Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ja471wd wrote

Reply to comment by micmaher99 in I have a dumb question - do property taxes ever go down? by Fun-Concentrate2630

Well taxes have gone down or held the same due to efficiency improvements in the city. It’s not impossible.

But reality is they should climb with inflation so at least 2% annually. Anything short of that is just budget manipulation and we ultimately pay up with interest in due time.

Taxes are your % of the city budget, so even if everyone’s property value declines, your percentage would stay the same. It’s only if your property declines and others stay the same or increase would you save on taxes. But as you point out, that’s more negative than positive.

The city is way behind on a lot of infrastructure even just maintaining, forget about scaling for density, so I’d fully expect some steep increases over the next 10-15 years until it catches up.

4

Ilanaspax t1_ja4iewn wrote

Pompidou ain’t gonna pay for itself

1

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ja4v0x4 wrote

It’s going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. And a future mayor will take the fall for it. Just watch.

6

Ilanaspax t1_ja4zgxv wrote

Fulop will leave the new mayor holding the bag while he walks away with whatever handouts he definitely received.

0

jersey385 t1_ja5e3pk wrote

Nobody loves to blame FulofShitLop for everything more than me, but it’s the people who keep voting for him and don’t care about corruption, the lack of 911 service, the lack of any active policing, the situation with runaway education expenses…etc.

1

Ilanaspax t1_ja5f9a1 wrote

Who cares about voting or investing in the community when most residents know they will be priced out in a few years? The city knows exactly what they are doing when they let developers turn all the housing supply into luxury rentals that very few people can afford to live in long term. It’s a free for all with no oversight.

−3

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_ja5tbmt wrote

We are not even close to "turning all the housing supply into luxury rentals." And believe it or not an 800k old townhouse is not affordable. It's already expensive as hell. Thus it's better to put 5x the number of units there, some smaller and cheaper than that. If you were to replace every single old home in the entire city with 5x the units on the same amount of land rents would very clearly go down. You're asking for San Francisco pro single family policy and that does not work. Or you can try taking a quick trip to NYC and see how "affordable" all the downtown Brooklyn brownstones are since they never replaced them with more density. And if you don't like population growth I recommend inner city Baltimore or rural Ohio.

5

Jpiff t1_ja4xp8c wrote

So since you seem familiar with taxes and how the city works in general.

My understanding is they give budgets to dept and if there is a balance left over at the end of the year they will reduce that dept budget.

Why not make it so you reward the dept that keep their finances in order oppose to force them to spend the budget?

What I’m saying is if I have a budget and it was an awesome year. I’m 5k under budget. I can’t just leave 5k in the budget because they will reduce it from my budget next year saying I don’t need it since I managed this year without it.

Why don’t they just let that dept keep that 5k and carry over to the next year? If they keep coming up with a 5k balance every year then discuss reducing the budget or maybe upgrading something that affects that dept specifically? ie overtime budget? Upgrading equipment? Anything along those lines.

1