The City of Decatur just provided this release from Decatur Mayor Patti Garrett…
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 four of the five City of Decatur’s homestead tax exemption bills passed the Georgia House of Representatives. With the previous adoption by the Georgia Senate on February 11, 2016, those four separate pieces of legislation will move forward for the Governor’s signature. However, SB 343 that provided the most significant tax relief from school taxes to citizens 65 and older has been delayed to a later date upon a motion by Representative Beth Beskin of Fulton County.
Representative Mary Margaret Oliver who represents part of the City of Decatur challenged the motion arguing that Rep. Beskin’s efforts to punish Decatur’s older citizens based on Atlanta’s refusal to grant similar relief to seniors was pure partisan politics. “I am hopeful we will be able to get over the partisan obstacle created solely by Representative Beskin. I believe the Republican leadership will ultimately be supportive of local control to support the success of the Decatur school system and good management,” said Rep. Oliver. Rep. Beskin stated to Decatur Mayor Patti Garrett that her motion to table had nothing to do with Decatur or the legislation itself.
“The City of Decatur and the City Schools of Decatur appreciate all of the efforts of Decatur legislators who have worked hard to get these bills passed including Senator Elena Parent and Representatives Mary Margaret Oliver, Howard Mosby, Rahn Mayo and Karla Drenner,” said Mayor Garrett. “Our delegation members understand the need for property tax relief, particularly for our seniors, and I hope the Republican leadership will also understand our position and consider the merits and value to the citizens of Decatur of the senior homestead tax exemptions.” The homestead exemption legislation was supported by the Decatur City Commission and the Decatur Board of Education who were acting with the support of the residents of the City of Decatur, including members of the Lifelong Community Advisory Board, a very active group of senior homeowners and the business community.
“It is unsettling that legislation designed by Decatur’s elected officials for the benefit of Decatur’s senior citizens, that would have no impact on anyone other than Decatur residents, has been met with opposition,” said Board of Education Chair Annie Caiola, who added, “We encourage our residents to join us in voicing these sentiments to the Republican leadership. This also happened last year when Decatur’s proposed senior exemptions failed in the eleventh hour due to similar unprecedented maneuvers. It is our sincere hope that CSD’s homestead exemption legislation will be quickly put back on track to pass.”
To voice your opinion about the City Schools of Decatur homestead exemption, please contact Rep. Beth Beskin ([email protected]); Rep. Jan Tankersley ([email protected]); Rep. Jon Burns ([email protected]); Rep. Matt Ramsey ([email protected]); Speaker of the House David Ralston ([email protected]); and, copy Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver ([email protected]).
Make sure they know that SB 343 would provide tax relief to senior property owners and that it is local legislation supported by the City Schools of Decatur, the Decatur City Commission and all of the members of the General Assembly that represent the City of Decatur.
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia
Or, you can email these folks that you oppose an unfair tax break…
I don’t understand this process. It makes no sense to me that someone from outside of Decatur should be able to stall or block this move.
In order for City of Decatur to pass the motion, it has to be allowed the power to do so by the Georgia Legislature. That means that everyone gets a say, including those outside of Decatur.
Atlanta representatives do not want this to happen because they don’t cause the same challenges related to large increases of families with children attempting to enter the district, they see this law as a concern because “if our residents see Decatur seniors getting this exemption, they will want it too!” They see it as a political issue they want to avoid in the future.
Thanks, Don. I know that *is* the process. Just not sure I agree with it. Seems to me Decatur should be able to extend this exemption so long as its what its citizens want, without outside intervention. Current law may not allow for that, but perhaps that’s something that needs changing. I’m sure I don’t understand all the implications of such a change, but it seems worth consideration.
FYI –
HB 633 was introduced last year by Rep. Beth Beskin, Rep. Joe Wilkinson, Rep. Rich Golick and Rep. Mike Jacobs. The bill won 4 House votes but (I think) didn’t pass out of the house due to opposition from the Atlanta House delegation.
The bill was to provide a Homestead exemption from the City of Atlanta school ad valorem taxes for residents who are 70 years or age or older.
The City of Atlanta is probably worried that SB 343 will cause problems for them.
Well I just wrote Rep. Beskin. I lived in Atlanta for a long time before moving to Decatur. It’s politics are ridiculous, which is half the reason I moved here. To let the city’s politics get entangled in a Decatur community issue is absurd. Please send an email to Rep. Beskin asking her to let this bill advance.
