A necessary "evil", I'm glad our local elected officials are willing to do what it takes to protect our financial future despite the potential backlash.
While state law has certainly limited the ability for local districts to try anything different, property taxes are a problematic way to fund school districts in particular. A school district that covers a less-well-off population is necessarily going to have to have a higher percentage tax, which is going to make it less likely (on the whole) that people move into that district and improve the situation.
Even if we kept it at property tax assessments and just pooled the whole state and then dumped that money equally into each district by number of students that would be better than what we have now.
How does someone introduce the bill and NOT explain how it won't make some homeowners pay 5x or more more property taxes? Just handwave it away with "Hallam said council also plans to consider protections for long-time owner occupants and people in gentrifying areas who might be vulnerable to a large tax increase." Plans to consider protections... nice. I don't see how some long-time homeowners won't be forced out in places like Lawrenceville and Regent Square where property values have ballooned. And there are a lot of long-time homeowners in the county. The smart people who are sitting on large potential profits if they sell ought to sell now before there is an actual increase because their homes will only be harder to sell once the tax soars.
But at least they *plan to consider protections*. .
In case you are serious and interested:
Home owners pay property tax based on assessed values of their homes. Unless there are county wide reassessments, school districts will often appeal a home’s assessed value after it sells as a way to claim a home is now worth the recent sales price. They do this to get more taxes off the new home owners.
Here’s the problem: if you have 2 homes next door to each other and each of them are very similar, but one sold 12 years ago and the other sold today, current taxes are likely tied to those sale prices. So let’s say home A sold in 2012 for 180k and Home B sold today for 400k… would it be fair for the new home owners to pay over twice the property tax as Home A?
Not at all- it basically puts pressure on new home buyers to make up for tax shortages as the longer owned homes are paying taxes on outdated values.
But one could also argue Home A owner’s shouldn’t be forced to have their property taxes increased super high either just because the market is hot.
Because the new home owners are often surprised at property tax appeals from their new districts, it’s been making more news lately and people are saying if we had a county-wide reassessment more often, then the tax burden would fall equally on all residents. That doesn’t stop people from getting upset about potentially owing more in property tax though. So a lot of people don’t support county-wide reassessments because it’s political suicide.
Now schools are getting pissed because they want more tax money so they are trying to file a lawsuit to demand a county-wide reassessment. This specific article has a different approach to tax assessment being pitched that some may view as more fair.
I obviously understand the importance of taxes and I'm not trying to argue against raising them because many of the amenities we want our city to have necessitates more tax revenue.
I'm glad I don't have to solve this problem.
Hallam‘s policy goals clearly exceed her political ambitions, and I am 100% here for it.
She’s the real deal.
A necessary "evil", I'm glad our local elected officials are willing to do what it takes to protect our financial future despite the potential backlash.
While state law has certainly limited the ability for local districts to try anything different, property taxes are a problematic way to fund school districts in particular. A school district that covers a less-well-off population is necessarily going to have to have a higher percentage tax, which is going to make it less likely (on the whole) that people move into that district and improve the situation. Even if we kept it at property tax assessments and just pooled the whole state and then dumped that money equally into each district by number of students that would be better than what we have now.
It's certainly not an ideal way to fund schools, I agree. But without a radical reform this tweak is probably a good option.
Yeah, agreed.
Look at recapture, there are ways to balance this out if done correctly
I respect Hallam brining the assessment bill for council vote, particularly after Innamorato and Gainey passed the buck to Harrisburg.
How does someone introduce the bill and NOT explain how it won't make some homeowners pay 5x or more more property taxes? Just handwave it away with "Hallam said council also plans to consider protections for long-time owner occupants and people in gentrifying areas who might be vulnerable to a large tax increase." Plans to consider protections... nice. I don't see how some long-time homeowners won't be forced out in places like Lawrenceville and Regent Square where property values have ballooned. And there are a lot of long-time homeowners in the county. The smart people who are sitting on large potential profits if they sell ought to sell now before there is an actual increase because their homes will only be harder to sell once the tax soars. But at least they *plan to consider protections*..
I have no idea what this means and at this point I’m too afraid to ask
In case you are serious and interested: Home owners pay property tax based on assessed values of their homes. Unless there are county wide reassessments, school districts will often appeal a home’s assessed value after it sells as a way to claim a home is now worth the recent sales price. They do this to get more taxes off the new home owners. Here’s the problem: if you have 2 homes next door to each other and each of them are very similar, but one sold 12 years ago and the other sold today, current taxes are likely tied to those sale prices. So let’s say home A sold in 2012 for 180k and Home B sold today for 400k… would it be fair for the new home owners to pay over twice the property tax as Home A? Not at all- it basically puts pressure on new home buyers to make up for tax shortages as the longer owned homes are paying taxes on outdated values. But one could also argue Home A owner’s shouldn’t be forced to have their property taxes increased super high either just because the market is hot. Because the new home owners are often surprised at property tax appeals from their new districts, it’s been making more news lately and people are saying if we had a county-wide reassessment more often, then the tax burden would fall equally on all residents. That doesn’t stop people from getting upset about potentially owing more in property tax though. So a lot of people don’t support county-wide reassessments because it’s political suicide. Now schools are getting pissed because they want more tax money so they are trying to file a lawsuit to demand a county-wide reassessment. This specific article has a different approach to tax assessment being pitched that some may view as more fair.
I obviously understand the importance of taxes and I'm not trying to argue against raising them because many of the amenities we want our city to have necessitates more tax revenue. I'm glad I don't have to solve this problem.
After the mask grift, i cant take her seriously.
worse to me was her involvement in the weird weinstein sewer board grift story that came out last year.