Hi Why has and is the city not aggressively going after the tax "deadbeats"? If they collected even half of the monies owed, that would, if the 500 million figure is correct (which I don't doubt), that would definitely be a huge help. And while property taxes might go up, it wouldn't be so draconian and scary.
Peoples' incomes aren't going up 175% (looking at one property in Spruce Hill via http://ppiin.org/avi-impact-map/). I almost threw up when I saw that one, that's not too far from where we're living. That's insane. Prices of everything keep going up, many people are struggling to get by now. No one's going to be able to sell, even if they wanted to - and most people don't. And if they were to, where are they going to go? People who bought houses as their primary residence usually are in for the "long haul" knowing they have a permanent place. Many people didn't buy during the "bubble", they bought fixer-uppers and with the cost of everything else going up (gas, electric, etc.), they're not getting to "fix up" what they wanted, only what's positively needed (roof leaking, for instance). Now the very people who bought within their means and bought when the area was still either "bad" or just coming up - depending on your block in a lot of cases - are going to excuse the expression, be raped by the city because the city has been lazy and behind on keeping assessments up to date, thereby keeping property taxes at perhaps a slower, lower increase that might be able to be budgeted in even a little easier and by not going after the deadbeats. The renters? They're going to get slammed and I've found most rents around here to be pretty high (I've seen small 1 bedrooms going for $900+ - for me that would be with utilities my entire SSDI check), plus many landlords are converting utilities so renters have to pay most or all of them. Now a big rent increase on top of that and the landlords (I'm talking the smaller neighborhood landlords even more) probably still won't be able to recover the difference. Where does that leave the working folk who rent, the people with children, everyone who's living paycheck to paycheck already. "(Non-exempt landlords could pass along their higher taxes to their renters, 75 percent of whom are low income.)" http://www.citypaper.net/news/2012-06-14-crunch-time.html AVI in a nutshell: The city’s property assessments are a mess, and have been for years. Some people are paying too much in property taxes, and many others — including many wealthier residents — are paying profoundly less than they ought to be. Under AVI, the city is reassessing every property in the city according to its “actual” (see?) market value. <b>Then, the tax itself will be rejigged to make the whole endeavor almost revenue-neutral — almost, because Mayor Michael Nutter has built into his proposal a means to maintain the revenues until now collected via two years of “temporary” tax hikes, plus another property-tax hike and $94 million extra for schools.</b> - <i>emphasis added</i> This whole AVI plan is a disaster and it's going to be a huge disaster for all affected, meaning just about all of us whether we own or rent. I'm very worried, very scared, very angry. I am blessed to be able to live in the house someone bought - it already had a "mother-in-law" space/apt. and I do my best to help with household expenses being disabled on SSDI. It is not a formal rental but the house is listed as having an apt. AFAIK it probably was when it was bought. And from little I can see, the block is just about all zoned as C2. What that means for the homeowner I don't know. I can google, try to read but after awhile I end up completely confused (my normal state anyway). Just, bottom line, this AVI scheme is wrong-minded, it's going to hurt a lot more than it's going to help. It's not going to help the economy, even with the business tax removed - people will not have the money to spend in our local businesses except for absolute necessities like ... food. People are going to default because they can't afford it and then what? What about the people who don't have children, aren't going to have children. There's bound to be resentment from people being forced to cough up yet another tax increase (there was one in 2011) to bail out the schools - again: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/06/16/philadelphia-city-council-set-to-pass-partial-bailout-of-the-school-district-of-philadelphia-without-mayor-nutters-proposed-soda-tax/ Maybe if City Council wasn't so ready to vote themselves raises and pension increases ( http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/09/15/philadelphia-city-council-overrides-mayor-nutters-veto-of-drop-pension-program/); why was the "sugar tax" on soft drinks not passed last year? Why are people buying "luxury" condos - who can certainly afford them - getting 10 year tax abatements? Why are big corporations getting these tax abatements (I know, they're "job