thor800 wrote:
not everyone that currently owns downtown has been living there forever and been substantially subsidized by other areas of the city. these areas have also seen increased values in the past few years and maybe wont see that golden $100 or $200 per month reduction by the reval - at most ? who will be crying now ?

telling someone that they shouldnt be pissed their taxes are skyrocketing based on an arguably inflated investor driven market and if they dont like it, then they can just sell and leave is just being a dick.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

yorkster wrote:
Funny, those of us apposing the methodology of property tax calculation are due to get a $36K bill and those in favor obviously are not. Just because a value of a home has risen doesn't mean that the individual that lives in that home has the means to pay $36K year over year.

Stop being self-servingly obtuse. There is nothing wrong with the methodology. it is the same one used ALL OVER the USA. If someone bought a home for 300K, and that home has now risen to 1.5 MM, and they can't afford the taxes now, they still have options that all those other that have been subsidizing them do not have. Namely, the person has 1.2 MM in (unrealized) profit into which the person can can tap to pay off the tax burden: borrow against the property, or sell, or find another solution.

Complaining about having to pay higher taxes on a property that has appreciated tremendously, and for which taxes have been under assessed for a decade or longer, is like complaining about being taxed on lottery winnings: it is petty and will not get you far.

Yvonne wrote:
I am in position to criticize tax abatment because develpers did not ask for them in the first place, it was offered to them by our mayors in exchange for repayment of tax dollars. Society Hill built on contaminated soil and not in Ward E, went up without any tax abatements. Another development Dixon Mills, no tax abatements. Colgate Redevelopment which is on the waterfront did not ask for a tax abatement neither did Newport. They both took the abatements after they were offered. Newport already had some building up and running when they took the tax abatements. Tax abatements hurt the people who pay the full taxes. When our school and county taxes go up, they do not feel that impact.

yorkster wrote:
Funny, those of us apposing the methodology of property tax calculation are due to get a $36K bill and those in favor obviously are not. Just because a value of a home has risen doesn't mean that the individual that lives in that home has the means to pay $36K year over year.

Yvonne wrote:
Port Liberte had a 15 year tax abatement, normally people go to tax court and appeal when their abatement expires. Nearly one third of JC properties are still tax abated, if no abatements existed, everyone would probably have a oneg third lower tax bill.

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
I find it funny that you think others should carry your tax burden just because you failed to do your due diligence. When I bought my first home downtown the taxes were low, like most homes in DTJC, so we went to the assessor's office and asked about it. Yes I got hit with a huge tax bill in the following cycles, but it gave me time to plan ahead.

When the value of your home rises, but you can't afford the taxes, you need to move or find a way to afford your taxes. It's wrong, not to mention incredibly selfish, to think that you should get a break just because the value of your home went up.

Be an adult and deal with your problems. Stop trying to pass them off on anyone else but yourself. Then again, you're the one with opinions like taxes should be based on lot size rather than value, so I won't hold my breath you are going to do what you're supposed to do.

yorkster wrote:
Funny, those of us apposing the methodology of property tax calculation are due to get a $36K bill and those in favor obviously are not.

mfmonaco wrote:
I have a question. Does being 65 yrs. old & retired help to keep the property taxes somewhat in check ?
Thank you

mfmonaco wrote:
I have a question. Does being 65 yrs. old & retired help to keep the property taxes somewhat in check ?
Thank you

yorkster wrote:
100% agree. Property taxes should not me based on market value rather it should be based on a formula taking to account the lot size and square footage of home. That's black and white and no room for interpretation unlike actual value of a home. Then the only time a property tax would have to be re-calculated is if an addition is added. If you have 2 identical homes and one is renovated and the other is not, why should the homeowner that invested HIS/HER money into their home be penalized. Both homes regardless of value are still using the same level of city services. Likewise, why should someone with a lot size 16x100 pay more than a home in another part of the city that is on a lot 50x100. Makes no sense.

Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

No one should have to pay close to 2% of this market value for a condo or a 25x100 lot. It's absurd with all the business here and such a large tax base. Those are suburban rates. Hopefully the reval will put some pressure on the Administration to cut waste out of the budget.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

No one should have to pay close to 2% of this market value for a condo or a 25x100 lot. It's absurd with all the business here and such a large tax base. Those are suburban rates. Hopefully the reval will put some pressure on the Administration to cut waste out of the budget.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Not for nothing, but the reval has been discussed over the course of *years* not days. The reval began in Fulop's inaugural year (2013). That means people have had 4 years to prepare and "phase in" the potential cost of their tax bill. They have been able to determine whether they can afford or not the increased cost.

Indeed not for nothing. Fulop stopped the reval, and if the City has made any announcements indicating the potential tax rate post-reval, they've been well hidden from me. Perhaps had they gone on the public record indicating the anticipated range of the expected rate, people might have had a better opportunity to prepare. But that didn't happen. And the City didn't conduct revals for over 25 years either.

The City bears a large measure of culpability for this mess, and should undertake reasonable steps to mitigate the inevitable negative impact as the tax changes are implemented.

As I think I've said here before ? I'm not paying any more tax than I already do to the City and State. I've taken several steps to insulate myself from any future increases. Unless the City and State start showing some degree of responsibility and reasonableness, well they'll just have to do without my contributions altogether.

bodhipooh wrote:
While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

bodhipooh wrote:
While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

Bamb00zle wrote:

Issue some bonds ? the City's credit ratings keep getting upgraded.

Pebble wrote:
Not for nothing, but the reval has been discussed over the course of *years* not days. The reval began in Fulop's inaugural year (2013). That means people have had 4 years to prepare and "phase in" the potential cost of their tax bill. They have been able to determine whether they can afford or not the increased cost.