  Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6475 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
Detroit City Council voted unanimously Friday afternoon to approve Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's plan to extend property tax cuts to residents in 25 city neighborhoods. Homeowners in neighborhoods including Palmer Woods, Rosedale, Sherwood and the Berry Subdivision will receive tax cuts of up to 35 percent beginning next January. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20060728/NEW S11/60728016 | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 223 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 207.61.38.86 |
Why only certain neighbourhoods? The whole city should have a tax cut. Or are they just trying to please the rich and middle class residents. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6476 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.136.149.133 |
They're trying to address the neighborhoods that have been hit hardest with rising property values. They've also made clear that this is only the first round of neighborhoods selected for cuts. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4058 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.197.28.167 |
Exactly, steps at a time. They are using these cuts as a retention tool. I don't think the city can currently afford (with an already inevitable drop in the tax base for other reasons besides high taxes) to do an across the board, uniform, city-wide property tax break. This is a great start. | ||
Chub Member Username: Chub Post Number: 347 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.60.139.30 |
The city probably can't even afford these tax cuts, but hey what do I know. | ||
Boss_hogg Member Username: Boss_hogg Post Number: 29 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 24.192.6.193 |
Anyone know when the cuts are supposed to take effect? | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2385 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.246.54.234 |
They are effective January 2007. Thank you City Council for doing something as a team and helping us out! GOOD NEWS! | ||
Qweek Member Username: Qweek Post Number: 1 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 4.229.66.168 |
I have an idea floating around my brain for Detroit that I'm sure has many faults, and is probably totally ridiculous. Maybe some of you could straighten me out and send me back to the Hills with my idea, maybe someone might find it interesting, who knows. For all I know the idea has already been discussed, what do I know?!! Say, for instance you own a home and next to you there is either a vacant lot or a home that is vacant. The property is neglected, the taxes are delinquent, you haven't ever seen the owners. The City could give the owner a deadline to pay their taxes or the property would be offered up first to the neighboring homes of the lot at ridiculously low prices, maybe even for the amount of the delinquent taxes. The rezoning of all the lots would be a nightmare but what is worse, paperwork or neglect. That is just a brief rundown of the idea. Ready for my beating. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1930 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 70.141.182.203 |
Not a bad idea. That's a good first post--welcome. I know of a homeowner right at the edge of Detroit/GP Farms who improved his home quite a bit, while watching others vacate. He took matters into his own hands, buying those vacant homes, often tearing them town, and making a big backyard. I believe he has at least 5 city lots now. Unfortunately, most of the residents remaining in the emptying/abandoned neighborhoods are too poor to afford to do this, but a low-cost city program would empower them. Can you imagine Detroit's future landscape if we keep losing population. Old, inner city homes situated on 1+ acres of total land? And if demand ever comes back, they will often be situated among modern homes. We are such an aberration. Driving E. Jefferson, i.e. you see the old neighborhoods contrasted with suburban-style redevelopments across the street. BTW this is a great move by city council and the mayor. Good economics at hand. | ||
Islandman Member Username: Islandman Post Number: 308 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.42.171.59 |
Great idea, qweek. I have also seen a few blocks where this has happened. In what major city could a home have so much land? The aesthetics of it would be very pleasing to the eye as well. | ||
Motorcitymayor2026 Member Username: Motorcitymayor2026 Post Number: 1074 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 67.38.7.225 |
qweek, Kilpatrick is trying to make this possible, where homeowners that are keeping up their homes can buy the adjacent vacant lots beginning at $100 | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1931 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 70.141.182.203 |
Hmmm, aggressive real estate investors could really take advantage of that. Buy a cheap house, buy neighboring homes and lands for even cheaper, and then use the savings to re-invest in the neighborhood. That would really speed along a recussitation of the neighborhoods, I think. | ||
Qweek Member Username: Qweek Post Number: 2 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 4.229.66.12 |