I would not assume that this will pass a general vote in Decatur. The bill as currently written will give a significant tax break to the wealthiest individuals in the city, and will pass that tax on to families who are just starting out. It sounds like something the Koch brothers might dream up – I cannot believe a city of Democrats would support such a measure. At the very least our local elected officials should have increased the age, limited the benefit to the first $50k in home value, and placed a income-based limit. What is in the bill would allow a 65 year old with a home valued at $900k, a salary of $250k, and even a child in the school system to pay no school taxes, and effectively place that burden on a 30 year old with no children… A flawed policy that I cannot believe would be supported in a local ballot.
^^^^^^ THIS. ALL OF THIS!!!
Yikes. Can’t disagree with you on this. I would like to see relief for seniors who need it in order to stay in their homes/communities. Looks like this measure isn’t that.
That has been the one main issue with most people on the blog and ordinary citizens. I would say nearly everyone wants to give your average senior a tax break. The issue is, and has been pointed out numerous times, is that the city did not take income or wealth attributes into account.
It isn’t fair to give a tax break to someone with a high income while others with much lower income are paying more simply due to age. Other than that, I don’t think you would find a Decaturite that is against this measure.
“I don’t think you would find a Decaturite that is against this measure”
I think you might be wrong about that.
I am conflicted about this issue and haven’t yet come to an ultimate decision, But, I don’t think the very seniors now asking for a tax break minded those above 65 contributing to the schools at the time their children attended. Others paid (or were forced to pay) for the education of their children, but now they don’t have to do the same? Notwithstanding all of the various rationales (many of which are very compelling) for this measure, there is something very inequitable about the proposal. People are crying it is unfair for those seniors to have to pay, but seniors not paying seems more unfair.
And this is a very, very slippery slope. Next someone will propose a senior income tax break (notwithstanding the fact that those on a fixed (meaning reduced) income are already paying less in taxes). Then people will want to opt out of those services they are no longer using. Where does it stop?
Let me add that I liked the idea of a sunset provision. There will undoubtedly be unintended consequences, and we will never be able to re-impose the tax. So why not give it a shot for a few years to see if it has the desired results? If it isn’t working and/or is too costly, we simply let it expire.
Seniors already receive a substantial income tax break in the state of Georgia. I’m not so sure seniors necessarily asked for this tax break, rather we (the commission and schools board) have decided it would be a good incentive to help retain seniors and subsequently reduce the number of new families in the school system.
Indeed – I have never used the fire department or the senior center or Glenlake park… I have never driven on Pinecrest Ave or Willow Ln, or 80% of Decatur’s roads, so why should I pay to maintain them, etc, etc. Let’s face it, the argument for this tax break is aligned with some of the more radical libertarian tax plans. We could eventually just turn the schools into a user-pays system (i.e. private school). Is that the intent of this legislation? I guess it is true that money trumps political philosophy.
I concur!
Honestly, I think this is a good measure. The legislation STILL needs work. The bill still has no caps on income which needs to be addressed. I am not in favor of giving a tax deduction to homeowners who may well be in the top 10% of income earners. Additionally, most of us have anecdotal evidence of people who fit into this tax bracket that actually have kids in CSD! There is no recourse to stop them from both using CSD resources AND getting a tax break simply due to age.
City of Decatur officials complain about someone making this “political”, well of course it is. Taxation is always a very political topic. Atlanta representatives don’t want to bring up the issue with tax exemption for seniors in Decatur because this bill also allows for the competitive issue where other localities may have to adopt similar measures because “well, Decatur seniors have it.”
While most may not understand why, or are too myopic to understand the political incentives of stopping the bill, I believe it makes perfect sense from their legislative standpoint. To get angry about the fact that they disagree with you and say it isn’t “fair” is like saying you only like representative democracy when everyone agrees with you.
Yes. It’s another case of the city saying, “trust us, the specifics don’t really matter or mean what they plainly say because we mean well!” Just like the tree ordinance. So many obvious problems of ambiguity and unintended consequences. They take a general proposition that the great majority will strongly support – protect trees, age in place! – and then draft a proposition that is so poorly thought out and executed that, at best, it doesn’t squarely address the problem and, at worst, works to actually perpetuate it.
