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.
In Michigan, voters in a retirement destination town repeatedly rejected school millage proposals, and the schools closed several weeks early when they ran put of money.
The Legislature came to the rescue and overhauled school finance so that school taxes were cut massively for homeowners, plus a new "nonhomestead tax" on non-owner-occupied property. Both parties offered the core package described above, with variant additional components.
Renters who complained about being shortchanged - homeowners got an 80% school tax cut, renters got 40% - were told, hey, your rent won't go down, but now it won't go up as fast as it would have otherwise.
After the votes were counted and homeowners started enjoying their tax cuts, many were alarmed to find that their lenders were dragging their feet on reducing the monthly tax escrow paid by borrowers as part of their mortgage payment. Angry homeowners complained to their representatives, and the Legislature mandated an escrow rollback by lenders.
If the representatives had told homeowners, hey, your escrow won't go down, but now it won't go up as fast as it would have otherwise, would homeowners have accepted that or would they have voted the bums out of office? can you defend the double standard?
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.