Can you imagine the huge lot sizes for homes that once only had postage stamp size lots? It would be wonderful. The people of Detroit, who have had to put up with so many changes and hardships, unfair taxes, corruption and controversy for so many years deserve something. Land ownership and pride for the people who have really endured, stayed through it all and love the City of Detroit. The plan would go so far in improving the conditions in Detroit. Having citizens who are already in the city benefit from an increased property size, and property value would of course lead to an increase in property taxes. If purchases where at a set rate of property tax per lot size, guaranteed never to change in the upward direction until a change of ownership takes place in the future, the people would be protected. The city government benefits by having someone actually pay for that piece of land instead of nothing. If Mr. Kilpatrick can get something like this going strong it would be great. The city needs to make big changes due to the decrease in residents, either the city has to shrink in physical size or the lot sizes grow for current citizens, I really don't know, but something has to happen in a positive way for a change. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1250 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.77.161.41 |
Regarding Qweek's idea, I ran across this on the city website: http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/ma yor/releases/2006/llegal%20Dum ping%20Task%20Force%20Announce ment.htm
| ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4059 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.177.81.137 |
Qweek, I don't see what's so wonderful about huge lot sizes in a formerly urban area of the city. I'm not saying that I'd rather see vacant houses or empty land, but I'm completely baffled by your "how wonderful it would be" attitude towards further suburbanizing the city. If it happens (and it is), it happens, but I don't necessarily see how that's desirable or wonderful. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 1932 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 71.144.94.199 |
Hmm, but if the population doesn't return, that's just the way it will be in many neighborhoods, so wouldn't it be better if the vacant land at least had an owner and taxpayer? Obviously, there is nothing good about an already low-density (relatively---compared to other cities) city losing population. But the suburbanization is already underway--look at the south of Jefferson middle-income housing going up, and all the strip malls. Urbanism is showing through well enough in Brush Park and Midtown redevelopments, but it will take a lot to bring this to the outer neighborhoods. I say the best thing we can do at this point to help the city retain character in the future is to preserve as many exisitant structures as possible. | ||
Qweek Member Username: Qweek Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2006 Posted From: 4.229.153.143 |
Good point Lmichigan, maybe I was too happy yesterday and I dared to use such an optimistic, upbeat word like "wonderful". 24 hours have passed , I have a headache,the thought of bigger lot sizes in Detroit today only registers as nice. I am all for preservation and saving what is still structurally sound Detroit, the architecture and history can not be replaced with the cheap trash that is constructed these days, it's truly depressing. I like grass, trees, gardens, kids playing baseball, old neighborhoods, days without headaches and aspirin, nice things. I hope Kwame will succeed at implementing the plan to improve conditions in many Detroit neighborhoods. A tough plan to go after deadbeat land and homeowners who have neglected to do anything for the city but cost it money needs to be strictly enforced. The time has come to get tough with the anchors of society, they certainly don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see them pay up, clean up or get the hell out? Every week the "city" inspector drives down my street looking for someone he can mess with, he is an ass, we all hate him but people keep their areas clean. Oh well, I'm getting grouchier by the second, good day Detroit. | ||
Kiplinger Member Username: Kiplinger Post Number: 5 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 69.246.52.24 |
I believe the tax cuts take effect next July not January. http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll /article?AID=/20060729/NEWS12/ 607290391&SearchID=73252278161 403 | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4687 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.229 |
Here's how it goes with the property tax breaks. It only covers those who bought any Detroit building or home after 1997 and it only covers thoses who living a nicer ghettohoods and the bad ones. Some city CLOWNSIL dissaproves this proposal saying that it would kill of the revenue money that the city desperatly needs. Looks like KING KONG KWAME blew it again. Recievership here we come. | ||
Eastsidedog Member Username: Eastsidedog Post Number: 692 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 68.20.140.8 |
Thank you Lmichigan. I thought my head was going to explode. The city stands to get way more tax money from houses than lots. Once those lots get bought up and fenced they will likely remain that way for a very long time, nearly permanently decreasing the density of those neighborhoods. A double-lot I can find acceptable, five lots is sickening. Nobody needs five lots. Half they time when I see a house with 3,4 or 5 lots they are littered with cars that don't run, old rusted junk and lots of grass and 8' ft. chain-link fences all the way to the sidewalk - not exactly what I'd call nice. |
