Why are light rail and new roads combined in bond proposal? (Houston: cost, train)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I don't have kids. Why should I pay for a service used by a fraction of the population.

#1. Because it is highly likely that earlier taxpayers supported your education, at some point in your life. Consider paying it backwards.

#2. To follow your logic, there is no reason for business to pay school property taxes, since businesses don't "have kids" either.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Bottom line, as I read that gobbledegook ballot language and other material, looks like the average annual property tax bill per Austin home owner will increase $300-$400/mo (based on 12.5 cent increase per $100 valuation for a range of home value avg/med of $240K-$320K let's say), which is roughly $25-$33/mo.

Does the average Austin home owner want to spend an additional $30 per month in property taxes forever, and with that amount increasing annually forever as values increase, so we can have a rail route from East Riverside to Highland Mall? Am I doing the math correctly?

Property owners in Texas already carry a heavy burden for schools. Asking us to also subsidize rail lines seems ridiculous. It should be funded in a way more directly related to transportation and spread out among all citizens. Bus service is subsidized and paid for by all through the Cap Metro $0.01 sales tax. That spreads it around to everyone who buys something in Austin, including all the tourists. As a property owner, I'm not willing to vote myself higher property taxes so a fraction of the population can use rail service.

I would be willing to pay a much higher gas tax, or other vehicle related tax, if those funds were dedicated to improving traffic capacity and flow in Austin. Same for tolls. Tolls (provided the funds are not redirected to someone else) put the cost of using roads directly on those who use them.

Steve

No it shouldn't. This is something Austin wants. Austin residents voted these people into office.
Austin residents get to vote on this. Austin residents need to take on the burden of paying for it.

"All citizens" don't get a say. That's tantamount to "I want it but you're gonna pay for it".

[austin-steve]

@Novacek, I was guestimating the median-average range off the top of my head.

I just ran the stats for homes sold in 2014 through Austin MLS and the median sold price is $245K, the average sold price is $313K, so I was a bit low on the median and a bit high on the average, but not by much. I think the range was close enough for the point being made.

Yes, I understand about schools and other "public good", and I don't complain about school taxes nor do I think others should, even without kids. But the property tax rate is a heavy burden to be increasing for property owners. And I think transportation should be funded in a more direct way than simply taxing property owners. And it goes against the stated wish of council and residents that the affordability horse be reined in. This is simply making Austin even more unaffordable by increasing ownership costs, and doing so without providing the wholistic public benefit that education provides.

Steve

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I just ran the stats for homes sold in 2014 through Austin MLS and the median sold price is $245K, the average sold price is $313K, so I was a bit low on the median and a bit high on the average, but not by much. I think the range was close enough for the point being made.

But list and sale prices have nothing to do with the tax valuations of Austin as a whole. You were off by _over_ 50%

193k X .125/100 = $240 /year = $20 /month.


Plus it's not even accurate to use that .12 number, it'll actually be .06 (though on a bit higher valuation at the time).

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Yes, I understand about schools and other "public good", and I don't complain about school taxes nor do I think others should, even without kids. But the property tax rate is a heavy burden to be increasing for property owners. And I think transportation should be funded in a more direct way than simply taxing property owners. And it goes against the stated wish of council and residents that the affordability horse be reined in. This is simply making Austin even more unaffordable by increasing ownership costs, and doing so without providing the wholistic public benefit that education provides.
Steve

Transportation is also a public good. And the amount being proposed is way, way, way less than is spent on schools every year.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

#2. To follow your logic, there is no reason for business to pay school property taxes, since businesses don't "have kids" either.

It's not my logic, it's _your_ logic. You're the one saying you shouldn't have to pay for the rail since you weren't going to use it.

[austin-steve]

I'm not seeing how I'm off by 50%. Appraised values trail sold values only by a year or two. And many homes are in fact over-appraised.

But that's splitting hairs, even using your $20/mo, it's way too expensive to ask property owners to pay that when it doesn't solve any traffic problems and will be used by a fraction of the populace.

Steve

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Transportation is also a public good. .

Absolutely false. It is neither non-excludable nor non-rivalrous.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I'm not seeing how I'm off by 50%.

The median appraised value is under 200k. You said 240 to over 300k, and then used the upper end up that ($30 month).

It's no more than $20 month (it will actually be less as new property gets added to the rolls). $20 x 150% = $30.

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Appraised values trail sold values only by a year or two. And many homes are in fact over-appraised.

And as appraised values rise, the actual tax rate will actually be _lower_ than 12 cents. The total bond amount doesn't go up as appraised values rise in the future.

Originally Posted by austin-steve

But that's splitting hairs, even using your $20/mo, it's way too expensive to ask property owners to pay that when it doesn't solve any traffic problems and will be used by a fraction of the populace.

Steve

Any 1 thing the government does is only used by a fraction of the populace. That doesn't make it not worth doing.
Also, using that logic the government should never build _any_ road. Since it never solves traffic problems.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Absolutely false. It is neither non-excludable nor non-rivalrous.

It's way more of a public good than schools (school crowding, etc.).

[HappyTexan]

You have a college district and a hospital district in your taxes so why not add a rail/transit district ?
Then there's the constant flow of revenue to fix/improve traffic.