Hey, there! Log in / Register
The quiet little ballot question that would increase Boston property taxes for affordable housing, parks
By adamg on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:44am
In addition to four statewide ballot questions, Boston voters are deciding whether to add a surcharge to property tax bills to pay for more affordable housing and improvements to local parks and historical sites.
Question 5 on the Boston ballot would add a 1% surcharge to the amount property owners have to pay each year - officials estimate the average homeowner would see a $23 annual increase and that the city would collect about $16.5 million in total new revenue. The elderly, people below certain income levels and owners of industrial land would be exempt.
Boston is allowed to seek the surcharge under the state Community Preservation Act - which allows for an up to 3% surcharge.
The City Council approved the ballot question 12-1 earlier this year.
City Councilors Andrea Campbell (Roxbury) and Michael Flaherty (at large), who sponsored the measure, said the measure would help residents being priced out of Boston stay here. Flaherty noted that 160 Massachusetts communities have already enacted similar measures.
Councilor Bill Linehan (South Boston), who opposed the question, though, said passage would only add to the burdens of homeowners in his district already getting socked with skyrocketing property-tax bills.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Hey Billy, no burden to me. I
Hey Billy, no burden to me. I'm voting for it.
"Not with my tax dollars!"
roared the angry small-government conservative, using municipally-funded electricity and cable to send his invective out for thousands of people to read over a network developed by federally-funded DARPA research. Buttered toast crumbs (which did not contain salmonella, owing to the watchful eye of the FDA and a dozen other federal regulatory agencies) dribbled from his chin as he stomped down the stairs of the house whose mortgage interest payments he subtracted from his own tax liability, and into his domestically-assembled (because of massive federal incentives to the manufacturer to keep jobs in the American economy) car, which he then piloted onto the roads built with state and federal tax dollars. "Good for nothing subsidized housing will be the ruin of us all," he muttered, aghast at the $23 that would soon be forcibly removed from his pocket. "And parks! Why would we spend money on parks when kids have perfectly good Netflix!"
Y'all can continue the story below!
Convenient
Convenient to have the people you hate and fear living right inside your head.
You would know.
You would know.
I'm willing to bet a huge
I'm willing to bet a huge percentage of the people flipping out over their taxes potentially going up $23 are the same people who use space savers to claim public property as their own, despite the fact that they get those public parking spaces for no cost.
Many of those people could
Many of those people could just be renters, there's no reason they wouldn't be just as concerned about parking. Anyone who lives in the neighborhoods would have the same parking situation.
"Not with my tax dollars!"
typed the angry erikg as he pictured an angry small-government conservative roaring it out, while simultaneously trying to ignore the yelling and arguing coming from affordable apartment across the hall and a bag of heroin being tossed from the window of an affordable apartment upstairs. "Down with the rich capitalist pigs!" he continued. "Lenin! Marx! Engels!" as he creamed his cheap tattered old navy pants...
Lol, it's funny
Because the middle and working class who would benefit the most from more affordable housing are all trashy drug dealers. Haha! How clever!
Middle and working class
Would not qualify for "affordable housing" because they make too much. And those who do qualify based on their income won't be able to afford it.
And tell me ...
What do you think are the income levels for "affordable" housing units?
I'm buying in Southie
Estimates are a $26 increase TOTAL. For a single family 2000 sqft home it'll be a measly $50-100 a year in a property that could be sold for over a million dollars.
This isn't 1890. $100 isn't much in the way of a hardship for those who are sitting on these types of assets.
Who is anyone to say what $100 means to someone?
What if there are elderly homeowners that are on fixed incomes just barely scraping by? That extra $100 or any amount could mean food or heat to them - don't be assholes!!!
Old and Cold
The elderly are the first to be listed as exempt
Yup.
Elderly ate exempt and there are other exemptions as well to property taxes in Boston.
Anyways, I don't think the elderly are sticking around to go up three narrow staircases in a single family row house.
This might impact generation houses where the kids and grandkids aren't doing much but taking up space, but they're still getting the discounts.
The only reason to oppose it is slippery slope arguments and tax hatred. But seeing how generous the residential property tax rebate is, I have a hard time being against charging slumlords and rental management companies a little more.
"exemptions for seniors and
"exemptions for seniors and low-income earners"
per
http://www.politico.com/states/massachusetts/story/2016/09/bostons-prese...
How many poor property owners can you name?
All of the poor people I know don't own property. This effort is only written to look like it's helping poor people.
I stay out of debt and financial trouble by spending less than I earn. The people managing our taxes need to start doing the same.
Really?
Its as if trying to compare individual finances and large corporate/government finances is like comparing apples to oranges. BTW, there are plenty of City, State, and Federal programs to help low income residents buy property.
BTW, there are plenty of City
BTW, there are plenty of City, State, and Federal programs to help low income residents buy property.
Can you provide the names of the programs that do this?
Off the top of my head you
Off the top of my head you have FHA loans, MassHousing loans, Boston's 3D program (http://dnd.cityofboston.gov/#page/3Dinitiative), City/BRA Lottery program for new condos at various AMI % rates/reselling of houses/units that must confirm to the City of Boston's income limits for affordability, etc. Literally a two second Google search would even bring up dedicated .gov pages with information. Obviously not talking about destitute or below poverty line incomes.
I'm one!
I might (MIGHT) hit $40k this year and I own property in Boston. Lesson to all you yuppies, returning your beer bottles pays dividends! Buying a house saved me hundreds a month vs. paying rent, I was able to stay in Boston, instead of moving to say, Lowell (where I could have gotten a MUCH nicer house btw). Think I apply for the exemption?
Jesus Christ Spaghetti Monster
Personal finances are not akin to state or federal budgets, just like credit cards and NOTHING like soviegn debt and creditors.
As stated in the article,
Elderly and poor are exempt from the surcharge.
Read the article
Sheesh
Who are the 11 people who
Who are the 11(and counting) people who gave your factually incorrect post a thumbs up??!?
Someone please think of the old people who bought a house for 50K that is now worth 1 million and who's taxes won't go up under this proposal!
Don't forget though....
That wealthy multi-family property owners can now can pass along these new tax increases to their tenants.
Pass them along by raising
Pass them along by raising the rent by $2 a month?
Plus administrative fees
Add to this this year's hike in property taxes and you have "good reason" to raise rents.
Since when
Do landlords need a "good reason" to raise rents? They raise them every year anyway.
Many Boston property owners live in Boston.
And many of them live in million dollar homes and own million dollar properties. These are not your average property owners. They will adjust their investments to these new tax increases, and some of these adjustments will include rent increases.
I own a multi-family and am
I own a multi-family and I am none of the things you just listed - nor are many other people I know that also own multi-families. Then again, I haven't raised rent in years.
Money Money Money
This is just a way to get around prop 2 1/2.
This will not make a dent on any housing issue. All this will do is make it more expensive to live in Boston.
It will start at 1% and within 5 years will be at 3%.
City could accomplish more by actually wringing in expenses. But that would require balls to do. I
It's a scam.
Prop 2-1/2?
But Councilor Linehan tells us that property taxes are "skyrocketing!" Are you saying that his skyrockets rise by 2-1/2% a year?
I believe this measure is what's known as an "override." Something Prop 2-1/2 provides for, where the citizens can approve a rate increase that exceeds 2-1/2%. Don't want that? Vote it down.
Just saying - that is not how
Just saying - that is not how prop 2½ works. Individual property tax can rise any amount the municipality wants to raise it based on assessed values. The overall property taxes collected by the municipality, however, cannot exceed a 2½ raise from the previous year, and, cannot exceed 2½ of the overall total value of all property in the municipality. I have no idea how truthful Councilor Linehan's assertions are without digging into the assessor website/data, which I am really too lazy to do.
Prop 2½
Hurray for Prop 2½, which pegs property tax increases below inflation for the most part, crippling Boston and towns from being able to gain in this unprecedented boom time to ensure when things come back down nothing for the public good was actually accomplished.
Property values increase with
Property values increase with inflation. There is no need to increase the tax rate to adjust for inflation.
Math is something you might want to learn.
If the city can only raise the total amount of property taxes collected by 2.5% every year, and inflation is 3%, there is a delta of a 0.5% which would grow every year that inflation didn't stay below 2.5%.
"Property values increase with inflation."
And prop 2½ literally limits the amount of tax money a municipality can collect on new higher appraised values based on the property values. BTW, inflation is not the only thing affecting property value, either.
"There is no need to increase the tax rate to adjust for inflation."
Except that the law we are talking about (prop 2½) explicitly limits the amount of money a municipality can collect each year in property taxes (based on property values) to a number less than inflation.
Really not rocket science, anon.
Bush said it best...
Read my lips. No new taxes.
No matter how small. I'll put that extra money in my own 401k.
Bush?
You mean W's dad, right? He didn't have lips, and even though he said that, he went on to raise taxes.
Yeah,
You might want to read this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kennedy-bush-idUSBREA4308G20140505
(Oops, sorry, meant to place this under the original poster (anon) not yourself)
Show me someone for which this'll be a burden
...and chances are they are already among the groups that are exempt.
it doesn't have to be a
it doesn't have to be a "burden" to be wrong.
Boston has become a city of the very rich and very poor and this tax just perpetuates this, as insignificant as it seems. It already *is* easier to be poor in Boston than to work and live here as a middle income earner. Furthermore, this tax will accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of affordability, but will further add to the economic polarization of the city.
Poor people have it easier
Poor people have it easier than middle income/class? Sounds like someone who has no idea what its like to be poor, especially in one of the richest cities in the country.
BTW - Brighton is expensive, and has been for awhile. Try moving to Hyde Park or Mattapan and you might have an easier time on your 'middle-income' salary.
An oversimplification, but...
Think of this as taking from the "rich" and giving to the "poor" (which in some ways it is certainly designed to do.) This surcharge does the exact opposite of perpetuating the divide between rich and poor.
Further
If we want to do something about poor and middle class housing, the city is going to have to get realistic about density and zoning. Thats, again, going ot be taking (power) from rich property owners and building out more housing against their wishes.
Obviously anything that decreases property values is a non-starter. But they can plan to build enough to keep prices rising below inflation so people can catch up.
South Boston recently had a few major avenues rezoned smartly with density in mind, but they were or are bordering former commercial areas.
We're going to have to expand beyond the places where no one will complain about the new 6 story building going up next to their six story building.
How, exactly?
Do they mean the bill would accomplish this by constructing more affordable housing to which the aforementioned people could move? I can't see how it could possibly have the effect of decreasing market-rate rents.
Two possibilities off the top of my head
1. First, the pessimistic one: a big affordable housing building is built near your home, and as a result the property values in your neighborhood decline. As a renter, this means your rent will go down (or, at least, not go up).
2. Now, the optimistic one: I think that CPA money can be used to buy affordable housing units in a larger building. This would allow a developer to build a new apartment building (or condos) where some of the units are affordable and others market rate. By leveraging CPA money to build both affordable and market rate housing, there is the effect of increasing market rate housing supply, thereby helping reduce price pressure.
There's two possibilities. I'm sure there are more.
Ok, I think we have to define for many what "affordable" means..
It does not mean a housing project is going up near your home filled with the poor (clutching my pearls). So in regards to your "1", I think you a bit off. Notice the figures for "Boston":
http://www.communitypreservation.org/sites/default/files/CPA%20Moderate%...
And in regards to you "2", yes, but with conditions:
http://www.communitypreservation.org/content/chart-allowable-uses#housing
Yeah, I'm not trying to carry water
(1) was obviously a stretch. It's theoretically possible, but not especially likely.
(2) is a more serious answer and, while possible, not likely to have a measurable impact city-wide.
My view is that "Affordable"
My view is that "Affordable" housing is not at all "affordable" housing. It's just subsidized housing.
The whole 40B set aside system is ridiculous providing a benefit to a lucky few. And eventually those Affordable units end up in the hands of trust-fund kids and doctors doing their residency, who are people with low taxable income and easy access to loans.
see for yourselves
if you go on the City of Boston's Assessing Department website here, you can enter your parcel information and see how much the proposed surcharge would cost specifically to you
$30. Ok by me.
$30. Ok by me.
This is cool, thanks for the
This is cool, thanks for the link.
I just checked my condo and I would have to pay an extra $5.56 per year. I don't know if I can swing it, guys!
$5.56
Will buy you a latte or a beer, way better than paying into the "luxury housing at 1/5th of market value for the well-connected" fund.
Yeah, luckily this has
Yeah, luckily this has absolutely nothing to do with luxury housing. You might want to read the ballot question. If I'm willing to sacrifice $5 a year, the city gets $20 million in revenue ($16 million from the property tax increase and $4 million in matching state funds) that must be used on affordable housing, protection of open space and historic preservation. I'm willing to give up that latte (gross) or beer to improve the city that I live in.
All for it
As long as none of this goes towards the boondoggle of a clusterf*ck T employees, I'm fine. I voted for it. I hope it helps build infrastructure and keeps some residents afloat.
I'm Voting No on 5
I must be the minority here but I plan to vote no.
The City says the average property tax bill will increase by $24 - define average.
We have a ton of development going on. BRA (or whatever they are called now) can require mitigation from developers for affordable housing, green space, etc. Look at all the green space being created in the Seaport by developers (none!).
Another slush fund and the amount raised won't make a significant dent in the creation of affordable housing.
I'm all for these feel good measures, but the devil is in the details which are sorely lacking. Without a specific plan of action, without making developers do more, I cannot support this.
Seaport by developers (none!)?
Wrong, they're building a park with a large memorial.
Agreed
If the city needs millions of dollars they should go after Northeastern University and other colleges, who pay something ludicrous like UNDER $100k a year in lieu of tax for their huge swaths of land they own in Boston.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/02/after-criticism-northeaster...
Absentee owners like Chinese investors who own Multi-million dollar penthouses as a way to park their money without LIVING there, slumlords who own hundreds of rental properties (yeah there are many of these people). Hell, why not TAX GE instead of just giving them property. There are other ways to raise these funds other than essentially pan-handling from homeowners. Yeah, I can afford the $23, I can also afford to give the junkie by South Station a quarter every day but screw that guy.
They just keep asking for more and more money, and it just flies away.
The register of deeds gets paid six figures? You wanna sell Winthrop Sq. for pennies on the dollar to some BRA crony? Double parked cars as far as the eye can see with no tickets on the windshield? Then come to the citizens with your hands out?
POUND SAND BOSTON.
Its really not about the dollar amount, the fact they are trying to get money out of people when there is so much waste and corruption is just laughable. Then in winter Marty will make another hilarious video with Keytar Bear and the Yeti when the city can't plow my street...
It would be better
to have market-based solutions to the cost of housing than to increase the number of subsidized housing units, which are more expensive for the city.
I'm all ears
What market-based solutions do you propose?
Build
Then build, then build some more? Or are you against it because it will block the state house view from your $2,000,000 bacon hill condo?
Curtail affordable housing
Just because you want to live somewhere doesn't mean you're entitled to live there. Just because you want to live somewhere doesn't mean the government should subsidize your preference.
Affordable housing is a double whammy - it diverts funds that could be better spent on other programs; and it artificially depresses the property tax base.
If you want to ease the high cost of housing, build build build. The best solution to high prices is to increase supply, not government meddling.
Market forces are imperfect
In the case of housing, the market is imperfect. There is no incentive for builders to build anything less than the most profitable units (i.e. generally that means "luxury".) With this new money, the city can level the playing field by making new affordable units more attractive to build than they are currently.
Level the field?
That 16M might be enough to build maybe 20 units or so.
Unless ...
You don't just go and build units yourself, you use them to subsidize developments that agree to include more affordable units.
Sure
So instead of building the units yourself, you pay the developer to make up the difference between $1,000,000 market price and $200,000 "affordable" price - how is that any different?
It's called leveraging
Take a look at the all-affordable building that Related Beal is building on Beverly Street. To make it work, they went to a variety of sources, including a commitment to use profits from a hotel that's part of the project, tax credits, state-issued bonds and BRA linkage funds from other projects. So you don't necessarily need to fully subsidize a developer's work, and not all developers will be willing to go along, but there are ways to chip in for projects like this.
It's called bullshit
The money comes from somewhere - tax credits, higher prices on market rate units, higher hotel rates, etc (in other words taxpayer pockets.) Developers are in the business of making money, not providing cheap housing, they want their profits here or they'll go elsewhere, where they can make those profits.
I imagine the reason
I imagine the reason developers build "luxury" and not density is that they're not allowed to build that dense. Try stuffing 15 units into a brownstone and you'll get a lot of neighborhood pushback over crowding and parking. Build 6 units and people are okay.
Wha?
Have you stood outside the old Filene's and looked up recently? Or driven down Boylston Street in the Fenway?
Well
I don't know about you clowns, but I'd rather drink those three extra beers or four extra lattes than see that money being used to fund "affordable" luxury condos for someone connected to the BRA bigshits.
I'm all for it
who wants a city made up of only wealthy people!
So
You wouldn't want everyone in Boston to be wealthy and successful? So you'd prefer others be kept down in order to maintain a balance? Personally I'd rather the City help those who can't afford housing get better jobs, get better educated in order to become wealthy vs. giving them a subsidized place to live.
Honest Question
What happens to the additional tax revenue that comes from increasing property values? In recent years, that has to be a significant amount of money, right? Why can't the already higher revenues cover an initiative like this? It seems counter intuitive to have to add a surcharge. I'm sure the answer is obvious, so apologies for the dumb question, but to me it's strange to read about adding tax revenue streams and budget cuts to areas like education at the same time as property tax revenue is trending the way that it is.
Increasing values DON'T mean big increases in tax revenue
Somebody jump in and point out mistakes in the following, but:
We have this thing called Prop. 2 1/2 and what it means is that, in general, a city or town can't raise its total revenue from property taxes by more than 2.5% a year. So if the city brings in $100 million in property-tax revenue this year, next year it can bring in $102.5 million (unless officials ask voters to approve an override, which Boston has never done).
So why are some people seeing huge tax increases? Because it's basically a zero-sum (well, plus that 2.5%) game: If you live in South Boston and your property value skyrockets while people who live in, oh, certain parts of Roslindale see their property values go up only a little bit, your tax bill will skyrocket while those Roslindale people will see their bills go down - Prop. 2 1/2 has nothing directly to do with an individual property's tax bill.
Now fortunately for Boston, new construction is not subject to the previous year's levy cap, so we've been very lucky over the past few years not just because city managers have been fairly good at managing budgets but because we've been seeing a flood of new revenue from all the construction all over the place. If and when the construction boom ends, we'll probably have some issues.
So...
Those wonderful City managers have been creating budget surpluses to use when the development does slow?
Thanks for explaining!
That's very helpful, thank you!
I'd say you pretty much nailed it
Well done!
Oh my!
Double post. $!#/^/#!// cell phone reception!
Oh my!
Triple post. That's a first.
Question 5
I won't vote to preserve anything until trash/recycle barrels are no longer allowed to be stored on the sidewalk. They only attract dog walkers to dispose of dog poop bags in them and attract flies and rodents. They make the "million dollar" neighborhood look like a slum. Why greet your guests and yourself with a trash barrel at your front door?
Oh the travesty
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
I voted Yes on 5, but it sure
I voted Yes on 5, but it sure was galling to vote a tax increase on myself while GE gets a 20 year free pass.
Another possible way to use the money
Rather than throwing it at developers, set up a fund that residents who need some help buying a home can apply to. The city already has something like that for home repairs - if you meet certain income requirements, you can get loans for home repairs (which become grants if you then stay in your house for a certain number of years - five, I think).