosure so a large return can be expected without any community work. However, these same homes required large loans, grants and subsidies to renovate them and make the livable. Now the gains are reduced and the debt is increased. In this post-renovation phase the owner may be in a fiscally vulnerable position. It is not uncommon for communities to lure businesses by offering tax deferrments to offset moving and startup costs. Couldn't the same principles be applied to reclaimed homes? Second, the housing market in Mpls has been over-valued as a result of a housing shortage. This is a short term fluctuation that can penalize a homeowner. The penalty comes if the homeowner pays the higher taxes but keeps the home during that bull market. Likewise, a homeowner who gets an unusually high price during a bear market benefits by not paying their fair share of taxes. So, in general I accept the notion that homes should pay increased taxes as they increase in value, but I would oppose basing that value solely on market forces which can fluctuate too much and could result in homeowners being taxed out of their own homes. I don't have a good method for valuing homes in a more conservative manner, but I would suggest that some sort of "normalization" function could be applied to the market which would result in fair valuation of homes which would not result in undue stress and shock to homeowners.
> 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 _______________________________________ 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
