[Speed Gibson,
Tuesday May 2, 2006 at 1:49am]
Real Property Tax Reform
Craig Westover quotes a Pioneer Press letter writer who makes a good point.
I happened to see the late Howard Jarvis of Proposition 13 fame, still waiting in the cab at the end of "Airplane!" tonight. This ratcheting of property taxes was standard operating procedure throughout California. If memory serves, his referendum limited the tax increases to inflation regardless of the property value until the property changes hands. Maybe that's what we need here.
Rather than inflation, perhaps it should be indexed to the total (not just general fund) spending of the unit of government imposing the tax. But let's not sweat the small stuff.
Doing this would create the stability we want, that we don't chase good citizens like Mr. Schuster out of town or put his tenants out of business. On the residential side, don't homeowners have a reasonable expectation of reasonable - and no more - increases in property taxes over the time they own the property? Rather than move, homeowners would have a good incentive to be longer term residents, free to add on to their house without tax penalties instead of moving, usually further out. Yes, the current system promotes urban sprawl!
We've had over thirty years of the Minnesota Miracle. It hasn't worked. Property tax relief, deductions, refunds, and circuit-breakers only give local governments cover to put the levies right back where they were. It's time for the DFL and some like-minded RINO's to retire this concept once and for all, as the first step toward true property tax reform.
I'm not sure that you could make the case that this is an intended result by the City of St. Paul, but it's yet another example of how messed up property taxes are in general.
A subtle form of eminent domain?
The April 24 article about the "land rush" on University Avenue is a major concern for many of the landowners along the University corridor who will "benefit" from the future light rail between the two cities ("In grip of a land rush").
The problem is, as a lessor, we are forced to raise the rent to our tenants in order to pay the exorbitant rise in taxes. Our tenants struggle now to meet the lease payment and still stay in business.
We have seen an increase in value of 300 percent over two years. Yet we have not benefited from this great "land rush" nor have our tenants. The city is using the "land rush" as a subtle "eminent domain" to force the small businesses off the corridor to make way for the large corporations. Why should the city and county reap the fruits of "increased land values" many, many years before we as landowners ever realize a profit? Meanwhile, our tenants are forced out of business because of the huge jump in real estate taxes.
RICHARD J. SCHUSTER
Roseville
I happened to see the late Howard Jarvis of Proposition 13 fame, still waiting in the cab at the end of "Airplane!" tonight. This ratcheting of property taxes was standard operating procedure throughout California. If memory serves, his referendum limited the tax increases to inflation regardless of the property value until the property changes hands. Maybe that's what we need here.
Rather than inflation, perhaps it should be indexed to the total (not just general fund) spending of the unit of government imposing the tax. But let's not sweat the small stuff.
Doing this would create the stability we want, that we don't chase good citizens like Mr. Schuster out of town or put his tenants out of business. On the residential side, don't homeowners have a reasonable expectation of reasonable - and no more - increases in property taxes over the time they own the property? Rather than move, homeowners would have a good incentive to be longer term residents, free to add on to their house without tax penalties instead of moving, usually further out. Yes, the current system promotes urban sprawl!
We've had over thirty years of the Minnesota Miracle. It hasn't worked. Property tax relief, deductions, refunds, and circuit-breakers only give local governments cover to put the levies right back where they were. It's time for the DFL and some like-minded RINO's to retire this concept once and for all, as the first step toward true property tax reform.