In what way would this perpetuate the exodus of seniors, and their replacement by families with 2.5 kids who cost the school system triple what they pay in taxes?
Has there been any sort of study about how giving the tax exemption (estimated cost of about a million a year) will impact the rate of seniors moving out? People move for all kinds of reasons, and a tax break may or may not have any impact. I’m not sure the anecdotal claims of a few politically connected seniors is enough.
FYI, Don the Don (from Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver via Decaturish):
“Rep. Beskin cannot get City of Atlanta delegation to support a similar expanded homestead exemption, so she is ‘punishing’ the City of Decatur seniors.
“Ms. Beskin admits she is using her partisan advantage with a Republican majority to attempt to force the Atlanta Democrats to support her proposal (she has no bill introduced) by denying Decatur its legislative requests. Decatur city and school board and senior advocates worked together and cooperatively on a financial plan, with a bond package, and agree the senior homeowners need property tax relief. There is no such agreement with the City of Atlanta delegation, so Ms. Beskin is creating a partisan obstacle to Decatur’s plan.”
More at http://www.decaturish.com/2016/03/update-house-passes-city-of-decatur-homestead-tax-exemption-but-pulls-school-bill/.
I did not see this article, but good to see that my sense of their rationale wasn’t too far off base: they don’t want to compete unless they get theirs too!
I couldn’t agree more!
Here is the text of the email I sent this morning to Speaker Ralston and the four other legislators mentioned in the city’s request for citizen action. I thought it might be helpful as a template for others who wish to make their views known. Please feel free to use it or change it.
I urge you to support SB 343, the bill providing for property tax relief for Decatur’s seniors. This legislation has been passed by the Senate and the House and has the support of the Decatur City Commission, the Decatur School Board and all of Decatur’s state legislators. It affects only Decatur and no other jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it has been tabled upon motion by a legislator from Fulton County. That is not right. Please help.
Thank you.
So glad we could find something this week to follow up the bee issue and school firing mess. Sunrise, death, taxes and a new weekly “outrage” in Decatur – things you can count on. I love this town.
Bee issue?
Mural in Oakhurst
Several people are responding here on the *merits* of SB343. The issue is should Decatur residents have the *right* to vote for this issue (or against this issue). City of Decatur residents *obviously* should decide whether they want this or not. The Georgia House should pass the bill. City of Decatur residents will then have plenty of time to discuss the merits.
The bill actually does have a five-year sunset clause on it and the school board is committed to gathering and reviewing the data regarding the impact of the exemption on the school budget once it is implemented. Right now we don’t really have complete data regarding the number of 65+ homeowners in Decatur other than census data and homeowners who have already applied for the existing exemptions. If the tax exemption is harming the district, they will allow it to expire. If it requires tweaking, such as an income cap, then they will advocate for that when it comes up for renewal in five years.
I’m sure there must be wealthy seniors in the city who will benefit from this exemption, but until we have data we don’t know how many rich old people will be getting this break. Anecdotal evidence just from my experience suggests that many of us seniors are living on retirement incomes that are nowhere near $250,000 in homes that might someday get assessed at $900,000 when we die and the next owner tears it down.
I think a better approach would be to provide a tax break to low income residents. It’s all too difficult to keep any diversity in this town if it becomes the haven for well heeled retirees. Otherwise, its just another regressive tax.
On any issue that interests you before the legislature, I would recommend showing up at the Capitol during the legislative session and talking to the state rep face-to-face.
Lawmakers always say that’s the most effective way to communicate with them. They typically won’t dodge you if you ask the ladies at the table outside the House chamber to get a message to the legislator to come to the hallway to speak to you. Email is much, much less effective.
The legislature will be in session for six more days. Go to http://www.house.ga.gov to see the schedule, and show up early.
It makes so much more sense now. The retired seniors, who have time to devote to rent-seeking during the day, can show up at the capitol. The rest of us, many less affluent than those same seniors are at work during most of this foolishness.
Here’s a portion of a response I got from one of our city council members when I emailed then about this issue last year: “Relief from school taxes for seniors is so common that it has been available in all the other jurisdictions in our area for a very long time. It is not the cure-all for our problems of changing demographics, but it does respond to our citizens that are demanding that we do something.”
I read that as: “well, others are doing it and this particular constituency is more demanding of your money than you are.”
