"The budget crisis has pushed us to do a top to bottom review of every fine and fee the city assesses, both in how much we charge and how frequently we assess it."
While housing affordability is on everyone's mind, my thought is that there is a case to be made for cities and towns who do more than their part in providing affordable housing (and are only able to tax it at 8% because of the 8% law) to be compensated by the state in a similar manner that the state compensates via the State PILOT program. With only 6 towns hitting the 10% threshold for affordable housing, what if the 32 towns not hitting that threshold compensated the 6 towns for the difference between market rate and what the towns are able to collect under the 8 law.
It would be good if we could build our way out of the high rent crisis, but it is a problem 50 years in the making and may take 50 years to get out of enough to bring rents down. But we have to try because by trying we willl at least make a little progress, whereas if there is no pressure, nothing will change. Cities would be bettter served by taxing income more than housing, but in a place where all the land was stolen at gunpoint it was decided hundreds of years ago to tax property at low rates rather income at higher rates. ( The rich alweys make the rules for their own beneifit, which is why they buy elections) The decision of tax income at very lwo rates is a decision To our every lasting regret. Property, gentrification, redevelopment are all ways to funnel wealth from the low income many to the very propertied few. The lifeblood of cities is gentrification, what a vampirish thought, but nearly every city encourages it because each redevelopment provides more tax revenues per square foot, unless the city can be persuaded to offer tax relief for new developments. Tax abatements for the rich so they can make more money is a great scam, and we all pay the price, but giving money to the rich is what passes for economic development, despite 200 years of demonstrating that it does not work well for communities.
Fines and fees hurt middle and lower income citizens/small businesses the most. They are the very definition of regressive taxes.
Agreed. This will extract money from the people hurting the most.
While housing affordability is on everyone's mind, my thought is that there is a case to be made for cities and towns who do more than their part in providing affordable housing (and are only able to tax it at 8% because of the 8% law) to be compensated by the state in a similar manner that the state compensates via the State PILOT program. With only 6 towns hitting the 10% threshold for affordable housing, what if the 32 towns not hitting that threshold compensated the 6 towns for the difference between market rate and what the towns are able to collect under the 8 law.
It would be good if we could build our way out of the high rent crisis, but it is a problem 50 years in the making and may take 50 years to get out of enough to bring rents down. But we have to try because by trying we willl at least make a little progress, whereas if there is no pressure, nothing will change. Cities would be bettter served by taxing income more than housing, but in a place where all the land was stolen at gunpoint it was decided hundreds of years ago to tax property at low rates rather income at higher rates. ( The rich alweys make the rules for their own beneifit, which is why they buy elections) The decision of tax income at very lwo rates is a decision To our every lasting regret. Property, gentrification, redevelopment are all ways to funnel wealth from the low income many to the very propertied few. The lifeblood of cities is gentrification, what a vampirish thought, but nearly every city encourages it because each redevelopment provides more tax revenues per square foot, unless the city can be persuaded to offer tax relief for new developments. Tax abatements for the rich so they can make more money is a great scam, and we all pay the price, but giving money to the rich is what passes for economic development, despite 200 years of demonstrating that it does not work well for communities.