The BRT will be implemeting a new tax rate starting Jan 2008 (I think)....this will affect many long term residents...here's my question:

What should happen to long term residents who may not be ablle to afford the new tax rates?

For example, I know many in my district that have purchased homes 10 years ago. West Poplar Nehemiah Homes is an affordable housing project designed for homeownership and includes 175 new townhomes and is located on the fringe of Center City Philadelphia in the West Poplar section of North Philadelphia.

The homes were purchased for around $65,000 ($40,000 in 1997 to qualified first time homeowners low-middle income; the federal govenment kicked in remaining $25,000 in part as a subsidy).

Now..since the surge of people moving to NP, and the new developments poppin up, there has been a significant increase in price of homes sold in the area...For example, 2 years ago, a sheriff sale sold one of the propertities for $161,000; Another on Poplar street sold for $239,000 last year.

When he met with a rep from the BRT, he said that the new tax on existing homes will be assessed on the most recent sales, etc....

There will be some people who really want to stay, but will have to eventually sell their homes because of the new rates. Then there are those who have owned homes in the NP community for over 20 years + and may not be able to keep their properties....

What do you suggest? Any comment would be greatly appreciated....

__________________


Obama for President
Biden for VP

You have the $64,000 question there. In many neighborhoods, it won't be just the long term residents taxed out. It will be you and me. In any event . . .

Number one, fight for caps on increases. Property taxes should not increase more than 5 percent year. Write your city councilman. Start up a grassroots campaign, whatever it takes.

Two, I hear rumors of a ballot referendum concerning full market valuation. Vote to block the revaluation. Get everybody with a pulse to do the same.

Three, fight to reduce the bloated city payroll. Most of the city budget, the real money, goes to fund the maximum number of patronage jobs in duplicative and/or overstaffed city agencies. The pension and benefit system for city employees is so generous it makes a mockery of what most of us get working private sector jobs -- and we are the ones who pay for those city benefits. We will never get taxes under control, maybe even attract a material number of decent jobs rather than chase business and taxpaying residents away, unless we get spending under control.

Probably more. There's a start.

No argument here. But I think it's ok to rebaseline the property taxes to national averages or at least 1.5-2.0% of property value--which yes is high... but still lower than NJ and NY counties which have the highest in the nation (as much as 2.8% in Albany).

The City could have done more to reduce the "sticker shock" by changing the % basis of market valuation like some other states (like WV) do. Do 50% of market rate eval, then escalate it to 70% the next year, then the full desired amount.

Where did you hear this? URL? The City is already preparing to implement this. If it needed a vote there would be TV campaigning on it right now. I don't see that.

A couple of posters here were trying to go with the logic that flushing out the City by thinning the heard would cause irrevocable damage to our local economy.

Well, the City of Philadelphia is almost the #1 employer here, is it not?

That's a crying shame!

You mean to tell me... that the only game in town that drives employment is the City government, who blows the money in guaranteed pensions to all these surplus workers, who may or may not all spend it all here (the City doesn't have a provision that if you retire you have to stay in Philadelphia and NOT go get a vacation property in Florida).

So it is really the suburbanites working in the city, tourists and young professionals who reverse commute who are really driving the economic engine of the city---the City payroll and distribution to same residents isn't contributing to our local GNP. It's just moving money around, and further... those payments are coming out in taxes, which affects us all.

When government spending jumps up, especially deficit spending, it acts as an inflationary cancer--driving up prices and wages in lockstep. The City gets nowhere doing this.

The City of Philadelphia should be plowing the money into capital projects which improve the quality of life here, not lining pockets of patronage employees.

After all, we, the citizens, need services. That is what government is for. That's why we pay them. We get nothing out of sending Barbi off in her dream car to Malibu. We get value out of repairing potholes, improving schools and keeping criminals locked up and keeping the climate good for businesses who generate employment.

Like... DUH!

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

I'm not positive it's a done deal but there are a few in city government who actually give a $hit and try to avoid doing stupid things that hurt the city. The watchdog mentioned it in a meeting with "us" (us being a few concerned and politically active taxpayors who got a meeting with him).

Interesting. I hear this sort of thing very oftern and I have to ask, can you really afford to pay roughly 2% of what your house would really sell for, every year in prop. taxes? I'm curious because I know I can't afford that and I consider myself to fall into an upper middle class income level. I already pay about 1% on my house (one of the "lucky" ones where my house got whomped in past two "cycles" before I bought it). Any more and I got a problem and I'm sure I can't be alone.

That's the problem with bubble pricing + market evaluation taxes.

RE baloons out of control, then property taxes soon follow. But the City then collects off that which it can use in the general fund. It's not like a situation where the city budget is stagnant while values climb without services and infrastructure improvements follow suit (which you know... helps keeps the market prices up there).

I don't agree with Philadelphians having to bear the full sticker shock all at once, that's a no-no and not a good way to cradle voters.

If it comes to that, it would be political suicide, would it not?

How much more abuse can citizens take before Philadelphians do something about the Democrat political machine? Tammany Hall can't last forever, y'know.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

If city council would reform the way property is taxed in the city, we wouldn't have to worry as much about this. At the very least, they could approve Nutter's bill that caps propety tax increases at 10%/year.

__________________
Welcome to Philadelphia. Here's how you can help us make our great city even better:

• Write to your state and local elected officials
• Report suspicious activity to the police department

Getting lost in every conversation about full valuation property tax is that while BRT sets the assessments, City Council sets the tax rates. This re-valuation is supposed to be revenue neutral. After the BRT revises the assesments, City Council should revise the millage rage that determines the taxes for each property (millage x assessed value = taxes). Yes, some people's taxes will go up, but some will go down.

I live in essentially the same house as my partner's aunt who lives just up the block from us. She's been in the house since it was built in the 60's. We moved into our house in January. Our taxes are about 25% higher than hers. Why should that be so? If we can both sell our houses for the same amount, they're both worth the same. Why shouldn't our taxes be the same?

I have little sympathy for someone who's $40K home is now worth $230K.

West Poplar Nehemiah Homes aka Richard Allen homes. Whats gonna happen when those new homes fall apart in 10 years. No prop tax is too low for that.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFC28 Isn't it ironic that Mark B. Cohen, the guy who soaked the taxpayers for $22K on book store spending sprees, is a champion of libraries?

This message is hidden because jrouleau426 is on your ignore list.