Register
Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 327
  1. #1
    Dixie Normus ArcticSplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,818

    Default We're Going to Make $90MM off the new Property Tax, Nutter Says


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Mount Airy
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Great, time to drop the "Temp" tax hikes from the past couple of years!

    Instead we all know they will stay in place and the dopes in city hall will blown that 90 million faster then you can blink your eye! Any idea where at 90 mil will go?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Fishington
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MtAiryMan View Post
    Instead we all know they will stay in place and the dopes in city hall will blown that 90 million faster then you can blink your eye! Any idea where at 90 mil will go?
    KYW this morning said it is all going to the school district.

  4. #4
    Senior Member annie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Philly
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nytecat View Post
    KYW this morning said it is all going to the school district.
    Yep, the PSD CRO made that announcement on Tueday. The anticipated budget gap is $248 million for FY2012-2013 OR it could be $148 million (projected gap minus amount from additional RE taxes of $94 million) - $400 million (new expenses from vouchers or charters and I imagine if they're not successful forcing the union giveback they've been hinting at doing)

    This is a good article explaining why Corbett is claiming he has increased education funding and education advocates say he decreased it. Spoiler: they're both right but only one of them is trying to destroy urban public education. Pa. state school aid confused by competing math | Herald Times Reporter | htrnews.com

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,384

    Default

    My house will be going up for sale shortly. I've had it with this city and the unfair burden placed on homeowners.

  6. #6
    Senior Member StrangeTanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kensington
    Posts
    1,486

    Default

    Where are all the "reassessment is revenue neutral" people now?

  7. #7
    Dixie Normus ArcticSplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrangeTanks View Post
    Where are all the "reassessment is revenue neutral" people now?
    They're in here:


  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    West Philadelphia
    Posts
    12,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nytecat View Post
    KYW this morning said it is all going to the school district.
    The split will be 40% - 60%, 40% for the city, 60% for the school district, just as it is for the property taxes we pay now. The extra funds for the school district will not cover their deficit made worse by cuts in state funding redistributed to PSU.

    I'm not all that surprised that its not revenue neutral. Basically the political calculation goes "People are going to go ballistic anyway when everyone in the city's assesment changes so working in a revenue increase is not going to change the amount of screaming one way or the other."

    What more surprises me is that this process has been in play for 3 years and City Council still seems to have no plan for how they are going to ease in new assesments for older owners where actual home values have raised dramatically since 20+ years ago. Think back 20 years ago and where neighborhoods on the rise around the edges of Center City have changed. New owners have had ssesments based in practice on their sale price but 20 years ago perceptions of Northern Liberites, Fishtown, University City, SWCC, etc were dramatically different. Owners who have been cruising on the same assessment since back then are going to be in for a controversial surprise. And the Controller's and City Council's main answer seems to pull a Chicken Little and offer no solution to that rude awekening. This'll be fun.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    West Philadelphia
    Posts
    12,956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StrangeTanks View Post
    Where are all the "reassessment is revenue neutral" people now?
    Councilman Bill Green seems to rubbing his hands together at the chance to ride that as hard as he can when the new bills go out.

    I'm not sure if his pre-postitioning is any less calculating than the Nutter administrations decision not to make it not be revenue neutral.

  10. #10
    Dixie Normus ArcticSplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Debbie1125 View Post
    My house will be going up for sale shortly. I've had it with this city and the unfair burden placed on homeowners.
    Yeah you'll just be generating more revenue to the City. It's called the Real Estate Transfer Tax.

  11. #11
    Dixie Normus ArcticSplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seand View Post
    And the Controller's and City Council's main answer seems to pull a Chicken Little and offer no solution to that rude awekening. This'll be fun.
    Everyone who bought into Fishtown before 1990 is up in arms. I'm in Kensington but close enough to Fishtown that my area will be hit with it too. Probably hard.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Falls
    Posts
    11,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MtAiryMan View Post
    Great, time to drop the "Temp" tax hikes from the past couple of years!