creators"), but looking at at PDF that was just between June 2006 and June 2008 (found by just doing a general search): http://www.econsult.com/articles/041609_Abatement.pdf (on page 19) Projected city tax revenues due to the abatement were $118.6m in 2006, whereas the city has only received $68.2m to date. For the Commonwealth, projected tax revenues due to the abatement were $144.2m in 2006, whereas the Commonwealth has received only $85.7m to date. Sorry for the short "novel" and the rant, but there's a lot of people who may not be on either list and don't know about this and won't know until they get their property tax bill and see it's gone from 1.25% to 1.80%, haven't applied for homestead/gentifrication relief because they didn't know about it and are going to have to choose between paying their tax bill and possibly keeping the heat on and buying enough food or medicines. And selfishly for me and my friends and neighbors, I am beyond worried, upset and angry. ~W On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Gregory Montanaro < [email protected]> wrote: > This is an interesting resource to project your new home taxes: > http://ppiin.org/avi-impact-map/ > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Lewis Mellman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Don't expect this story to answer the question the headline implies. >> -Lewis >> >> >> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/city/20120613_What_new_Philadelphia_tax_plan_would_mean_for_renters.html?c=0.06678940002564349&posted=y&viewAll=y#comments >> >> What new Philadelphia tax plan would mean for renters >> >> By Catherine Lucey >> Daily News Staff Writer >> >> Philadelphia Daily News >> READER FEEDBACK >> Post a >> comment<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/city/20120613_What_new_Philadelphia_tax_plan_would_mean_for_renters.html?c=0.06678940002564349&posted=y&viewAll=y#comments> >> >> GREG PASTORE, a landlord with three rental properties in the city's Bella >> Vista section, says that if Mayor Nutter's property-tax overhaul passes, >> he'll likely have to raise rents. Even so, he thinks he'll still take a >> financial hit. >> >> >> "You can only take it up so high," said Pastore, 45, who makes a modest >> income from the buildings, which have commercial and residential units. >> "These are old buildings. Young kids just out of college are the tenants." >> >> Renters as a group haven't been much discussed in the raging debate over >> Nutter's plan to move the city to a property-tax system based on market >> values, known as the Actual Value Initiative (AVI). But tenant-advocacy >> groups say renters in neighborhoods where tax bills are shooting up could >> see higher rents — and the protections being discussed by City Council >> wouldn't apply to them. >> >> "Clearly, any tax overhaul is going to affect tenants indirectly," said >> Phil Lord, executive director of the Tenant Union Representative Network. >> "The challenge is how to deal with the long-term tenant or low-income >> tenant. We believe there's a lack of parity between homeowners and tenants." >> >> Council is discussing an exemption that would cap tax bills for longtime >> homeowners in gentrified neighborhoods. And all owner-occupiers would >> potentially be eligible for a homestead exemption that would lower their >> assessment by $30,000. >> >> Councilman Jim Kenney acknowledged that renters would not be covered by >> those protections. But he said he's looking to introduce legislation in the >> fall that would limit the amount a landlord could raise rent. >> >> "I have concerns about the renting population," Kenney said. "My staff is >> looking at some measures. Typically they're done in [Washington] D.C., >> because of the large number of renters there." >> >> But those protections would likely not cover the landlords renting out >> the buildings. Some real-estate experts noted that landlords probably >> couldn't pass on the entirety of a tax hike anyway and said that a rise in >> taxes may push some to sell their properties. >> >> "A lot of people become landlords because they can't sell their property >> or they perceive they can't sell their property," said real-estate agent >> John Featherman. "For these individuals the question will be, ‘Does the >> fear of the unknown inspire them to sell instead of rent?' " >> >> Still, Pastore wondered if he'd even be able to sell the buildings he >> bought in the late 1990s, given the uncertainty about taxes. >> >> "Who would I sell them to? Nobody in his right mind would buy any >> property right now," Pastore said. "I will eat out less, I guess. What else >> am I going to do? n >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "UCNeighbors" >> group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ucneighbors?hl=en >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "UCNeighbors" > group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/ucneighbors?hl=en >
