Baltimore Property Tax Reform (Mayo: credit, loan, buying a house)

[geocycler]

Anyone read the Mayor's Committee on Property Tax Reform Report? I attended the public comment session on Jan.16 and most of the comments were from long-time residents who decried the proposal to raise the homestead cap. One interesting idea a citizen suggested was to immediately lower the property tax dramatically (to $1.50- $1.75) and have the City fund the short term budget deficit with some sort of bridge loan until the stimulatory effects of lower property taxes could sufficiently increase the tax base. Basically, the theory is that lower rates would attract new residents and ultimately increase property tax revenues. I think the city must take some such measure and accept a short term revenue loss in order to stimulate longer term growth. The report seems to accept as a premise that revenues must be maintained or grow and therefore any reduction in property tax must be recouped by increasing some other tax (ie income, etc.).
Another point that was made is that non-profits pay no property tax and perhaps should contribute some level of property tax. Anyway, assuming no major reductions in property tax, anyone considering buying a house in Baltimore should do so prior to July1, 2008 in order to be able to have at least one full year of ownership by the time July 1, 2009 rolls around as assessments are going up dramatically over the next several years. Buying before July 1, 2008 will limit some of the pain a new buyer will experience due to Baltimore's high tax rates.

[barante]

What do I know, but I don't have high hopes on any meaningful property tax reform. For the same reason why I think the bridge loan idea is a non-starter. The reason: Rating agencies that determine the city's credit worthiness would have difficulty with anything that (a) is not predictable, (b) adds to the city's existing liabilities.
As to nonprofits, they really should pay more. Yes, every one of them argues that in fact they are already contributing more than their share by doing good deeds. But most nonprofits are not really nonprofits but have only chosen that type of an operation to qualify for tax breaks.

[carolott]

I agree with Barante about the nonprofits, and I'd also like to see churches contribute more to the tax base.

[atlas1882]

I will add my support for expanding the tax base to include non-profits currently exempt, especially if this is tied to a general reduction in the tax rate. As much as I'm sure everyone appreciates their own homestead credit, from a good governance perspective it would be much better if everyone paid the full rate on their full assessed value as this would promote greater government oversight by the community at large.

[LFF]

Can anyone direct me to where I can find a good place that talks about the current tax/assessment situation and possibly this new change?

Thanks in advance.

[Scudder]

You can find the proposal right here:

City of Baltimore, Maryland (http://www.baltimorecity.gov/mayor/blueribbon.php - broken link)

HOWEVER . . . . after speaking with friends who attended the community response meeting earlier this week, it looks VERY unlikely that many of the proposed solutions will get far in City Council.

[LFF]

Originally Posted by Scudder

You can find the proposal right here:

City of Baltimore, Maryland (http://www.baltimorecity.gov/mayor/blueribbon.php - broken link)

HOWEVER . . . . after speaking with friends who attended the community response meeting earlier this week, it looks VERY unlikely that many of the proposed solutions will get far in City Council.

Scudder, thanks a lot for the info. I'm still trying to look for info on how assessments and all that works so it gives me a start. Thanks again!

[Tallybalt]

Quite a number of city churches are already struggling with high maintenance costs and energy bills. Having to pay property tax on top of everything else would be the breaking straw for a number of churches, and some will close. Not every place is a large mega-church.

I do support the notion of Hopkins and UMD and other very large non-profits paying property taxes to support the police and fire and other city services that support these institutions. True, they may be non-profits and hire thousands of people, but so do large corporations, and large corporations certainly pay property taxes.

Originally Posted by carolott

I agree with Barante about the nonprofits, and I'd also like to see churches contribute more to the tax base.

[carolott]

Originally Posted by Tallybalt

Quite a number of city churches are already struggling with high maintenance costs and energy bills. Having to pay property tax on top of everything else would be the breaking straw for a number of churches, and some will close. Not every place is a large mega-church.

I do support the notion of Hopkins and UMD and other very large non-profits paying property taxes to support the police and fire and other city services that support these institutions. True, they may be non-profits and hire thousands of people, but so do large corporations, and large corporations certainly pay property taxes.

No, not every place is a mega-church. However, some of the churches use city services when their congregants are here, and they do nothing for the communities they're in. I can think of two in my community that this theory would apply to, and I'd like to see them pay taxes -- even at a reduced rate, or relocate to where their congregants live so the community can benefit from something else in those spaces.

[bawlmer]

Or maybe make the city attractive to the parishioners so they will actually live in the city instead of just coming to attend church.