U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-06-2014, 08:49 AM
 
6,815 posts, read 4,408,035 times
Reputation: 11918

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
There's a variety of reasons, but above all the desirability stems from the quality of the school district. Especially considering the large number of military transplants, what is the first thing you think people will look into when they're transferred to Wright-Patt?
...

The demand feeds more demand, it's a positive vicious cycle.

You want to get people into those cities? Give them a reason to go there.
Good point, and it immediately begs a question relating school-quality to taxes. Beavercreek is the only local incorporated jurisdiction that does not have a local income tax or income-based school district tax. And the property taxes are fairly moderate. Yet the schools are quite good. How can this be? Riverside and Fairborn have considerable local income taxes (though lower than Dayton City), and yet their schools suffer from low reputation. Lest somebody produce the race-card, I counter that it can't be a "racial" issue, as Fairborn is lilly-white (and Riverside not far behind). On the other side of Beavercreek, we have Xenia... again, high local taxes, crummy schools. Why?

Second question: we keep talking about young invincibles, the creative-class, artists and intellectuals, etc., moving into a region to revitalize it, to reclaim and to gentrify it. Well, those military folks transferring to Wright-Patt are typically young officers, all college-graduates unburdened by debt, with a bright future ahead of them... and the contractors/civilians are also college-graduates, with lucrative jobs. Why are these folks so concerned about schools? Why do they all have kids? What happened to self-discovery and experimentation during our 20s, living it up downtown in some artists' loft? Is there a demographic explanation for their yearnings for suburbia?

I have at least tentative answers to these questions, so I a asking somewhat disingenuously. But I'm interested in first hearing what others might opine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2014, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,011,892 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Good point, and it immediately begs a question relating school-quality to taxes. Beavercreek is the only local incorporated jurisdiction that does not have a local income tax or income-based school district tax. And the property taxes are fairly moderate. Yet the schools are quite good. How can this be? Riverside and Fairborn have considerable local income taxes (though lower than Dayton City), and yet their schools suffer from low reputation. Lest somebody produce the race-card, I counter that it can't be a "racial" issue, as Fairborn is lilly-white (and Riverside not far behind). On the other side of Beavercreek, we have Xenia... again, high local taxes, crummy schools. Why?

Second question: we keep talking about young invincibles, the creative-class, artists and intellectuals, etc., moving into a region to revitalize it, to reclaim and to gentrify it. Well, those military folks transferring to Wright-Patt are typically young officers, all college-graduates unburdened by debt, with a bright future ahead of them... and the contractors/civilians are also college-graduates, with lucrative jobs. Why are these folks so concerned about schools? Why do they all have kids? What happened to self-discovery and experimentation during our 20s, living it up downtown in some artists' loft? Is there a demographic explanation for their yearnings for suburbia?

I have at least tentative answers to these questions, so I a asking somewhat disingenuously. But I'm interested in first hearing what others might opine.
I have my own tentative answers to these questions, and would like to see what you think as well. I'll try to answer both your points in town (and invite the others to weigh in as well):

Schools/Taxes: With the possible exception of Bellbrook, any jurisdiction in Greene County will have a lower property tax rate than anything in Montgomery County. That's because Montgomery County has passed multiple recurring taxes and levies subsidizing the Dayton Metro Library, RTA, Sinclair College, the human services department, etc... nothing is free.

http://www.mcohio.org/government/tre...able_2014_.pdf (Montgomery County)

http://www.co.greene.oh.us/DocumentCenter/View/276 (Greene County)

To find what the milleage rate is, look under residential effective rate. I think Ohio's property tax rate is deliberately and needlessly complicated.... In short, take the effective millage rate, multiply by 0.35, and then you have your answer once you move it one decimal over.

75 mills x 0.35 = 26.25.... or in other words, expect to pay 2.625% of your house's value in property tax each year, give or take.

Then throw in your municipal income tax (in Oakwood and Moraine, 2.5%.... in Miamisburg, West Carrollton, Dayton, Kettering, 2.25%.... in Centerville, 1.75%...) as well.

Some districts (Fairborn comes to mind) have two taxes... an income tax of 1.5% and then a school tax of another 1%. So we'll use that as an example... 2.5% income tax on a hypothetical $50,000 salary is $1,250 per year.

Add that $1,250 to the $2,625 you pay on the $100,000 house... and that's $3,800 in local taxes yearly. A pretty powerful incentive to move to the other side of the county line.

