Based on Vicki's data it looks like residential property taxes are about 60% higher in Mpls than in North Oaks for relatively nice digs in both locations. Having not seen the properties in question for comparison purposes, all I can say with certainty is that yes, the market has valued these properties given their location-- and that valuation includes the annual cost of the property tax burden. So what?
After considering what public services and amenities are available and provided to the property owners/taxpayers, I question why property taxes vary so widely in any given city (or between cities). Shouldn't property taxes reflect the value of public services and amenities provided-- police, fire, road maintenance, sewerage services, public parks, libraries and schools, curb frontage, sidewalks, for example? Shouldn't property taxes reflect the property owners 'demand for public services' to some significant extent? Income taxes collect a portion of annual income earned on a progressive graduated scale and are based on a persons annual ability to pay. Property taxes do not. Many people lose jobs, incur cataclysmic medical expenses, get divorced, get old and retire and experience other drastic reductions in earned/investment income for numerous reasons quite often. Those common life circumstances are in no way recognized under current property tax laws. Thus, property taxes are often referred to as being regressive, since they don't consider one's ability to pay. Evidently it is the intent of society (and not just in Mpls) to assume a person's property reflects some annual earned income/investment cash flow and then tax them accordingly, even though that MAY not be the case and IS not the case in too many situations. Progressive taxes on annual earned/investment income are one thing; progressive taxes on residential property is quite another! Why can't the residential-ish portions of municipal expenses be allocated more on a 'demand for services' basis that is more reflective of typical 'per-capita' or 'per household' requirements? [Commercial/industrial property taxes should rightfully reflect market values AND the annual cash flows from a going concern-- thus, they should be structured much differently from residential property taxes.] Where is the growing elderly (and other) population(s) of Minneapolis expected to live as property values and property tax rates continue to escalate while their earned/investment incomes becomes stagnant and even disappear? And naturally, this question pertains to both homeowners and renters. Where will people on Social Security with no-to-moderate pensions be expected to live? Where is the social morality in the current residential (owner occupied or rental) property tax structure? What are the implications for affordable housing in the near future as baby boomers retire? Let's try and remember the distinctions between 'income' and 'property' taxes as we develop new municipal policy and strategy options in Mpls. Michael Hohmann 13th Ward www.mahohmannbizplans.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > David Brauer > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 9:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Property Taxes - Minneapolis vs. North Oaks > > > Victoria Heller writes: > > > > > My house sits on a 2 acre lot, on the edge of a 600 acre > wildlife preserve, > > overlooking a lake. My taxable market value for 2002 is $308,800 and my > > property taxes are $3,110. > > > > My partner's house sits on a city lot, overlooking Lake Calhoun. His > > taxable market value for 2001 (2002 is not yet available, but it will be > > higher) was $568,500, and his property taxes were $9,023. > > > > The question is: What does taxable market value mean? If it's > a question > > of taste, it is pretty scary to be taxed on one's taste. > > Vicki - I don't think it's a matter of taste...it sounds like the > market has > spoken. > > Taking your implicit assumption that the ramblers are equivalent, > your house > is on a bigger lot, in a wildlife preserve - yet is worth > $250,000 less than > your partner's. To put it a different way, the market has valued a > Minneapolis location far higher than North Oaks - and, reflecting > that asset > value, the property taxes are higher. > > As Kirby Puckett once said of paying a lot in taxes, "it must mean I had a > pretty good year." I don't think from your example Minneapolis looks bad - > it looks like a great place for property & asset values to accrue. > > David Brauer > King Field - Ward 10 > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________ > 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