Making it more complicated by adding income provisions, floors, whatever other modifiers you want to make it more equitable won’t ever be more equitable than capping the maximum total increase in property tax bill to something approximating inflation and resetting that to market value when property is sold.
I feel for seniors getting priced out of their homes by ridiculous property tax bills. I feel even more bad for those unfortunates below the age of 65 who are already feeling the same pain, and who will see their crazy tax bills go up even higher to subsidize seniors when some version of this feel-good (with other people’s money) bill does go through.
If this passes; what is to keep someone from selling their house to their parents. Magically, the property tax is cut by at least 2/3. Meanwhile those honest amongst us gets their taxes increased! Awesome.
Your parents would have to live there, for starters, so potential downside number one is, uhhh, living with your parents. Downside two would be that you could no longer write off your mortgage interest. Downside number three is that you could potentially miss the credit-building advantages of owning property. And downside number four is that you’d have no equity to leverage in obtaining credit for other things. So not exactly a slam dunk scam.
I’ll play “devil’s advocate”: #1–what process does the city have in place to insure that the seniors actually live at the Decatur residence?
#2– becomes moot if the house is owned free and clear
#3–not sure about the “credit” issues if the person had made all prior payments on time and is gainfully employed.
If this passes, I guarantee you there will be more than one person will do this “scam” as you call it.
So you’re talking about a scenario in which someone’s either comfortable living with their parents or their parents are comfortable committing fraud, AND those parents are affluent enough to buy a half million dollar (for example) house outright, AND the younger family is fine with having no equity to leverage in the future.
I’m not saying this is an impossible scenario. But from where I sit, it seems like it’d be an awfully rare one. Whatever downsides exist in the current proposal, I just don’t see this as one of the big ones.
There isn’t anything to prevent people from doing it now. All these 65 year olds with kids in the schools still that seem to be a big problem could just take your advice even if the measure fails.
I too disagree with the law in its current form. I agree that no one should be forced to move because the taxes have become too much of a burden. I also understand the argument that they are “saving” the Decatur taxpayer money by not allowing someone to move in with kids. However, the reason that taxes have climbed is because the value of their home has climbed in part to having strong schools which their taxes supports. So they (or their heirs) are benefitting from the higher property taxes but don’t want the associated “cost” of higher taxes. I propose that Decatur defers their school taxes for as long as they live in the home. The taxes would either be paid from the proceeds of their home sale or by their estate. This way, Decatur slows the growth of school age children and still enjoys the additional revenue stream from higher property value to maintain strong schools. The only cost to the city is the time value of money which is very low given interest rates today. Seem reasonable?
Reasonable? That is genius! It doesn’t unfairly favor or penalize any group and it eases the burden on elderly homeowners who have accrued wealth in their homes but may not have the liquidity to meet the current tax burden.
Please, please, please investigate this solution!
To summarize,
Seniors: we want you. We will do anything we can to keep you. If you are looking for a place to retire, wait until the passage of this bill, and move to Decatur. You will enjoy a great tax exemption on the backs of others.
Those with school-age kids: Move to Decatur. We have $75 million and we will build schools on top of schools for you.
The rest of you, singles/couples without kids: Get out. Can’t take a hint? We will drive up your taxes so much that you cannot afford to live here anymore. Find the nearest exit and leave. Sell your home to someone with school-age children. You will make a killing. Our ‘diversity’ plan no longer includes you.
I moved to Decatur 11 years ago and paid cash for my condo after a divorce. My children never attended Decatur schools. Last year my gross income was 20 grand, taxes almost 4 grand. When I bought this unit no children lived in this complex except one, now there are many. This bill would have really helped me as I will soon turn 63. I love living in Decatur but if I sell my unit it will probably be to someone with children, as this seems to be the trend here. Think about it.
I’ve always said that condos will increasingly have children as the competition for single family detached dwellings rise and more multiple dwelling units become available. I am meeting CSD families in condos/townhomes constantly now. The proportion may be low but the absolute numbers are rising and it’s the absolute numbers that require a chair in a classroom or trailer. You have to pay for those chairs immediately whether it be by a bond or out of the fixed, limited operational budget or other mechanism.
If folks emauling Rep. Beskin don’t get a response from her House email address, she can also be reached at her law firm: ebeskin at ccealaw (dot) com.
http://ccealaw.com/our-people/