***

Why People in Their 20's Aren't Living in a Box Downtown
: The "urban boosters" and other fans of living in the city have been really quick to jump on the notion that the "millennials" and "young professionals" and "hipsters" will follow their Gen Y predecessors and become 21st century yuppies.

To lump an entire generation of 80 million people into that category is not only wrong, it's foolish to base a market decision on that assumption. The interests and desires of that generation are, like all other generations, as diverse as ever. Some want to live in a box, some want 3,000 square feet and a yard. Has there been a renewed interest in living in the city? Sure, but it's not 80 million strong. All this talk about "walkability" and "urban living" will crash against the rocks of market reality if it's overblown... because the majority of the demand is still out in the fringes of the metro area.

I live downtown, I'm 25, and I'm moving to the suburbs as soon as my lease is up in September. A plurality of my friends in the Dayton area live in the suburbs - a few in Kettering, a few in Centerville, a few in Beavercreek. A minority (20-30%?) live in Dayton - Belmont gets the majority of them... with a few scattered elsewhere. They're almost all united in wanting to get out, especially the few who live on the wrong side of the river.

Only a few live in downtown or the South Park area or have expressed any interest in urban living and want to remain there.

***

But Why?: It's partially a cultural issue. Only in recent years has the average marriage age gone up - ask your grandparents when they got married. Probably 16-20. Not so these days... in Dayton that's been pushed up to the early 20's... 24 or so is what I've seen.

Only on the east coast (New York, DC, etc.) are people holding off until 28 or their 30's.

Also, remember that Dayton and most other Midwest cities aren't exactly a good model of urban living. Turn on Channel 7, and what do you see? Shootings in the west end, a drug bust in the east end, a fight at the RTA hub, someone gets shot at Hammerjaxs, CBCB moved away from the RTA hub to get away from the riffraff... and so on and so forth. The school district is abysmal, the property values continue to decline, Nan is incompetent at the helm of a sinking ship... and Dayton can't even replace streetlights or plow the streets without charging another tax assessment?

Mind you, Dayton charges one of the higher income tax rates - 2.25% - and still struggles to provide those basic services.

Doesn't endear the city to anyone... hence, no desire to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2014, 02:14 PM
 
6,815 posts, read 4,408,035 times
Reputation: 11918
My views are very similar, though I'm Gen-X and a transplant to the region.

The tax situation in Ohio is appalling! I don't necessarily mean that taxes are excessively high; instead I mean that they're so complex, hidden, variable, and different from place to place. I would much prefer to see a higher state-wide income tax and abolition of all local income/school-district taxes. But obviously that is a naive and counterfactual wish.

Now for a few points, adding to hensleya1's:

1) Newcomers will locate in the most tax-favorable jurisdictions, unless they have special biases. An example would be people moving to Oakwood, willingly paying the exorbitant taxes because of the school quality (real or perceived). Others will move to Beavercreek or Bellbrook/Sugarcreek.

2) The Midwest and South are "traditional" regions, where the prevailing culture extols young marriage and rapid family-formation. This bodes ill for urban gentrification. As I've written before, it's a Heartland problem, and not a Dayton-specific problem. SF and NYC have tremendous advantages, not only because they are large and "global", but because the regions themselves attract the sort of persons who would delay marriage and childbirth (or eschew it altogether). The non-traditional types growing up in the Dayton region are going to feel stifled, and will move away. Amongst the young engineers that I see - people native to the general region (from Northern Kentucky through say Lima, Richmond IN to Columbus), and graduating from regional universities - those who are eager to remain locally are almost universally the family-type. They're getting married at 24, as Hensleya1 pointed out.

3) Taxes are high because the tax-base is poor. Most of the urban-renewal ideas, whether it's bringing in "creative" people or more manufacturing jobs, are aimed at $20/hour - $30/hour wages. But what is the region doing to create $150K/year jobs? Regions like Northern Virginia can afford a combination of comparatively low tax-rates, great schools and public services, because there are lots of upper-middle-class people to support the tax-base. If houses cost $700K, the property tax rate can be less than 1%, and revenue is still great. And if houses are appreciating faster than inflation, over the course of decades, people aren't going to mind paying those property taxes. But if you're going to pay $2000/year property tax on an $80K house, which will still be an $80K house in 10 years - isn't that depressing? This is why "affordability" is vastly more complex than just raw property values.

