Beltline: Legitimate Concerns or Paranoia? (Atlanta, Buford: lease, crime rates, homes)

[BackInATL2011]

I dont think being "fair" is the issue or not. I think it will go down to math. Im not sure we can afford, nationally in all cities, to allow such savings for all baby boomers much less locally here in GA. Not enough youngsters to support them is what I've heard.

[arjay57]

Never mind.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by arjay57

What if you're just some old couple living frugally, and paying all their own utilities? As I say, they should keep paying for trash and water and maybe $3500 a year for general municipal services, but after that first $5000 why not give them a break?

Firstly, this is how the argument is always pitched. This was the same justification that was publicly argued to give seniors the ability to not pay state income tax at all. In reality it existed in law previously, but was capped at earnings of $60k/year and the state legislature just removed the cap giving rich seniors a huge tax break.

Originally Posted by arjay57

CW, I guess I am missing the point on this one. If you've spend a lifetime working hard to build up a little equity in your home, why should you have to give it up?

We aren't talking about a little bit of equity.

either:

A) they only have a "little equity" in their home and their home value didn't shoot through the roof. In which case their property taxes wouldn't have done the same. They should have known from an early age in their financial planning they would need to 1) save more or 2) downsize after raising kids

or B) and it more often the commonly cited problem in these cases. These people don't just have "little equity," but they moved into an area where the land values went through the roof! They have a good deal of equity and didn't have to work for it. The increase in the value of their land is where it came from. In this case financially they're doing pretty good. They don't have to give up anything, but some people need to use a reverse mortgage or move to a more affordable area to access the equity in their home.

Originally Posted by arjay57

What about all those boomers who started out with nothing, raised a passel of kids, took care of their parents, other people's kids, gave generously to charity and worked for decades as volunteers in their community? At some point don't they deserve a little respite?

a little respite? At who's cost though? You're ignoring that.

Umm... the generation before those baby boomers didn't get the same break, neither did the generation before that.

So what is special about this one generation that they get a one-time financial windfall no other generation gets? Why should they get this windfall and push the burden on those who are just starting out and haven't had the chance to save up yet and are currently paying for kids?

I mean you're essentially arguing for a one time shift from one generation to another by shifting tax policy more in favor of baby boomers.



The reality is either property taxes stayed the same or increased at a typical nominal rate and people had the ability to plan ahead (or buy a larger house earlier on when they have kids with plans to downsize after)
or
their property taxes went sky high, because their property made them money (equity). They're not hurting. If they have an emotional attachment to their home, they might still be able to continue living there if they access that increase in equity through a reverse mortgage.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

... it more often the commonly cited problem in these cases. These people don't just have "little equity," but they moved into an area where the land values went through the roof! They have a good deal of equity and didn't have to work for it. The increase in the value of their land is where it came from. In this case financially they're doing pretty good. They don't have to give up anything,...

I would say that actions like (a) sticking your neck out to buy a home, (b) hanging in there even when the city was in steep decline, (c) paying your mortgage and second mortgage even when times were tough, (d) making substantial improvements, (e) keeping things properly maintained, (f) working to improve the public schools and sending your children there, and (g) paying hefty property taxes are more than just "didn't have to work for it" and "didn't have to give up anything."

All of those things take a lot of work, sacrifice and perseverance.

However, I don't think I'll change your mind about that until 30 years or so from now. So I'll just leave the conversation be for now.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I would say that actions like (a) sticking your neck out to buy a home, (b) hanging in there even when the city was in steep decline, (c) paying your mortgage and second mortgage even when times were tough, (d) making substantial improvements, (e) keeping things properly maintained, (f) working to improve the public schools and sending your children there, and (g) paying hefty property taxes are more than just "didn't have to work for it" and "didn't have to give up anything."

All of those things take a lot of work, sacrifice and perseverance.

However, I don't think I'll change your mind about that until 30 years or so from now. So I'll just leave the conversation be for now.

No those are all things all property owners try to do. Many don't buy into what will become the next hotspot and don't get the same benefits.

The increase in equity from rising property values will provider a bigger value for people in some areas over others without added work or cost.

