The City Commission Is Concerned About Your Taxes. Are You?
Decatur Metro | November 25, 2008 | 5:33 pmOne of the things I’ve noticed about the evolving discourse over annexation here is the general lack of concern over higher taxes. It’s got me intrigued.
The city commission has always stated that the reason it has been considering annexation is to keep ahead of the higher millage that will become inevitable without it. But from what I’ve observed here, it seems like a significant portion of vocal participation on this site doesn’t really have a problem with paying more in taxes to retain the current level of city services.
Is this true? Let’s put it to a vote!
What’s better than a crappy online poll that skews towards those with lots of time to burn on blogs (read: white collar)? Well, we can check the 2008 city survey, which shows that 64% ranked the value of services for taxes paid to the city as “good” or “excellent”.
Not a perfect comparison, but its as close as we can get. I don’t think its too much of a stretch to assume that anyone who feels that taxes are too high wouldn’t rate “value” highly of a survey.
So maybe taxes aren’t as big an issue as the city thinks. Or maybe, this site discussion is just the city’s upper-crust ruminating amongst ourselves.
Related Posts:
-
December 1, 2008 Decatur Annexation Public Hearing Tonight (0)
-
December 2, 2008 Packed House For Annexation Public Hearing (0)
-
August 4, 2009 DeVry Annexation Passes (1)
A professional appraisal was done for a Refi this past May= down 20,000 from the county’s estimate. Heard tonight property values in ATL have dropped 9% since Sept. Why should I pay the same tax when my house is worth less. Falling values are not my problem. The county and city should make adjustments for everyone.
Metro, Metro … what?? Higher taxes have been left out? Every post I’ve made here has made the point that annexation is being sold as a financial gain and a tax break. BUT it’s based on BAD data, which when corrected make annexation a huge financial disaster and a tax hike. That’s out point, Metro?
When we’ve put our very straightforward case before people (we’ve done this a lot), everyone who listens follows and gets the bottom line. But those who are most attached to annexation come back with “But we have a huge financial crisis!” To which we simply say, “annexation makes it worth.” To which we get “but it’s really, really bad.” Us: “And this makes it worse.” And so on. This push back makes me wonder whether, at least for some passionate people, this is really about the budget.
That goes for people without kids in schools, too. Annexation = tax hike.
Or a very big cut in services:
Another response we’ve gotten, by the way, is “we can spend far less per student.” Cut the cost per student by a couple of grand and that’s helps the annexation bottom line (which clearly hasn’t been analyzed in detail before now, somehow). But will anyone dare make the public argument that annexation means 1) a massive influx of children for which we wholly unprepared and 2) by the way we’ll also spend thousands less per child?
I doubt the City as a whole would be receptive to this. But it does seem to be the private view of some “upper crust” I’ve talked to this week. You may be misreading the “upper crust” here.
Judd, better than anyone you’ve done a great job of methodically deconstructing the annexation school data and showing the powers that be that the data just isn’t jiving. And if that data withstands the tests of time and Rosser comes back with much higher levels of students, you should take real pride in your efforts. People can then reevaluate annexation based on these new figures and make their own decisions.
(BTW I still see real value in Scott’s comment about under-predicting the long term value of commercial and looking only at the worst case scenario for # of students. Neither of those numbers is fixed…the only one that I know of is that commercial pays more than its fair share of taxes, thereby easing the burden on residents in the long run. Each individual will need to make their own decision based on either on a concern for too many students, or a faith in the city’s ability to revitalize that DeKalb commercial. I’m still on the fence in regards to this issue, because I think you may be right that because we spend so much on students, it makes any annexation of residential and under-performing commercial very difficult. Perhaps a temporary solution is to only annex the commercial-dominant area to the east of the city)
Anyway, this post is more of an introspection that looks beyond annexation. If annexation doesn’t work, how will the city commission ease the tax burden? Or is that not really an issue for the vast majority? Will a HOST ruling in our favor be enough? All I’m asking with this post is whether folks really have a concern about taxes…since this is how the commission frames the argument. If there is a concern about how we will address this issue in the future if we shoot down the annexation option?