4) For an affluent person, depending on taxes and property-appreciation, it may be more "affordable" to live in a more expensive area, together with other affluent people. Strictly based on lifestyle-preferences, I'd have moved to Dayton-city, buying a house in the environs of UD. But from a financial point of view, that would be idiotic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2014, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Covington, KY
1,879 posts, read 2,121,025 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
I have my own tentative answers to these questions, and would like to see what you think as well. I'll try to answer both your points in town (and invite the others to weigh in as well):

Schools/Taxes: With the possible exception of Bellbrook, any jurisdiction in Greene County will have a lower property tax rate than anything in Montgomery County. That's because Montgomery County has passed multiple recurring taxes and levies subsidizing the Dayton Metro Library, RTA, Sinclair College, the human services department, etc... nothing is free.

http://www.mcohio.org/government/tre...able_2014_.pdf (Montgomery County)

http://www.co.greene.oh.us/DocumentCenter/View/276 (Greene County)

To find what the milleage rate is, look under residential effective rate. I think Ohio's property tax rate is deliberately and needlessly complicated.... In short, take the effective millage rate, multiply by 0.35, and then you have your answer once you move it one decimal over.

75 mills x 0.35 = 26.25.... or in other words, expect to pay 2.625% of your house's value in property tax each year, give or take.

Then throw in your municipal income tax (in Oakwood and Moraine, 2.5%.... in Miamisburg, West Carrollton, Dayton, Kettering, 2.25%.... in Centerville, 1.75%...) as well.

Some districts (Fairborn comes to mind) have two taxes... an income tax of 1.5% and then a school tax of another 1%. So we'll use that as an example... 2.5% income tax on a hypothetical $50,000 salary is $1,250 per year.

Add that $1,250 to the $2,625 you pay on the $100,000 house... and that's $3,800 in local taxes yearly. A pretty powerful incentive to move to the other side of the county line.

***

Why People in Their 20's Aren't Living in a Box Downtown: The "urban boosters" and other fans of living in the city have been really quick to jump on the notion that the "millennials" and "young professionals" and "hipsters" will follow their Gen Y predecessors and become 21st century yuppies.

To lump an entire generation of 80 million people into that category is not only wrong, it's foolish to base a market decision on that assumption. The interests and desires of that generation are, like all other generations, as diverse as ever. Some want to live in a box, some want 3,000 square feet and a yard. Has there been a renewed interest in living in the city? Sure, but it's not 80 million strong. All this talk about "walkability" and "urban living" will crash against the rocks of market reality if it's overblown... because the majority of the demand is still out in the fringes of the metro area.

I live downtown, I'm 25, and I'm moving to the suburbs as soon as my lease is up in September. A plurality of my friends in the Dayton area live in the suburbs - a few in Kettering, a few in Centerville, a few in Beavercreek. A minority (20-30%?) live in Dayton - Belmont gets the majority of them... with a few scattered elsewhere. They're almost all united in wanting to get out, especially the few who live on the wrong side of the river.

Only a few live in downtown or the South Park area or have expressed any interest in urban living and want to remain there.

***

But Why?: It's partially a cultural issue. Only in recent years has the average marriage age gone up - ask your grandparents when they got married. Probably 16-20. Not so these days... in Dayton that's been pushed up to the early 20's... 24 or so is what I've seen.

Only on the east coast (New York, DC, etc.) are people holding off until 28 or their 30's.

Also, remember that Dayton and most other Midwest cities aren't exactly a good model of urban living. Turn on Channel 7, and what do you see? Shootings in the west end, a drug bust in the east end, a fight at the RTA hub, someone gets shot at Hammerjaxs, CBCB moved away from the RTA hub to get away from the riffraff... and so on and so forth. The school district is abysmal, the property values continue to decline, Nan is incompetent at the helm of a sinking ship... and Dayton can't even replace streetlights or plow the streets without charging another tax assessment?

Mind you, Dayton charges one of the higher income tax rates - 2.25% - and still struggles to provide those basic services.

Doesn't endear the city to anyone... hence, no desire to live there.

My mother and father were both 28 years old when they got married ... in 1932. (First and only marriage.)

My mother had a younger sister that was about 30.

Maximum education: 10th grade. All in a city in Indiana.

Sorry, toots. Your statement isn't valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Miami Twp.
164 posts, read 308,851 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant View Post
My mother and father were both 28 years old when they got married ... in 1932. (First and only marriage.)

My mother had a younger sister that was about 30.

Maximum education: 10th grade. All in a city in Indiana.

Sorry, toots. Your statement isn't valid.
A few data points do not make a trend...









Sources:

Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married

In Brief | Knot Yet ReportKnot Yet Report
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Covington, KY
1,879 posts, read 2,121,025 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdatwmu View Post

And, a collection of averages are not necessarily a clear picture of individuals.