    Instead we all know they will stay in place and the dopes in city hall will blown that 90 million faster then you can blink your eye! Any idea where at 90 mil will go?
    Did you read the article? The School District spends $14,000 per pupil, which is about the state average, and over 200,000 students works out to a budget of $2.8 billion. It only reimburses charters for $10,000 per student in charters, so I don't see how that is 'costing' the district any money, by the way. Meanwhile this new level of tax will generate a total of $673 million for the schools, which won't come anywhere close to funding the schools adequately, despite your protestations. Clearly the SDP is unsustainable and needs to be radically restructured. That can has been kicked down the road for far too long.

  13. #13
    Dixie Normus ArcticSplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,818

    Default

    Now I know why cities that own utilities, particularly power generation, isn't such a bad thing.

    In San Antonio they get ya through your light bill. The summer months is when City Public Service gets mountains of cash thrown at it by sweaty residents. Goes back to the City of San Antonio and fills up its coffers every year. San Antonio's government doesn't use property tax to pay its bills because the school districts (they have 12) collect all that tax, which goes back to the state, then gets farmed back out in the Robin Hood plan to keep rich districts from soaking up all the money for public education.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Falls
    Posts
    11,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seand View Post
    Councilman Bill Green seems to rubbing his hands together at the chance to ride that as hard as he can when the new bills go out.

    I'm not sure if his pre-postitioning is any less calculating than the Nutter administrations decision not to make it not be revenue neutral.
    Too much time has elapsed since the last reassessment for the city's overall tax take to remain what it was in 2004. The base is larger now, so the total collections should be higher. If this process took 100 years should we be paying the same average tax as was paid in 1913? With how long the process has taken it would be insane to expect the average tax bill to remain where it was.

  15. #15
    Ginger Kid Reds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Passyunk Square
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArcticSplash View Post
    Everyone who bought into Fishtown before 1990 is up in arms. I'm in Kensington but close enough to Fishtown that my area will be hit with it too. Probably hard.
    I'm kinda scared.

  16. #16
    Dixie Normus ArcticSplash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Couch Surfing in Kensington
    Posts
    11,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by billy ross View Post
    Too much time has elapsed since the last reassessment for the city's overall tax take to remain what it was in 2004. The base is larger now, so the total collections should be higher. If this process took 100 years should we be paying the same average tax as was paid in 1913? With how long the process has taken it would be insane to expect the average tax bill to remain where it was.
    You're also talking about a city with a 25% percent poverty rate and all that poverty is not densely concentrated in a few areas that can be "walled-off" from the tax assessor. You're talking low-income seniors who are scattered throughout just about every single neighborhood except perhaps Chestnut Hill.

    The ones who are completely surrounded by gentrification or are in pockets of jacked-up assessments left over from years of corruption in the BRT are liable to feel some pain. Since the City is doing all of this in aggregate and has to get the new assessments mailed out in October, chances are not good that the City is going to positively identify everyone who is likely to not be able to pay the new rates.

    If you don't think this is all timed to generate maximum drama, you're kidding yourself.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    16,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nytecat View Post
    KYW this morning said it is all going to the school district.
    Quote Originally Posted by seand View Post
    The split will be 40% - 60%, 40% for the city, 60% for the school district, just as it is for the property taxes we pay now. The extra funds for the school district will not cover their deficit made worse by cuts in state funding redistributed to PSU.
    The 10% property tax hike was city portion only, so when it is rolled into the new assessments and back to the 40/60 split, it will mean more of it will go to the School District.

    Quote Originally Posted by seand View Post
    I'm not all that surprised that its not revenue neutral. Basically the political calculation goes "People are going to go ballistic anyway when everyone in the city's assesment changes so working in a revenue increase is not going to change the amount of screaming one way or the other."