…the only one that I know of is that commercial pays more than its fair share of taxes…
this is the quote above
DM, can you show us some proof of this? Or is it conjecture?
My understanding is that commercial pays the lion’s share two ways. First, commercial property is typically valued at a higher rate per square foot so, concurrently, taxes per square foot are higher than our residential. Second, commercial generates no children for the school system, meaning that its presence is automatically a net win rather than net loss, as many single family homes (with kids) are.
I looked but can’t determine if commercial is charged at the same millage rate. Anyone know?
Someone said here that the school system is what makes Decatur attractive. If that is so, then there may be some small benefit to the commercial property owners. “Attractiveness” may have some sort of value.
I pay a tax called DDA (downtown development authority) on my tax statement. The commercial property owners receive a direct benefit through marketing and advertising the Downtown merchant area. As a residential property owner not in the downtown area, I get nothing of value from it.
If not for the DDA, the downtown and Oakhurst would probably look much as it did 25 years ago (or worse), and I don’t think we would want that.
Scott, I believe the millage rate is the same for all types of real property.
Steve
I got a good laugh at your opinion on who is responsible for what has happened in the last 25 years! Happy Thanksgiving! LOL
Hey, Taxus. At the risk of opening a can of worms (on Thanksgiving, no less!), to whom would you give credit? The main players were: city commission; DDA; citizens who participated in the Town Center and Strategic Plans; Economic and Community Development Department; and a variety of developers.
Who gets the props?
No doubt the players you mention played a role. I give them credit for doing homework and learning from their own mistakes and having learned from successes of other communities that successfully adopted smart growth principles which would surely have come to Decatur one way or another because the time was right.
But I add (and you don’t even MENTION) those who risked large amounts of their own savings in addition to sweat equity to build something meaningful. I remember talking to the Brick Store owners when there was nothing more than rubble and dirtpiles inside an empty shell. I give them a lot of credit for their vision, hard work and investments. They’re doing it again at Rue de Leon building. The owners of Birdi saw an opportunity and purchased a building when there was little commercial activity going on but they built something that worked and incited others to in vest in other businesses on that row. The owners of the Houston house took a big chance and rehabilitated it. On and on…These are not helpless clods that needed any motivation or direction from the government “master plan.”
I believe that in any urban enviroment, little things are done by little people. When added all together it is a lot.
You may credit the “main players” because it is your philosophy that everything good comes from government. And that’s the difference between you and me.
No thinking person believes that downtown would look worse or the same as it did 25 years ago – that is pure BS.
I hope you enjoy this can of worms with your turkey.
The downtown 25 years ago was a deteriorating mess. The Brick Store nor anyone else would not have invested sweat or any other kind or equity in it had there not been a plan and a marketing effort. The DDA supplied both. Otherwise there would still be the mass of parking lots and second-rate buildings. I’m not saying everything good comes from government, but there are some things that a quasi-government entity like the DDA can do which would be much more difficult otherwise. I wonder if you have ever come to a Decatur Business Association (a private organization) meeting and asked those folks why they’re here?
“The Brick Store nor anyone else would not have invested sweat or any other kind or equity in it had there not been a plan and a marketing effort. ….Otherwise there would still be the mass of parking lots and second-rate buildings. ”
Again Steve, I say BS. The small entrepreneurs saw something that no one else saw and did it.
Gobble,gobble
Taxus, you comments display a charming, up by your bootstraps Jimmy Stewart ethos that plays well with America’s can-do spirit of individualism, but it’s clear you don’t make your living off of either municipal revitalization or small scale redevelopment.
Since I do, and don’t have the luxury of romanticizing individual pieces of the puzzle, let me help you out a bit: Yes, revitalization of any city requires an infusion of private risk and capital. You’re correct that guys like the Brick Store played a big part in what we see today. Every individual investment did, and I think they get the cred they deserve. But what you miss is that no self respecting entrepreneur or developer makes decisions in a vacuum. They’re not operating charities and they don’t throw their money away on risky propositions.