Somewhere around 1975 I tried my d*mnest to get the local Catholic church to institute a "singles ministry" for the benefit of the likes of a divorced friend, my widowed father and his porch buddy likewise widowed, some at loose young'uns, etc. Nearly 50% of the adult population was single-living then and the people all lived in the same neighborhood. They could have been an enormous help to each other had they only known each other under a formal "umbrella." The good priestly father couldn't be bothered with a few odd balls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2014, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,011,892 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarpathianPeasant View Post
Somewhere around 1975 I tried my d*mnest to get the local Catholic church to institute a "singles ministry" for the benefit of the likes of a divorced friend, my widowed father and his porch buddy likewise widowed, some at loose young'uns, etc. Nearly 50% of the adult population was single-living then and the people all lived in the same neighborhood. They could have been an enormous help to each other had they only known each other under a formal "umbrella." The good priestly father couldn't be bothered with a few odd balls.
Church, regardless of denomination, is no home for single people. The complete lack of early 20's singles has caused me to drift from one church to another over the course of the past year. I always say I'll return to the church that I'm officially a member of once I get married... because I really like it there. It's just that there's no single people between the ages of 18 and 25.

There's plenty of married people in that age bracket, though...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 07:52 AM
 
6,815 posts, read 4,408,035 times
Reputation: 11918
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1 View Post
Church, regardless of denomination, is no home for single people. The complete lack of early 20's singles has caused me to drift from one church to another over the course of the past year. I always say I'll return to the church that I'm officially a member of once I get married... because I really like it there. It's just that there's no single people between the ages of 18 and 25.

There's plenty of married people in that age bracket, though...
Oddly, church is often cited as the ideal place to meet a potential romantic partner, especially for men, as it's reputedly one of the few mixed-gender venues where single women outnumber single men. Perhaps the efficacy of this advice depends strongly on age bracket; I have no data. I'm in my early 40s, and was advised numerous times to frequent the local churches as singles-sites, despite my lack of religiosity.

If churchgoers do get married early (and stay married!), presumably they availed themselves of another method for dating and marriage. High school?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Beavercreek, OH
2,194 posts, read 3,011,892 times
Reputation: 2334
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Oddly, church is often cited as the ideal place to meet a potential romantic partner, especially for men, as it's reputedly one of the few mixed-gender venues where single women outnumber single men. Perhaps the efficacy of this advice depends strongly on age bracket; I have no data. I'm in my early 40s, and was advised numerous times to frequent the local churches as singles-sites, despite my lack of religiosity.

If churchgoers do get married early (and stay married!), presumably they availed themselves of another method for dating and marriage. High school?
I should probably rephrase - there are several single women in their 20's in any church. But if they're still single past the age of 21, they have taken Proverbs 31 a little too far (where it says "above all else guard your heart") - and have just become downright unfriendly towards men. I would say it was imputed to me personally, but when I asked the other single guys they ran into the same thing.

The majority of married couples I've run into in their early 20's never dated from within their own church - although they became plugged into the community, they always found their husbands or wives outside that church. I just started dating someone and guess what.... nope, she doesn't go to my church.

***

Since we're squirrel-chasing, I'll try to bring us back to whether Dayton is an "Affordable" region or not. One thing to note.... the tax burden is pretty high as a percentage of the property's value. That's been brought up in this thread before. That's because the tax base is poor, and there's still needs to be a certain minimum level of government services regardless where in the country you go.

One thing to consider though: a $3,000 property tax bill here is going to be far more burdensome than a $5,000 property tax bill in a more successful city - because the wages in many cases are far lower here. It's going to discourage home ownership - because with the lack of appreciation in values home ownership becomes a liability rather than an asset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2014, 12:03 PM
 
3,514 posts, read 3,780,583 times
Reputation: 1808
Thanks for bringing it back on topic!

I can assure you Dayton is more affordable than 95% of this nation'a metropolitan areas. Here's how:

- Dirt cheap housing prices. All over the metro.
- low utility prices
- Low grocery prices (thank Kroger)
- Low gas prices
- 1-day drive or 90 min flight to 60% of the US population
- Short commuting times
- Dirt cheap commercial real estate


And with taxes, just like anything in life, you get what you pay for. You want an aestheticslly nice city like Mason, Yellow Springs, Kettering or Oakwood? Those come with higher taxes. If you don't, Fairfield, Beavercreek, Farmersville, or Harrison Twp have low taxes. So to each their own, but I'm willing to pay higher taxes for increased city services. Others disagree. I see it as a matter of personal preference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Dayton
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top