On 4/21/04 10:54 AM, "Victoria Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Carol Becker writes: > > "It is true that these retailers do pay property taxes although the amount > that they pay has dropped quite dramatically over the last five years due to > the legislature." > > Vicky adds: > > Commercial property in Minneapolis STILL pays 400% higher property taxes > than the equivalent value homestead property. In other words, a $200,000 > home pays roughly $2,000 (1%) and a $200,000 commercial property pays > roughly $8,000 (4%). I'm not sure why Vicky persists in making this claim. She did it a couple months ago and it was refuted by me: http://mapnp.geeks.org/pipermail/mpls/2004-February/030850.html "I found this hard to believe so I looked up the actual property tax rates in the state statutes. Turns out that Vicky's numbers are a bit off. Here are the real rates: Residential: 1% up to $500K, then 1.25% for remaining value above $500K Commercial: 1.5% up to $150K, then 2% for remaining value above $150K" Here's the source of my information: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/273/13.html It's worth noting again that the property tax rates are set by the state, not the city. And the state Legislature cut the rates for commercial property a couple years ago and homeowners make up the difference, so I'd be cautious of whining about commercial property taxes right now. > Minneapolis has five choices: > > 1. Continue its compulsive spending and try to lure businesses to pick up > the tab; or > 2. Continue its compulsive spending and try to get other State and Federal > taxpayers to pick up the tab; or > 3. Dramatically reduce spending and try to service existing debts for the > next twenty years; or > 4. Dramatically increase homestead property taxes and let the people who > voted for the spending pay for it. > 5. Default on all or part of nearly $2 billion of existing debts. > > Options 4 and 5 constitute political suicide, so there are really only 3 > choices. I think anyone who's been paying attention at all to what the mayor and city council have been up to since the 2001 elections knows that choice #3 has been employed quite a bit. Additionally, what Vicky continues to conveniently overlook is how much harder it's become to fix the problems of the SSB/Cherryhomes regime because her beloved GOP "leaders" continue to shirk their responsibilities and push them off onto the cities and counties to absorb. I believe the SW Journal profile on Rybak's first two years noted that Rybak and council have had to do four budgets in that span because the state keeps screwing with us. Maybe Minneapolis could focus more on fixing it's so-called "hostile business environment" if Pawlenty and the House would quit balancing the state budget shortfalls caused by their short-sighted tax cuts on our backs! > Sean Ryan writes: > > "CVS still resists putting doors or even windows on the streetside. Let's > not let them run the show, make some demands and stick to our guns. We want > more mixed use, let's make it happen!" > > Vicky comments: > > Is public money involved in the CVS Pharmacy site development? If not, it's > none of our business what they do or don't do with private property....as > long as they comply with zoning and code requirements. Umm, I disagree. I think a good case could be made for ugly commercial development like CVS proposes would have a negative impact on neighboring residents. Generally speaking, people don't like to live by ugly stuff, whether it's a dilapidated house or a concrete shoebox like CVS. That hurts market values for neighboring properties. Which also hurts tax revenue for the city. Which means even if the city doesn't care what Sean Ryan or other smart folks like him think, they have a personal interest in preventing poorly-designed development from taking place. > If you don't like CVS, or Wal-Mart, or any big box, you don't have to shop > there, but don't force your prejudices upon others. Interesting. Let's play a word game and rephrase: If you don't like [affordable housing developments], you don't have to [live] there, but don't force your prejudices upon others. How many folks think Vicky or her neighbors in North Oaks (or pretty much any outer edge 'burb) would agree with that phrase? I'm guessing not too many. Why is it OK to be prejudiced about certain kinds of housing developments but not certain kinds of commercial developments? Or maybe somebody just needs to pay a visit to Wal-Mart and get a $2 dictionary so they can look up the word "hypocrite" and see what it means? Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