Instead, they look for predictability in how things will play out. A master plan with citizen support is good. One with government support is even better. And one with the force of law (in the form of land use regulations) and integrated policy-making is best. That’s what Decatur offers, and had been doing so for *ten years* before the Brick Store set up shop.
Do you think that the only difference between Decatur and some dying or sprawling town is the luck of having a couple bar/restaurants open, no matter how cool they are? Of course not. Revitalization occurs through a marriage of political leadership, public engagement, sympathetic policy, undervalued property, economic opportunity and a stronger sense of long-term predictability that collectively create an environment where both the small (one bar or shop) and large (mixed use condo development, for example) are comfortable coming to the table.
Failing to mention any individual establishments in my last post wasn’t personal or belittling. My point was that those fine folks simply don’t show up until the right environment arises — and it doesn’t arise by accident. I’ve been to countless communities that have learned that the hard way.
You may credit the “main players” because it is your philosophy that everything good comes from government. And that’s the difference between you and me.
Enough, Taxus. It seems like the half a dozen or so extreme right wing conservative ideologues that live in Decatur highjack every post on this blog and it gets annoying.
Why not take your rhetoric and go run for the US Congress from Cherokee County or something?
And are you really questioning the idea that commercial property brings a disproportionate amount of tax revenue to the city than it uses? [edited: no personal attacks allowed]
That’s right Steve. If Taxus’ extreme anti-government ideology were true, then why didn’t Brick Store invest in downtown Avondale – who had no plan then, and still really don’t?
Unless you are an ideologue, like Taxus, you’ve got to give credit where credit is due, and based on the results, and comparing them to others, you’ve got to give the DDA some major credit here. But, of course, that doesn’t fit in with the ideology.
Taxus, cut this out…
“I got a good laugh at your opinion on who is responsible for what has happened in the last 25 years! Happy Thanksgiving! LOL”
That’s just disrespectful. If you’ve got an alternative opinion, feel free to state it. But refrain from belittling others. If you can’t show a certain amount of deference for your fellow posters, your comments will be moderated before posting.
Signed,
A small entrepreneur
DM how come you never jump on Scott when he gets snarky and sarcastic.
I may be guilty of snark from time to time but do try to ensure it’s directed at ideas rather than people. Can’t say I always succeed but maybe that’s where DM draws the line.
For what it’s worth, the colorful banter by all is one of the things I’m thankful for…
Because it borders on a personal attack by generically stating “your ideas are laughable”.
Scott’s snark is backed up with reasons which can be counter-argued since they’re focused around ideas and not individuals. Comments that amount to “Hahahaha…you’re ideas are so stupid” are just inflammatory and cause me grief.
…conservative ideologues that live in Decatur highjack every post on this blog…
Annoying it may seem. We live in Decatur just like everyone else who lives in Decatur.
But let’s stay focused.
1) Do commercial property owners benefit from a financially well-supported small school system?
2) Do commercial property owners benfit from the DDA tax that ALL residential property owners pay?
Annoying it may seem. We live in Decatur just like everyone else who lives in Decatur.
Yes, like I said, all six of you. Whoops, I mean 5, since Jim is moving to Marietta.
The answer to both, Taxus, is yes. But I’m of the mind that it’s ultimately reciprocal.
We all benefit from a well supported small school system. While that benefit is highest for those with kids in the system, there are others. Schools are the “common ground” that brings us together and, in a modest place like Decatur, that’s a big part of reinforcing the sense of small town identity and connection that tends to also encourage folks to do other things like shop locally or take a sense of pride in the town’s business community. That makes commercial space more viable and a viable Main Street makes residential property more valuable. Under optimum conditions, everything comes around.
For number two, as you know, I don’t think much business investment materializes in revitalizing communities without planning and followthrough. But if a city has set out a vision, and then created an entity charged with its implementation, the “sweat equity” you’ve mentioned starts to materialize. So, yes, despite the economic challenges we currently face, the Decatur business community does benefit from the DDA tax and, as a result, so do the commercial property owners. But I’d assert that, for the same reasons as in answer one, so do ultimately the residential owners as well.