They work for the equity they put into, however the added equity they get out of it is a gain.

[cwkimbro]

I'm also going to leave with this....

none of that last argument says anything about why it is fair to give that generation a tax break that none other does.

None of that last arguments explains why we should redistribute to local tax base.

[residinghere2007]

Originally Posted by cqholt

Eg: Villages of East Lake.

East Lake is former public housing, therefore there are affordable housing requirements for that developments that exceed those offered by completely private developments. All the former AHA public housing communities that were redeveloped have a percentage of public housing units (residents only pay 30%of their incomes in rent regardless of their income amounts) affordable housing units (which is based on income but residents have to make a certain amount and their income cannot exceed a specific limit based on a % of the median income of an area and family size) and market rate units. Some also include workforce housing which is similar to affordable but have a higher income limit by family size components. Most affordable housing private developments only offer the affordable or workforce options which can price most people out of a neighborhood who cannot afford the "affordable" rate.

Originally Posted by jsvh

How long do you think some one should live in a place before they deserve to have society cover their costs? Even taxes on a half a million dollar home are only ~$500 a month. Can some find me some example properties where these hypothetical homeowners are being forced out after decades living there?

FYI when we first moved in our home, it was assessed at a quarter million and our taxes were nearly $500 a month at that time, which was nearly as much as our mortgage payment. We appealed it and now our taxes are about $1200 a year instead of $5000.

I read recently that Atlanta has 37% of its citizens living on poverty incomes. I think many of you do not realize that a large amount of Atlanta citizens would think it outrageous to pay $500 a month in taxes, a lot of people only pay a little more than that for rent/mortgages so having to pay that would force them out of homes.

I personally don't feel that beltline developments are all that affordable and I work in the housing industry especially on the Eastside. Lower income families especially are being priced out of Atlanta and won't be able to buy a home. Seniors are protected somewhat, plus there is still traditional public housing for seniors that they can fall back on but more and more lower income working families will leave the city. I think it is a negative thing, especially for those with deep roots in their communities but it is a conundrum all around and there are no concrete answers.

[ATLJR]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, that's the point I've raised.

Does knocking $125 off the rent of a studio really make it affordable when still costs $1,000 a month? Is $1,400 a month for a 1BR/den affordable for most people?

As I say, you've got to pay those rents with after tax dollars. And that doesn't touch mandatory costs like utilities, food, transportation, insurance, healthcare, clothing, emergency savings, etc.

Seems to me that by definition these apartments are being built with an affluent demographic in mind. That is especially true when you take into account that amenities are very high end places like gourmet bakeries and food markets.

I think 20% market is a reasonable goal for affordability. Not every area of every city needs to be affordable for everyone. Ideally, we're all millionaires and can live where we want, but that is not the case. Also, it appears the government gave PCM in the documents shared roughly $2,000,000. This is a huge project, that's pennies, and while I'm sure the developers are appreciative of the help with financing the fact remains that rents need to be at a certain price to make the development profitable to the developer, otherwise we'd never have developments we'd just have vacant buildings.

[ATLJR]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

I agree with some of your points, however there is a big elephant that you are avoiding. Your argument reads like, if rich people want to move into poor areas and displace them, that is the natural cycle of cities. Never was there a case, where poor people moved into rich areas and displaced them.

I'm all for improving neighborhoods, but it is quite different. In the past rich, middle class, and poor black folks lived in the same neighborhoods, due to segregation. This dynamic was the only one in recent American history that showed that all socioeconomics can work on a macro level, I don't think rich people of any race want to live amongst the poor anymore.

What do you think white flight was? There's always neighborhoods becoming less desirable and falling into decay because crime and poor people moved into a neighborhood and brought the standard of living down. For example, see Inman Park.

[JPD]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Shouldn't there be a point where they say, "Well, old CW has done enough. He has paid in millions, raised his younguns and a number of other folks younguns, donated generously to charity, and given freely of his time and energy to the community. He never complained, but now he can't bring in anything anymore, so let's give the old boy a rest for a job well done. He's only got a few years left anyway."

What's wrong with that?

Why should multi millionaires be relieved of their tax obligations?