U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
 [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 12-13-2017, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Etna, PA
1,855 posts, read 1,083,520 times
Reputation: 1878

Advertisements

Quote:
Pittsburgh City Council on Wednesday advanced legislation that would increase the city's realty transfer tax by 25 percent to help the city increase its stock of cut-rate housing options for families living at or near the poverty line.

The tax on property sales would increase in two phases by 0.5 percent. It would jump from 4 percent to 4.5 percent in January and to 5 percent in January 2020. It would remain at 4.5 percent in 2019.
...
ouncilwomen Darlene Harris of Spring Hill and Natalia Rudiak of Carrick agreed. They voted agaisnt the increase.

Rudiak said her office found that 74 percent of real estate transfers in 2016 were for $150,000 or less.

“What that means is low- and moderate-income people buy properties of $150,000 or less and they will bear the greatest burden of this tax,” she said. “I don't think we can solve the affordable housing crisis by making housing more expensive.”

Pittsburgh City Council vote means deed transfer tax will likely increase in January | TribLIVE
Surprised to see Rudiak not siding with the Progressives for once - perhaps she's feeling more independent given that she's a lame duck who chose not to run for re-election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2017, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Great White North Hills
11,860 posts, read 14,914,020 times
Reputation: 9747
They keep finding ways to make people not want to invest in the City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 03:27 PM
 
3,980 posts, read 3,150,129 times
Reputation: 2369
This will, in time, not be able to cover what its intended to do. Likely, other funding sources will have to be tapped. Fighting this is not a "war" on the poor, but rather for common sense spending.

Peduto is usually crucified in this forum by a few....he is the ONLY one that has kissed corporate butt, and brought revenue back to the City. The others are just bureaucrats who fancy themselves champions of the helpless (except Kail-Smith). They share the password to the city's bank account.

I can't find myself to be too angry, though - IF the money does provide what it is meant to do, efficiently and effectively. See, I just doubt it will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 03:45 PM
 
Location: North Oakland
9,154 posts, read 9,163,413 times
Reputation: 14385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copanut View Post
They keep finding ways to make people not want to invest in the City.
Let the gentrification of Shkibbutzkyville begin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Brookline
2,942 posts, read 2,264,845 times
Reputation: 3488
This amounts to $750 on a $150k purchase price. Isn’t that split with the seller leaving the buyer with a $375 additional cost.

If you were planning to buy a $150k house and an extra $375 is what breaks the bank, you probably shouldn’t be buying a $150k house anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 04:53 PM
 
3,980 posts, read 3,150,129 times
Reputation: 2369
Quote:
Originally Posted by PghYinzer View Post
This amounts to $750 on a $150k purchase price. Isn’t that split with the seller leaving the buyer with a $375 additional cost.

If you were planning to buy a $150k house and an extra $375 is what breaks the bank, you probably shouldn’t be buying a $150k house anyway.
That is not the point as much as it being another tax that is not for the common good, but instead is for a debatable use of this money. You might be right that if a paltry $400 kills you, a $150k house should be out of your range. True, but how many times will this be collected - it could fall way short in providing housing alternatives for the needy - and will lead to pilfering money from other places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
587 posts, read 446,889 times
Reputation: 611
A 1% increase (by 2020) on a $150K house is $1500. This is also factored into closing costs, not the mortgage itself, so if your closing costs were initially going to be $3K, they're now $4,500 - that's a pretty sizeable increase.

This should have been done as a recordation tax instead. City could have collected more money, and taxes would have come out of refinance proceeds instead of new up-front money from home buyers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Brookline
2,942 posts, read 2,264,845 times
Reputation: 3488
Quote:
Originally Posted by lprmesia View Post
A 1% increase (by 2020) on a $150K house is $1500. This is also factored into closing costs, not the mortgage itself, so if your closing costs were initially going to be $3K, they're now $4,500 - that's a pretty sizeable increase.

This should have been done as a recordation tax instead. City could have collected more money, and taxes would have come out of refinance proceeds instead of new up-front money from home buyers.
It is split between buyer and seller, so by 2020 it will be $750 for each side of the transaction.

Maybe the rules have changed but aren’t you still allowed to roll closing costs into the mortgage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
587 posts, read 446,889 times
Reputation: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by PghYinzer View Post
It is split between buyer and seller, so by 2020 it will be $750 for each side of the transaction.

Maybe the rules have changed but aren’t you still allowed to roll closing costs into the mortgage?
It depends on the lender. In a refi this is easier since there's typically equity to borrow from, so rolling in closing costs (outside of certain upfront costs like your appraisal) is fairly common. In a purchase, unless the purchase price is a ways below the appraised value (or the lender is willing to let you borrow OVER the appraised value of the property), closing cost money has to come from somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2017, 06:09 PM
 
Location: 15206
1,859 posts, read 2,218,964 times
Reputation: 1294
Quote:
Originally Posted by PghYinzer View Post
It is split between buyer and seller, so by 2020 it will be $750 for each side of the transaction.

Maybe the rules have changed but aren’t you still allowed to roll closing costs into the mortgage?
An additional $1500 split 2 ways is correct. For a total of $7500 in transfer tax (3750 for each side) on a 150k house.

Compared to some suburbs where it is 2% total - Which is $1500 on each side. So 3k extra.

This isn't going to hurt the market in gentrifying or already solid areas. It is going to hurt areas that border stronger suburbs. Summer Hill or Observatory Hill versus Ross or Bellevue. Brookline or Beechview versus Dormont, Greentree and Mt Lebo. Carrick or Overbrook versus Baldwin or Brentwood. Sheridan loses to Crafton, etc etc etc.

Couple that with the police union no longer having to live in the city limits. Once the other unions win that same battle, those areas will probably suffer.


Has UPMC paid their fair share on the Steel Building yet?
$10 million question mark swirls around U.S. Steel Tower | TribLIVE
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top