The suburbs have little connection between the key institutions — where you shop, where you worship, where you work, where you learn. Historically, we’ve always been much more interdependent and I think Decatur is a pretty good model for how we still can be.
Consider Enough’s mention of Avondale. Avondale pays their school taxes to the monolithic Dekalb system, where they have almost zero influence and, as a result, have largely abandoned the schools that serve them. They pay no revitalization tax and, until very recently, had no coherent vision or concrete support for establishing one. Are they the better for it? I say no.
As I look at what comprises our society and economy here in Decatur, it can be divided into two parts. The government and the citizens.
All governments, by their nature are non productive (by this I only mean they cannot exist without the support of there citizen). Yes they do provide services, but the cost of government is always born by the citizens.
The citizens produce (generate income) and are “taxed” by the government.
My concern, is the ever expanding “need” for government services and the corresponding increase in fixed cost therein. Buildings, trucks, supplies and equipment. All this has a fixed cost before you start hiring people for staff. When the citizenry starts hollering that taxes are too high or there is a budget “shortfall” the immediate government response is to cut essential services ……. inevitably Police Fire Rescue and Schools (personnel). You never hear much about what can be done to reduce fixed expenses.
My sense is we need to get back to some fundamentals here.
Example. Do we need properly staffed and safely equipped Fire and Rescue? Of course, Do we need to build a new fire station for Oakhurst in the time of an economic downturn and revenue shortfall for the city? I am not so sure. It is that old question of wants and needs. Yes we want a new fire station but do we need it? And if we need it, how do we pay for it.
Sorry folks, there are only two ways to balance a budget.
1. Increase revenue or 2. Decrease expense.
We, the taxpayers, need to have the size of our government indexed to our population. Period! To allow our governing bodies to grow exponentially regardless of the growth of our community is inviting disaster or collapse.
When government grows unchecked the ever increasing burden placed on the productive members of our community at some point becomes unsustainable. Are we at that tipping point? I wonder.
Back to the annexation issue. What benefit is being offered to those being annexed? not much. It is a fairly blatant attempt to look for more revenue when little or nothing has been done to do an appropriate job of living within our means. the background statement is “who can we get more money from” and then, we the citizens are fussing about red/blue, liberal/conservative, rich/poor etc. and the government continues to grow unchecked. It is always easy to say “Tax them, they can afford it”
We need dialogue amongst ourselves and with our “leadership”.
We need to be respectful and listen to all opinions, especially the ones that annoy us. The answers will lie in small nuggets from many sources
We need to hold ourselves and our leaders accountable for fiscally conservative behavior.
Spending money we don’t have will inevitably lead to one place – bankruptcy.
The complex issues we are facing now will not be resolved by name calling any more than by throwing money at them. Reining in uncontrolled behavior and spending is never fun and does not feel good. Ah well
What I’m assuming you mean is that thinly veiled adhominum attacks are allowed but not overt ones.
Whatever floats your boat David. I try my best. If you know of other moderators I can learn from, please point me in their direction. Or perhaps you’d like to give it a go and show me a thing or two?
BTW, did you notice your comments aren’t moderated anymore? Upon reflection, I saw that Bill was the real culprit in that battle which ended with both of your comments being moderated. So, if I’m out to promote my own agenda to the world, I’m not doing a very good job.
Besides that conversation still keeps me thinking. A toast of Stone Pale Ale to you!
Oh my goodness, I HAVE BEEN OUTED…not! Hope you other five “ideologues” can fight the good fight…as it is true…I am moving to Marietta. It is not a move motivated by politics, however. So no drama to add to this thread from me. It is sad to note that a friend and neighbor can reduce you from a human being to a single adjective…sigh….
…and Helme…well said. Too bad I won’t have the chance to meet you before
moving to Marietta..but then you are missing much…I am just an “idealogue”!
LOL!
…oops…that should be NOT missing much….I just can’t get used to this MAC keyboard…did someone move the keys around…damn that Steve Jobs!
As a contributing member of the community, I am definitely at the “tipping” point. Something…rather than SOMEONE…has got to give.