$600,000 in Tax Assessments for Decorative Street Lights in Minneapolis (short sale, foreclosure)

[QuietBlue]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

But there was a process, and no one can claim that they weren't given a chance to make their views known.

They did, though, but it's the process itself that is the problem.

The majority is clearly opposed to this -- even if every single person who didn't vote instead voted yes (a likely incorrect assumption), it would still be 63-37 against it. The numbers don't lie. I don't understand why it was even put to a vote if a majority itself is not sufficient to make a difference.

[Glenfield]

A couple of thoughts. I would think that it's unlikely that absentee landlords failed to respond since they're the ones who are going to be liable for the assessments. They would not really be in a position to pass those on to renters since they can only charge market rates. If they try to charge more, their tenants would move to lower cost comparable housing, and new tenants would do the same. I think it's more likely that they are included in the opposing votes as they'd prefer a lower cost solution,

I get the argument that the wooden poles are cheaper etc., but the city is not looking solely at cost. They are looking at this from a long term perspective and are trying to make an area that has become a bit rundown more desirable. I've seen them do this with a very positive effect in other areas, notably on Nicollet and Lyndale in Kingfield, so I think they're on the right track.

Who are the property owners who didn't respond? The neighborhood seems engaged in the process. So I don't think they all just checked out. More likely, they realized that not voting constituted a yes vote, and thought why bother with the paperwork?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by QuietBlue

They did, though, but it's the process itself that is the problem.

The majority is clearly opposed to this -- even if every single person who didn't vote instead voted yes (a likely incorrect assumption), it would still be 63-37 against it. The numbers don't lie. I don't understand why it was even put to a vote if a majority itself is not sufficient to make a difference.

Simply because we do not put every decision in a major city up for a majority vote. Do we vote directly on whether each block gets garbage pick up? Water and sewer? Do we vote on how how often the snow is plowed? Whether or not the sidewalks are fixed? What would we not have a majority vote on?

Instead, we elect representatives who set policy, and hire professionals to carry it out. The city does have a process for allowing residents to opt out in this situation, but it requires a super majority, a not uncommon practice in government. Now, if this was a really big deal to the citizens of Minneapolis, then we would elect officials who would change the policy to allow for a straight majority vote, but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

[QuietBlue]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Simply because we do not put every decision in a major city up for a majority vote. Do we vote directly on whether each block gets garbage pick up? Water and sewer? Do we vote on how how often the snow is plowed? Whether or not the sidewalks are fixed? What would we not have a majority vote on?

Instead, we elect representatives who set policy, and hire professionals to carry it out. The city does have a process for allowing residents to opt out in this situation, but it requires a super majority, a not uncommon practice in government. Now, if this was a really big deal to the citizens of Minneapolis, then we would elect officials who would change the policy to allow for a straight majority vote, but that really doesn't seem to be the case.

This issue has a much, much greater impact on people than the examples you give. $5,000 is a big hit for an individual to take to their finances. I agree with what 1stpontiac posted upthread -- if this were a small amount, or an emergency, then I could understand the rationale, but for something like this, it should be a matter of opting in rather than opting out. Especially when it's a want, and not a need.

As for the citizens of Minneapolis changing it, I don't know how frequent assessments are there (I don't live there), but I imagine it's not on many people's minds at any given time just due to the nature of how assessments work. If everybody at once had to pay it, I think the city government would hear about it.

Besides, isn't there already a street light fee? I thought I read something about that a few years back. Or was that never implemented?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by QuietBlue

This issue has a much, much greater impact on people than the examples you give. $5,000 is a big hit for an individual to take to their finances. I agree with what 1stpontiac posted upthread -- if this were a small amount, or an emergency, then I could understand the rationale, but for something like this, it should be a matter of opting in rather than opting out. Especially when it's a want, and not a need.

As for the citizens of Minneapolis changing it, I don't know how frequent assessments are there (I don't live there), but I imagine it's not on many people's minds at any given time just due to the nature of how assessments work. If everybody at once had to pay it, I think the city government would hear about it.

Besides, isn't there already a street light fee? I thought I read something about that a few years back. Or was that never implemented?

I wouldn't want to get into a situation where infrastructure decisions are made by residents on a project by project basis. The seems like a recipe for chaos to me. I'm not certain the opt out is a good idea at all.

It's going to cost more to rebuild a major street like Lyndale or Penn than a regular residential street, and it will happen more often, just because of the traffic. That should be factored into a decision on where to buy. Maybe people dont, but remember we are talking about landlords in this situation who are well aware of teir costs. The $5000 doesn't need to be paid upfront but is added to the tax bill over a long period. We are talking $20 a month, which is certainly not an onerous burden for most people.

As to want or need, I would argue that the city needs to make this particular area more desirable to prevent decay, and aesthetics have a proven role in that.

PS There's no street light fee in Minneapolis.

[Mdcastle]

The city was talking about having a street light fee so they could eventually phase in cute lighting everywhere rather than on a piecemeal bases by petition, but it was dropped because there was opposition, notably from the people that already paid for an assesment to get cute lighting on their block, and would now have to pay a fee for the rest of the city to get it without an assessment.

[1stpontiac]

Just out of curiousity, since I've never had to deal with it, how is the collection of assessments like these handled? Is it added to your tax bill, so it just gets rolled into your monthly mortage+tax payment? And over what period is it collected?

[MnMomma]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

Just out of curiousity, since I've never had to deal with it, how is the collection of assessments like these handled? Is it added to your tax bill, so it just gets rolled into your monthly mortage+tax payment? And over what period is it collected?

It is added to your tax bill and collected over a 20-year period.

[QuietBlue]

Originally Posted by Mdcastle

The city was talking about having a street light fee so they could eventually phase in cute lighting everywhere rather than on a piecemeal bases by petition, but it was dropped because there was opposition, notably from the people that already paid for an assesment to get cute lighting on their block, and would now have to pay a fee for the rest of the city to get it without an assessment.

Legitimate concern, but couldn't those homeowners just get a refund or a one-time tax credit based off of what they had paid so far? That seems like it should be pretty easy to fix.

[uptown_urbanist]

That particular stretch is an odd bit of SW Minneapolis. There are some very nice homes (and destination businesses) along that stretch, but overall it feels and looks a bit dumpy. I agree with Glenfield that improving the aesthetics has value. And this end of Penn is pretty ugly, overall, meaning that there's greater room for improvement.

If someone can't absorb an extra $20 a month, then they shouldn't own a house. Clearly some people get stuck with more than they can handle (I know as of a year or so ago there were at least several foreclosures along that stretch, as I had to call the city to complain about uncleared sidewalks during the winter), but in the long run it's very possible that all these upgrades will give the street a boost, and ultimately increase the value of their homes. I don't think that's true universally (I don't think that putting in fancy lights on, say, neighboring Oliver -- just one street over from Penn -- would make any difference), but it could have some real positive impact on that stretch of Penn.