    What more surprises me is that this process has been in play for 3 years and City Council still seems to have no plan for how they are going to ease in new assesments for older owners where actual home values have raised dramatically since 20+ years ago. Think back 20 years ago and where neighborhoods on the rise around the edges of Center City have changed. New owners have had ssesments based in practice on their sale price but 20 years ago perceptions of Northern Liberites, Fishtown, University City, SWCC, etc were dramatically different. Owners who have been cruising on the same assessment since back then are going to be in for a controversial surprise. And the Controller's and City Council's main answer seems to pull a Chicken Little and offer no solution to that rude awekening. This'll be fun.
    They do have a plan. They are asking Harrisburg to pass enabling legislation where they can do assessments based on a smoothing curve. In essence, the value you pay taxes against will be the average of your last 5 years of assessments. Of course, Nutter is already putting out the press hawks that if Harrisburg doesn't give them the enabling legislation, it will be Harrisburg that kills the property reassessments.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Falls
    Posts
    11,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArcticSplash View Post
    You're also talking about a city with a 25% percent poverty rate and all that poverty is not densely concentrated in a few areas that can be "walled-off" from the tax assessor. You're talking low-income seniors who are scattered throughout just about every single neighborhood except perhaps Chestnut Hill.

    The ones who are completely surrounded by gentrification or are in pockets of jacked-up assessments left over from years of corruption in the BRT are liable to feel some pain. Since the City is doing all of this in aggregate and has to get the new assessments mailed out in October, chances are not good that the City is going to positively identify everyone who is likely to not be able to pay the new rates.

    If you don't think this is all timed to generate maximum drama, you're kidding yourself.
    I paid $150k in property taxes this year, or I will once I mail that last check this week. It's gone up dramatically (cumulatively 13% or so) the past two years. Now it looks like it'll be going up another $13k next year. Ouch. Who's to say it's going to happen in 2013, though? This process has been so drawn out that I have little confidence it'll go into place in 2013.

    I was talking to my bankers about this, and my attitude is that if property values are increasing taxes should go up. In theory the increasing QOL and/or inflation justifies higher property valuations, which themselves justify higher taxes. The alternative, which is a Camden-like plunge in QOL and therefore property values, is much, much worse.

  19. #19
    Senior Member annie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    West Philly
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by billy ross View Post
    It only reimburses charters for $10,000 per student in charters, so I don't see how that is 'costing' the district any money, by the way.
    Because if charter enrollment increases, the district still has to kick in the $10K per students but the level of funding the PSD receives overall doesn't rise anywhere near enough to cover it, necessitating additional cuts to the district system. When a ton of the Catholic schools were going to close, the district said it anticipated large increase in charter enrollment in September 2013 but wouldn't know the exact numbers (and therefore, the amount times $10,000 it would have to fork over) until October, well into the FY2012-2013. Meaning, there were going to have to be disruptive mid-year budget cuts to schools. That's part of the reason why they're chasing the Gates Great Schools Compact money - otherwise it looks too obviously like a snake eating its tail.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sharswood
    Posts
    16,777

    Default

    said Dubow. "I don't know how it's a fast one if we're telling you what we're doing."
    Because you only said it after you got called out on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by billy ross View Post
    Too much time has elapsed since the last reassessment for the city's overall tax take to remain what it was in 2004. The base is larger now, so the total collections should be higher. If this process took 100 years should we be paying the same average tax as was paid in 1913? With how long the process has taken it would be insane to expect the average tax bill to remain where it was.
    Actually it isn't insane at all. When the last reassessment happened has no bearing on the process. It is about revenue gathered. What you're discussing is exactly what the problem is with Nutter's approach. His goal is to reassess to get more revenue. All the other reformers want the reassessment to actually make the system fair.

    The fixed system should be about fixing the system.

    Under your premise, if the city is collecting $2 billion from a 1913 assessment and they reassess 100 years alter, they should be collecting $2 trillion dollars now because property value has increased 1000 times since then. You see how silly your example is?

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •