  Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1681 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211 |
Here's the latest on the tax breaks for the established neighborhoods in Detroit. Good to see that things are progressing on this. A lot of people were concerned that this had fizzled out. The writter messed up the correct neighborhood names for Rosedale Park, North Rosedale Park and Grandmont #1. A little fact checking would have easily remedied that. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20060712/NEWS01/ 607120432 | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 533 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.165.136.151 |
The writer screwed up the math on the tax calculations at the end of the article too. A home in Detroit with an assessment of $160,000 has taxes of around $11,000, not $14,000. Sheesh, just do simple math. Also, in providing the tax example, the writer used the phrase "home assesed at $160,000." This is very sloppy because it raises the question, what does "assessed" mean? Most non-real estate types probably think that "assessed" means the same as value. Thus, when you combine the math mistake with the sloppy writing, I think that most people reading the article think that currently a home in Detroit worth $160,000 is burdened with property taxes of $14,000. In reality, such a house is now taxed at around $5,500, a long way from $14,000. Poor reporting like this perpetuates a lot of very harmful misconceptions about Detroit. (Message edited by swingline on July 12, 2006) | ||
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj Post Number: 87 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 216.111.89.3 |
The assessed or taxable value is typically around 50% of what its worth. $160,000*67mills=$10,720. The writer was correct if the house is worth around $320,000. | ||
Boshna Member Username: Boshna Post Number: 137 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 71.227.103.29 |
News version: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/M ETRO/607120403/1003 | ||
Machoken Member Username: Machoken Post Number: 1402 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 207.145.38.104 |
Swingline, I for one was thinking holy cow taxes on a $160K house (which is approximately what I bought my house for 5 years ago) in Detroit are $14,000!! So, I agree the writer's sloppiness can be very harmful. | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1665 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
They are also using the taxable value of the home, which is usually half of the purchase price, or appraised value. So, the ~$11k in taxes would be on a $320,000 home. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 796 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 68.40.119.216 |
This won't mean a thing if people don't feel safe and the schools continue to go downhill. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 105 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
On August 8, 2006 the Michigan Department of Transportation will legally abolish $70 Million per year from the operating budgets of SMART and DDOT to force the DARTA agreement in tbe mis-guided efforts of a few radicals who claim to be mass transit advocates. Or, vote NO and you will see that not one single bus driver will lose their job and every transit user will get bus service. The facts are obvious and the choice is yours. For more information, Please Reply. Thank You, to those who replied to my previous posts and I wish you the best bus service and much more. | ||
Matt Member Username: Matt Post Number: 1072 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.49.95.12 |
Trainman, shut the fuck up with your little political agenda. If you want to make a post, stay on topic. Thank you. | ||
Rokk_krinn Member Username: Rokk_krinn Post Number: 45 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.216.131.63 |
Am surprised the University District is not on there... unless it is platted under a different name? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 23 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.137 |
I'm pretty sure that the University District got through the last round of tax cuts. I think areas like Warrendale or other stable and growing areas should be considered for this break as well. While not rich areas, the lower to middle income folks need relief more than the rich do. | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2374 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.246.54.234 |
Paulmccall - Keep your negativity in the suburbs where you live. | ||
Apbest Member Username: Apbest Post Number: 137 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.40.65.66 |
West Village? | ||
Urban_shocker Member Username: Urban_shocker Post Number: 267 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.73.0.15 |
The city's assessor claims the breaks will cost the budget only $8M a year. If the average home is saving $6,000 (and that's very generous, of course), then only ~1,300 families are benefiting? There are almost that many houses in Boston-Edison alone. Granted there's disagreement among the forecasters, but how does hers pass the smell test? | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2684 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.37.61 |
Something to think about: Residents of (sections of) 25 neighborhoods who bought their homes (built before 1968) in 1998 or later represents a very, very small number of city residents. Ilovedetroit, please don't ever speak about "negativity" or "living in the suburbs" again, because you are a prime example of both. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1683 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211 |
Paulmcall does have a legitimate point. However I think this tax cut is one piece of the puzzle in keeping folks who would like to stay in Detroit in the city. Hopefully insurance and schools will be the next big issue. | ||
Neilr Member Username: Neilr Post Number: 299 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 68.60.139.212 |
Rokk Krinn, I believe that the official name of the University District is Golf Club Addition. Perhaps a poster who lives there can confirm or correct me. | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2375 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 63.149.5.130 |
Metro - Quit stalking me and just stay away...when I see a posting from you to me it makes me ill. The bill is designed to give relief to those homeowners who have the highest burden, which came into play after Proposal A was passed in 1993 (I think it was 93)...my guess is they had to pick a date and if you go back further more revenue would be lost. It also might have to do with the residency repeal...not sure why 98 was chosen. Bottomline: It is a very good start! I am just glad my neighborhood was included. | ||
J_stone Member Username: J_stone Post Number: 331 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 63.77.247.130 |
Why not Woodbridge? | ||
Magnasco Member Username: Magnasco Post Number: 124 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.159.22.100 |
Looking at the maps, yes Golf Club Addition is University District. As for missing neighborhoods, there are to be another 24 or so rolled out at another time, but not sure when. The amended NEZ PA 147 allows for up to 10% of the total acreage of the city to be designated, and that can go up to 15% with County approval. The proposed 25 areas are between 3 and 4 percent. So plenty of room to grow. | ||
Troy Member Username: Troy Post Number: 172 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.37.213.65 |
Add in the Cass Farms Sub along with that woodbridge plee(Hanging out in midtown paying the taxes that none of the new loft people are) | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 862 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
"In a move aimed at luring residents back to the city of Detroit and stopping the exodus to the suburbs" More than anything this is about reducing taxes for NEW residents moving into these existing neighborhoods. The reasons these neighborhoods were selected are because they have the greatest disparity between their SEV's (State Equalized Value) and Taxable Value (the value taxes are based on), which means they have the highest pop-up (increase in taxes when sold) in the city. This makes city rates closer to the suburban rates and is a greater incentive to buy, or stay in these neighborhoods. | ||
Magnasco Member Username: Magnasco Post Number: 128 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.159.22.100 |
And hopefully jump start some sales in these areas where the hundreds of homes are listed and not really moving, which will in turn uncap some of the proposal A valuations. The idea is there, we will have to see how it turns out. There will be a public hearing at some point before Council actually votes on it. | ||
Kiplinger Member Username: Kiplinger Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 208.44.60.32 |
The other argument that was used to get this bill moving is the first group of neighborhoods selected not only have the highest tax burden but make up the majority of property taxes in the City. Many of the other neighborhoods that are middle to low income have a lot of renters and homes that have been in a family for generations and thus a far smaller tax burden. I have seen 8 friends move out of Detroit in the last 6 months and more are to follow. Each of these moved from University District, Palmer Woods, and Rosedale Park. On another note, I think '98 was chosen because it was the year Proposal A went into affect. As a Detroit resident with school age children who we will not put in DPS the argument for leaving the City isn't something that can be ignored. We're trying but the pull to leave the City is harder than it has every been. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2685 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.40.154.115 |
"Ilovedetroit" whenever I see a posting from you it makes me sick, period. Why don't you stay away with your disingenuous postings and dishonest claims. The highest burden falls on a majority of Detroit citzens that are already (at least one of these factors) overtaxed, under/unemployed, undereducated, and now more fees. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 799 Registered: 05-2004 Posted From: 68.40.119.216 |
The problem with the city is that there are fewer and fewer middle class. You have a few decent neighborhoods and downtown white collar tax payers and that's it.Everyone else is too old or poor and can't move. This whole tax thing will be moot once receivership hits. You could have houses costing nothing and they wouldn't sell in Detroit because of crime, crummy schools and poor services. | ||
7051 Member Username: 7051 Post Number: 13 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 70.225.113.157 |
How to Continue Living in the City Without Going Broke by a 7 year city resident. 1. Insure your house with a $2,000 deductible as claims under this amount should not be made due to recent insurance company policies on raising future rates (this applies to anyone in Metro Detroit)). Use Nationwide or another competitive insurance company. 2. Insure all cars at relative's houses in the suburbs. This is a grey area but most people do it if they have that option. The insurance agents know it and they also know how criminally high the Detroit rates are presently! 3. Use a charter school if you have school age children. You may also choose a suburban charter if you so desire. Charters are tuition free, you've already paid for them with your tax dollars! Research the charter school as not all are the save-all that they are cracked up to be. ...Or use a private school - I'm sure you already waste a couple hundred bucks per month on useless consumer crap you'll never use more than once! Cut back and educate your children at schools (private and possibly Catholic) which will put your children in the top 10% of kids, not just educationally speaking but socially conscious too! 4. Realize that your $100,000-$350,000 house in the city will be 2.5 times higher in the suburbs and you will not be living in the same size and quality of house as it will be out of your price range. Also realize that Detroit's millage rate is high but the SEV's are low and the Proposal A pop-up SEV you will pay on your next house in the burbs. Therefore, your house you bought in 1998 for $185,000 that is now worth $275,000 would have a much higher SEV in the burbs. Ex:University District house current price $275,000, you paid $185,000 seven years ago. Same house in Pleasant Ridge or Grosse Pointe Park (similiar neighborhoods and houses)purchased today $500,000-$700,000. Current tax bill in Detroit on your 1998 purchased home $5,200. G.P.P. or P.R. house purchased today $8,800 - $14,000. Just comparing apples to apples! Leave the city and you'll downsize to 1960's ranch in the burbs and still have a $4,000-$5,000 tax bill because of Proposal A! Factor in the upcoming prop. tax decrease and you are now at $4,000. 5. Don't forget your gasoline $$ savings, reduced high mileage depreciation and 20-30 hours per month of reduced commuting time as you will be reverse commuting or even living closer to work. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 632 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 12.47.224.7 |
Awesome breakdown 7051. Where's the haters? | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 113 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 152.163.100.8 |
quote Trainman, shut the fuck up with your little political agenda. If you want to make a post, stay on topic. Thank you. end of quote I promise you all that SMART will not be saved with the .59 mill property tax. All you will get for this are handicapped vans and a few large buses. I suggest that we fight the Michigan Department of Transportation directly. They are the ones responsible to pay for the operating costs of SMART under federal laws. They have the money and can pay. They want you believe that the tax on gasoline is no longer a viable means to pay for public bus service. But this is a lie and against our civil rights under federal laws. There are legal cases on this and those who fight can win. The Chicago bus system was kept running as a result of a fight to stop diverting money into new transportation expansions. (rail and freeways) Read the fine print on August 8, 2006 at the voting booth and you will see for yourself. My post above has everything to do with this topic becuase it involves taxes. | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2379 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.246.54.234 |
EXCELLENT POST 7051! And don't forget where are you going to get such beautiful homes in tree lined and diverse neighborhoods! | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 633 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 12.47.224.7 |
Yeah and welcome to the forum. Thanks for posting your insights. and thanks for not sreaming dark bleak depressing negativity.... So where's posts about all homeowners in Detroit getting carjacked and shot in their fucking face? I want to know how and when I'm going to fucking die.  | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 634 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 12.47.224.7 |
I'm sorry. It's been a stressful day at work...  I need a beer. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1688 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 75.10.21.159 |
7051, The vast majority of charter schools are negligibly better, if any better at all, than their public school counterparts. My wife and I can't afford to send our kids to private school. I'll show you our budget. There's nothing you can cut that will add up to annual tution at even a Catholic school. As far as the decreased gas consumption, we've found little savings in gas since we have to drive to the suburbs for most things or drive downtown (which is just as far or farther than the suburbs from Rosedale Park). The schools, like it or not, are a big problem. Unfortunately, as someone who's worked for DPS, I don't see the situation getting any better any time soon. | ||
Pjazz Member Username: Pjazz Post Number: 49 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.212.57.249 |
I stay in East English Village. Where is South English Village? | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2380 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.246.54.234 |
The side that does not get the tax break is between Warren and 94. Between Warren and Mack gets the tax break. | ||
Pjazz Member Username: Pjazz Post Number: 50 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.212.57.249 |
Yeah! | ||
Eastsidechris Member Username: Eastsidechris Post Number: 88 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 66.238.170.34 |
What the heck was Kwame thinking dividing East English Village into two halves? Nary a sqeak has been made about it on here, but I'm sure there would be a huge outcry if Rosedale Park got a tax break and North Rosedale Park did not. And I was at the East English Village meeting last summer when Kwame was a guest speaker. He told us then that ALL of EEV would get the tax break. Got a feeling a few of the "north" EEV residents wouldn't have voted for him if they knew then what they know now. How about this: only home owners who actually live at their address get the tax break. I don't feel like investors who "own" several homes but rent them all out deserve the same break given to the rest of us. | ||
Corktownmark Member Username: Corktownmark Post Number: 203 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 141.217.12.135 |
Great post 7051. There seems to be a number of folks who see it the same way you do. New houses/condos and rehabs can be seen driving along Trumbull and also along MLK not to mention 25 new houses in north corktown and more on the way. The development near downtown and along the river climbs a wall of fear. Detroit gets the bad press (and bad news) but from one year to the next the houses are sold. | ||
Gildas Member Username: Gildas Post Number: 777 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 147.240.236.9 |
Eastsidechris, I have already e-mailed the entire city council about the EEV issue and have told others who live across Warren (as I do) to do likewise. Several friends have already done so, I can only hope that someone reads the messages and acts on it. I was also at the meeting and heard what Kwame had to say, most of it is election year tripe. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2686 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.221.93.123 |
Thanks for nothing 7051. Let's be honest here. 1. Due to crime and arson (and yes redlining), living in the city means paying high property insurance, regardless of a higher deductible. 2. Insurance fraud is illegal and when it's time to file a claim the insurance company will simply refund your premium and not pay off when/if the fraud is discovered. It's not worth the financial/legal risks. 3. Paying for private school (especially the good ones) is not nearly as simple as "cutting back on a couple of hundred bucks per month spent on useless consumer crap". 4. The savings on home price are cancelled out (and increased) by the higher property and car insurance, gas, high mileage, commute times, private schools, property taxes, city income tax, and now garbage fee. 5. There certainly isn't any "gas savings, high mileage depreciation savings, or commute times savings" when you factor in time spent driving to work (85% of jobs are in the suburbs), stores, private schools, etc. It's actually the exact opposite. | ||
7051 Member Username: 7051 Post Number: 14 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.212.34.218 |
I've actually been a regular lurker onthis website since it was Yahoo's website of the year back in 1998. It's been interesting to see the changes... Facts - Not Opinions My property insurance was $875 in early 1997 when I first purchased my house. It has since climbed to $2,100 with a deductible of $2,000 and replacement value of $320,000. The metro area has undergone similiar increases in the past 6 years and speaking with a family member in Grosse Pointe Park with a similiar house they are paying about the same rate. 2 insurance claims on cars have been made in the last 7 years. Both accidents caused by suburban commercial truck drivers (one taking place in Detroit on a state highway and one in Clinton Township). Regarding insurance registration practices (like most things in life) there is the textbook version and then there is the real life version. I've used private schools (about $300 per month per child K-8) and suburban charters. Both have been good academically, socially, etc. The current suburban charter school we are using had the best MEAP scores in Oakland County in the charter school classification. I've already explained the property tax comparisons. Please reread ($4,000-$5,000 because I purchased 7 years ago, $5,000-$7,000 for current buyers after the upcoming tax decrease vs. $8,800 - $14,000 for current buyers in the P.R. and G.P.P.) Please use exact comparisons of square footage, int./ext. construction materials, neighborhood environment, etc. when comparing homes in the suburbs and city. That is why I used the cities of Pleasant Ridge and Grosse Point Park. Please don't use the same comparison my dad uses (a 3-4 bedroom piece of shit ranch built in the 60's-90's with less square footage, inferior materials and finish, a surgical neighborhood of homes where most people don't know their neighbor or hate their neighbors) vs. a 3000-4000 square foot 1920's/30's house with multiple fireplaces, int./ext. materials used in new houses in the $1,000,000 and up range, friendly and highly educated neighbors(bachelor's degree +), median household income of $94,000,etc. ...I am a bit short of the $700,000 ++ this will cost me in the suburbs. The garbage tax will cost me $300 - 3mils($210 on my house)=$90. My property in Ferndale has a $172 charge for garbage plus 2.18 mills for refuse ($126) for total of almost $300. Bulk rules are pretty strict regarding bulk preparation and what they will take(this is the same policy used in most cities). Detroit's recently dropping income tax is just over 2% and deductible on federal and state taxes resulting in a fairly low real tax adjusted rate. I've seen the inc. tax charts for other cities in Michigan (over 40 have them) and inc. tax charts for other large American cities. We are in the middle of the pack when compared to other large cities. Even if you don't have a job in Detroit or the inner ring cities, your commute time will be reduced due to the reverse flow of traffic. Most residential locations in Detroit are within 10-20 minutes of large job centers (Troy, Southfield, Dearborn, etc.). Most of my suburban frinds in the exurbs log 18,000-35,000 miles per year per car. A 4 year old car with over 120,000 miles doesn't have much resale value and the maintenance costs and gas costs for this large amount of mileage are very high. Except for high quality (yeah right!) Target, Walmart, etc. products, Detroit does have decent food, clothing, etc. shopping options. I do admit that you may have to travel out of the city for the less frequent large ticket furniture, electronic, etc. purchases. But even these can be found if you know where to look (I know...this isn't as easy as going to the mall or strip mall daily to purchase stuff we really "need".) I think that about covers it. Hopefully, your next attempt (if there actually was a first attempt)at city living will be more successful...MetroDetroitGuy. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2689 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.40.154.115 |
Funny that you want exact comparisons in your home comparisons yet use supposed similar homes with supposed similar increases in your alleged example. Funny that I've seen examples of similar homes in the city vs suburbs at 4x the insurance rates. And those stories of double the auto insurance rates in the city aren't just talk. Good luck on your insurance fraud. Third time is the charm you know. And good luck with a school charging less than $3,000 in tuition (and the state allocation being double that amount) Facts as Facts...not opinion as fact, or supposed individual experiences as broad fact applicable to the average/majority of situations, or just straight up BS That certainly covers it. Come talk to me in about a quarter century after you've caught up to me (and my "first attempt") at city living. Unlike you, my city living isn't on the sly...Seven-Zero-Five-One | ||
Pjazz Member Username: Pjazz Post Number: 51 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.212.57.249 |
Will North English Village be in the next round of cuts? | ||
Brian Member Username: Brian Post Number: 3324 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.252.6.152 |
MD, made a point to which I can agree. (Or at least he hinted at a point I share.) Can a private school that charges tuition less than that of a public school provide a better service than that public school? It seems that only in the Black community does it appear to be the case. | ||
Drm Member Username: Drm Post Number: 1019 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.255.239.23 |
If you ever have to sue your insurance company to make a large liability or medical payout, you better believe that they will use as one of their defenses the fact that you fradulently claimed to live somewhere other than your actual residence. Although I have multiple suburban addresses where I could claim to garage my vehicles, I pay the extra dollars to have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that I am actually insured. Otherwise, I think 7051 has made some valid points. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 124 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.204 |
Under the DARTA agreement, if ever made legal would remove much of the Detroit property tax because the county and not the city would run DDOT. Why do you think Detroit Leaders come out in in public and say --- We Need DARTA? And NO, this is not a dead issue and is why I'm attacking the freeways and the Michigan Department of Transportation for not paying to maintain the status quo. | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2381 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.246.54.234 |
My guess is that they are focuing on neighborhoods (in some cases) that would attract from the surrounding non Detroit area. My guess is the EEV area between Mack and Warren is closer pull from the Grosse Pointes for folks to move here. Where the other side might not be as attractive to home owners from the burbs (too far from certain services or Starbucks)...I dont know why the cut off but this is one reason I had heard. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1804 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.220.233.151 |
A few issues with your argument, Metro. Your gas, mileage and commute times will be dependent entirely on where you're commuting to each day. Folks who work for Compuware, for example, would see a huge drop in those expenses if they moved downtown. As for the property taxes and insurance - my brothers and I sat down one day to compare our respective bills. I live in Detroit. Jnemecek is in Dearborn and Mnemecek is in Westland. Each of us owns almost identical homes (roughly 1,000 sq. ft. on a standard size lot). Guess which one of us has the lowest combined property tax & insurance bill - even after the new fee for trash collection. Add that to a much lower mortgage payment and I'm real happy to own a home in Detroit. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2691 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 70.233.3.7 |
FNemecek, A few issues with your counter-argument. 1. The gas, mileage, and commute argument was a general point that uses the fact that 85% of jobs are 10 or more miles away from downtown (in the suburbs). 2. In order for a home insurance comparison to be accurate, it would have to be the same company and/or type of policy (type of coverage, home value, credit rating, etc). Remember, similar homes can (and often do) have a wide range of values. Also remember that different companies can have drastically different rates (everything else being equal). Likewise I've seen similar homes (and type of policies) in Detroit and the suburbs within the same company that had drastic differences (lower in the suburbs). | ||
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_ Post Number: 220 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84 |
What is the definition of an "established" neighborhood? I'd sure hate to be just around the block or across the street from one and not get a tax break. Hasn't Detroit been there for over 200 years? Isn't that long enough to establish neighborhoods. King Kwame, the democrat, defender of fairness...picking and choosing who gets tax relief? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1809 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.112.48 |
Yes, but most people in the suburbs live more than 10 miles from their job anyway. An increase in gas, mileage and commute is not automatic by simple virtue of living in the suburbs because a job in Warren is still closer for someone living in Detroit than for someone living in Westland. If minimizing one's gas and mileage expenses, as well as one's commute time, are the priority then there are two options. First, you can live very close to work (e.g., downtown for the folks who work downtown or in the particular suburb that your job is in located in if its outside of Detroit). The problem with that is that just because your job is in one suburb today doesn't mean that it'll still be there 6 months from now. Layoffs and outsourcing are two of the issues that everyone has to deal with, on top of the possiblity that your employer may move the work location. Your second option is to live in the geographic center of everything - a place where you can be reasonably confident that you'll be equidistant to all parts and have the best statistical chance of having a short commute if/when your job location changes. That, of course, means living in Detroit.
Thank you, Captian Obvious. Say, did you hear that there's water in the Pacific Ocean? Urgh! Sorry for snapping like that, but you're missing the obvious point - which is why I put in bold in the above quote. Homes in Detroit are drastically cheaper than an equivalent one elsewhere, ergo one doesn't need to insure them for anywhere near as much money. My brothers have a higher insurance cost, because they have to insure their almost identical home for almost twice as much money. The point is that, for many people, it's a lot cheaper to live in Detroit than it is in the suburbs. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1810 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 70.225.112.48 |
Pacypacy_: #1. The newspaper used the term "established neighborhood" not the Mayor. #2. Detroit has been around for 305 years not 200. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2699 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 75.10.16.94 |
Frank, please examine BOTH sides rather than just passing off one to make a point. Likewise, a job Downtown is farther away for someone in far Northwest Detroit than some inner ring suburbs. See how that goes both ways. Talk about missing the obvious. Again my point that a cheaper house in Detroit is offset and increased by generally more expensive home insurance, car insurance, property tax rates, city income tax, gas/mileage/wear, and private school tuition (all added together). Also add in the real monetary costs of gaining/losing property values. And that point is that for a lot of people living in the suburbs is a lot cheaper than living in the city. By the way, Detroit (a big city you know, pick a specific geographic point) is not "the geographic center of everything". As far as outsourcing, etc...a job can move from Downtown Detroit just as easily. | ||
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_ Post Number: 225 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84 |
Fnemecek QUOTE: Pacypacy_: #1. The newspaper used the term "established neighborhood" not the Mayor. #2. Detroit has been around for 305 years not 200. #1. Okay, so then will everyone will recieve tax breaks, or just who King Kwame deems worthy? #2. I said OVER 200 years old, which is correct. Understand what you read before commenting. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 32 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 63.85.13.248 |
F's arguement makes sense if the City wants to grow both population AND jobs. This is a sound arguement, and good policy; particularly when dealing with increasing energy costs AND a city that needs investment. By having my house in Warrendale, I am able to more than offset any of your so called lost opportunities of owning in the suburbs by being able to fully invest in my retirement account and by owning a vacation home in northern michigan (both of these have better tax advantages than just writing off a higher mortgage payment). I would have liked to have seen this applied across the board, or maybe used to fund garbage collection and street cleaning instead. Pacy, before you nit-pic, take a look at what you wrote. (Message edited by Detroitplanner on July 17, 2006) | ||
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_ Post Number: 232 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84 |
The King's incidious "tax plan" is so easy to see. It is not a tax plan, it is a plan to gradually force poorer families to other cities downriver and then attract more hip affluent homeowners to fill those spots. By giving tax breaks only to the rich, better neighborhoods, the poor will move elsewhere and their neighborhoods will be recycled. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 534 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 172.151.187.10 |
I'm sorry Pacy, but your post ^^^^^ is clueless. This tax relief plan is not a salvation for the city by any means, but it is one creative way for the city to try to retain taxpayers rather than always trying to pander to groups that are consuming taxes. | ||
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_ Post Number: 234 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84 |
I think you just proved my point.... | ||
Jfried Member Username: Jfried Post Number: 864 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 209.131.7.190 |
exactly swingling. all the people who are complaining that this is for "the rich" have no idea what they are talking about. if people took the time to do some research they would realize that with the combination of "tax hardship relief", and unbelievably low property assesments in most neighborhoods, the average city resident pays very little property tax. the heavy burden is carried by those with high assessments, and/or new residents that are hit with the prop A pop-up. the city will not survive without a middle class -this might convince the 10,000 + residents who are leaving each month to stay, or might give more incentive for new residents to move in the city. it would be great if this could happen citywide, but lets give it a chance in these specific neighborhoods. it's a temporary fix, but if it works it may push us towards city-wide tax restructuring. (Message edited by jfried on July 18, 2006) | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 636 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 69.220.142.7 |
Jfried is right about assessments. 90% of the city is probably never assesed, EVER. Or at least hasn't been in years. That is a much bigger problem than the high tax rate IMO. The rate of property tax collection is deplorable in the city so for years the city has been pummelling the affluent neighborhoods with assessments and high tax bills. This will help the high tax neighborhoods, but it is just a band-aid like the tax breaks for new development. The city needs a plan that gradually rolls back the property tax rates for the entire city. An overall lower rate of around 45-50 mils and dilligent assessments and collection would do wonders for the cities bottom line. And potential homeowners could rest assured that they could still sell their home in 5 or 12 years - that there wouldn't be any horrendous popping up in the tax rate (although it seems Victoria Park will be enjoying their tax break indefinitely). The city needs complete property tax reform not band-aids to neighborhoods that have, dare I say it... HIGH VOTER TURNOUT. (Message edited by eastsidedog on July 18, 2006) | ||
Eastsidechris Member Username: Eastsidechris Post Number: 89 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 207.69.139.10 |
Does anyone know when the city council's public hearing about the property tax break proposal will be held? | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1698 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 134.215.223.211 |
As a resident of Rosedale Park I am assessed on an annual basis by the city. My taxes have gone up nearly $1,000 in 5 years due to the constant reassessing. Now granted one of those years was the "pop-up" when the city was able to capture taxes close to the purchase price of my home instead of the old owners rate. However my taxes still go up at a rate higher than the rate of inflation due to the annual reassessments. The proposed tax breaks will save me $1,000 a year in city taxes. Meanwhile friends who live in neighborhoods that aren't as well known haven't had assessments in over 5 years on their house. They're paying half of what I'm paying for a house with a market value similar to mine. I agree that this is a band-aid for the overall high property tax structure in the city, but you've got to stop the bleeding where the most blood is coming out. | ||
Magnasco Member Username: Magnasco Post Number: 131 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.159.22.100 |
The public hearing will be Monday, July 24th, at 5:00 pm at Cobo hall. Should be quite the party. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 655 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.20.140.8 |
Bvos, if you're taxes are going up that fast, go and fight it. According to Prop A the taxes can only increase at the rate of inflation or 5% whichever is less. Also, if you buy a house in the city, the city has 1 year to assess at current value. If the city fails to assess during this time they are screwed (this from my realtor). The city shoots itself in the foot all the time with this when they re-assess homes 2,3, or 4 years after they sell. My realtor told me of one homeowner fighting the re-assessment in court and winning and saving a small fortune. | ||
Bvos Member Username: Bvos Post Number: 1704 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 75.10.21.159 |
Taxes can only increase at the rate of inflation or 5%, which ever is less, UNLESS the house is reassessed. That's the loophole Michigan municipalities are using to get around it. As for the initial reassessment between the previous owner and myself, it was done correctly within the correct amount of time. Due to the time of year that I purchased my home I was able to ride the previous owners taxes for a year. The problem I have with fighting a reassessment is that the reassessment is still $20-$30k below market value. Furthermore we've done a lot of work on the house, further boosting the actual value of the home. I know technically market rate and assessed value are not the same, but in reality they are. So I don't really have a leg to stand on when arguing to lower my taxes. |
