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.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Hey Billy, no burden to me. I
By MattyC
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:51am
Hey Billy, no burden to me. I'm voting for it.
"Not with my tax dollars!"
By erik g
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:00am
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
By EM Painter
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:33am
Convenient to have the people you hate and fear living right inside your head.
You would know.
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 9:00pm
You would know.
I'm willing to bet a huge
By Kinopio
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:13pm
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
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:11pm
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!"
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 3:24pm
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
By Edith
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 8:18pm
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
By Anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:58pm
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 ...
By adamg
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:20pm
What do you think are the income levels for "affordable" housing units?
I'm buying in Southie
By anon²
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:03am
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?
By Matt
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:08am
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
By Andy C
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:19am
The elderly are the first to be listed as exempt
Yup.
By anon²
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 4:50pm
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
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:26am
"exemptions for seniors and low-income earners"
per
http://www.politico.com/states/massachusetts/story...
How many poor property owners can you name?
By Boston_res
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:05pm
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?
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:34pm
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
By SOWABOS
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 5:23pm
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
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 6:10pm
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!
By Marco
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 2:24pm
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
By anon²
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 4:52pm
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,
By Felicity
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:40am
Elderly and poor are exempt from the surcharge.
Read the article
By Mia123
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 12:28pm
Sheesh
Who are the 11 people who
By Kinopio
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:08pm
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....
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:18am
That wealthy multi-family property owners can now can pass along these new tax increases to their tenants.
Pass them along by raising
By ZachAndTired
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:22am
Pass them along by raising the rent by $2 a month?
Plus administrative fees
By Boston_res
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:36am
Add to this this year's hike in property taxes and you have "good reason" to raise rents.
Since when
By TylerG
Mon, 11/07/2016 - 4:10pm
Do landlords need a "good reason" to raise rents? They raise them every year anyway.
Many Boston property owners live in Boston.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:40am
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
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 3:42pm
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
By YA Right
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:06am
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?
By perruptor
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 12:05pm
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
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:42pm
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
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:45pm
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
By MATH
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 2:02pm
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.
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 2:34pm
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...
By Anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:09am
Read my lips. No new taxes.
No matter how small. I'll put that extra money in my own 401k.
Bush?
By perruptor
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 12:08pm
You mean W's dad, right? He didn't have lips, and even though he said that, he went on to raise taxes.
Yeah,
By whyaduck
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 12:26pm
You might want to read this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kennedy-bush...
(Oops, sorry, meant to place this under the original poster (anon) not yourself)
Show me someone for which this'll be a burden
By Gary C
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:34am
...and chances are they are already among the groups that are exempt.
it doesn't have to be a
By from brighton
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 12:12pm
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
By bgl
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 1:49pm
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...
By Gary C
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 2:03pm
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
By anon²
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 5:00pm
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?
By aldos
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 10:56am
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
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:04am
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..
By whyaduck
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 12:32pm
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...
And in regards to you "2", yes, but with conditions:
http://www.communitypreservation.org/content/chart...
Yeah, I'm not trying to carry water
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 2:02pm
(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"
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 4:28pm
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
By anon
Wed, 10/26/2016 - 11:08am
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
Pages
Add comment