| Author |
 Topic  |
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 12/28/2006 : 12:17:20 PM
|
Did you see the article in today's Globe on taxes? (Sorry, I don't know how to post a link.) It's in the Globe North section. It shows our taxes increasing 26.9% from FY06. Of the 37 communities listed, we're the only one with a double digit increase.
Hanlon & his flunkies are sending (spending) us to the poor house!
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 2:51:21 PM
|
| Hmmmmmmm. That sounds like the largest annual increase ever - or at least one of them! Didn't Mayor Hanlon's campaign literature say that he would be freezing new hires and reducing the tax burden? |
 |
|
|
bbpolitical
Forum Admin
265 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 3:18:05 PM
|
This seems it is specifically due to the failure to pass the Residency exemption. The globe article refers to the "average homeowner", but consideration of the following is critical to understanding the true cost, which was tiered in last year's tax code, but is now more evenly spread out.
The Mayor at the Dec 26th alderman meeting referred to the head of the Board of Assessors, who basically said some people were either not elgible even though the lived there (home in trust) or were eligible but wouldn't save because they were taxed at the 9.01 rate insteat of 7.77 due to high assessed value (multi fam house)
Personally, I think this is absolutely ridiculous that there are questions NOW.
Anyway, 5600 homes eligible (70% of about 8350 total homes + vacant properties)
To figure this out, take out the homes in trust then look at assessments to see how many people are taxed at the higher rate, not benefiting from the exemption Keverian estimated around 700 exceeds the magic $430,000 or $440,000 assessed value.
Here's my calculation:
5600 eligible
- 400 in trust
- 700 taxed at a higher rate
= 4500 homes, or 56% of homes would actually save therefore
Yet we don't have the exemption.
Mayor Hanlon's argument is that by giving a discount to some homewoner, someone else has to pay for that break. I understand his argument, but it would have been nice to have known Mr. Hanlon's position on this before voting on the tax rate.
As a potential homebuyer of a single family home assessed at way less that 440,000 after having been a tenent for 5 years, this just assures one more year of my NOT buying in Everett. That kind of sucks but I guess it is only a small majority of homes that would benefit.
Michael
I am an average resident of Everett who would like to see more communication about anything and everything to do with Everett |
|
|
|
bbpolitical
Forum Admin
265 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 3:25:25 PM
|
| And.. the rest would pay good bit more |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 3:29:27 PM
|
Michael, I wouldn't call 56% a small majority. A majority is a majority.
Hanlon's argument for eliminating the exemption centered around the 400 properties in trust. Using your numbers, that's 7.14% of the total eligible. It's unfortunate that these properties do not qualify, but it hardly seems like a reasonable argument to deny the exemption to 56% of the owner occupied property owners.
Personally, I have no problem with non-owner occupied properties being made to pay more taxes. As we've all discussed on these boards, a great many of these properties are rented out to people who have no vested interest in keeping the property neat and clean by people who don't care about the condition of the property as long as they get their check every month. This puts an extra burden on our code enforcement, which is now costing us more money with the hiring of 11 new people. So I have no problem with these property owners paying for the extra cost to the city. |
|
|
|
bbpolitical
Forum Admin
265 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 10:09:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Citizen Kane
Michael, I wouldn't call 56% a small majority. A majority is a majority.
Hanlon's argument for eliminating the exemption centered around the 400 properties in trust. Using your numbers, that's 7.14% of the total eligible. It's unfortunate that these properties do not qualify, but it hardly seems like a reasonable argument to deny the exemption to 56% of the owner occupied property owners.
Personally, I have no problem with non-owner occupied properties being made to pay more taxes. As we've all discussed on these boards, a great many of these properties are rented out to people who have no vested interest in keeping the property neat and clean by people who don't care about the condition of the property as long as they get their check every month. This puts an extra burden on our code enforcement, which is now costing us more money with the hiring of 11 new people. So I have no problem with these property owners paying for the extra cost to the city.
I agree with you. What was funny was that Hanlon seemed to suggest that increased taxes on the multifamily dwellings hurts residents by leading to increased rents on tenants. My feeling is that 1.) they would have already gone up, and 2.) This break won't cause them to go down. That whole argument smacks of trickle down Reagenomics. And I thought Hanlon was a Democrat! It looks more like the administration is catoring to the wealthier citizens and I am afraid that will only lead to gentrification and certainly not benefit the typical singlefamily homeowner, who will only be driven out of the city even more.
Michael
I am an average resident of Everett who would like to see more communication about anything and everything to do with Everett |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 10:28:54 AM
|
| An additional argument is that the properties in trust are already "sheltered" for a federal tax break at the end of life. So because 400 homeowners are sheltering their homes for federal tax purposes - the rest of us can't receive a residential homeowner exemption? This is wrong....and it shows that Mayor Hanlon is catering to a certain segment of the population while ignoring the rest. |
|
|
|
spinncitycinn
Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 10:32:32 AM
|
| this city has gone out of the state map since moving away from everett for only a year and from reading postings out here Everett has gotten really really bad. Take the money and run peabody is the new everett now I see more Everett people up here and in the downtown square well at least we have a downtown square not like everett |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 10:56:31 AM
|
| Last years tax break was not only for single family homes. It was for owner occupied homes, that were assessed under their magic number, somewhere in the 400K's. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 6:33:54 PM
|
| It looks like Hanlon is taking care of his "big" contributors and letting the rest of us swing. In the year he's been in office, our taxes have increased 26.9%, the budget increased 6 million and there have been numerous, unwarranted, new positions created. Can we survive another year of this incompetence? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 7:20:53 PM
|
| I am so thankful we elect our elected officials every two years and not every four. Just imagine three more years of this. There would be nobody left in the City of Everett. |
|
|
|
EverettsPride
Advanced Member
1140 Posts |
 Posted - 12/29/2006 : 9:09:08 PM
|
Even with all of the problems here I am still proud to be from Everett. I have been and lived in other towns and they are not the same. There are problems in Peabody too. Don't think taking your kids to the "suburbs" is going to make a big difference in your kids. You are in for a big surprise. Billerica, Peabody, Melrose (I could go on) have terrible issues with kids and drugs and violnece etc. Saugus is one of the worst.
Sally |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 07:50:01 AM
|
| I agree there are problems everywhere. I am just afraid that some of us will not be able to afford to live here. With all the fees and rising taxes it is getting harder and harder to stay. I have lived here my entire life and it has started to cross my mind to pack up and sell. As my kids became adults they have left and moved to different states. It says something when our young people won't stay. It is sad. |
|
|
|
bbpolitical
Forum Admin
265 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 10:18:31 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by massdee
I agree there are problems everywhere. I am just afraid that some of us will not be able to afford to live here. With all the fees and rising taxes it is getting harder and harder to stay. I have lived here my entire life and it has started to cross my mind to pack up and sell. As my kids became adults they have left and moved to different states. It says something when our young people won't stay. It is sad.
That is a problem facing my family too. The taxes are actually quite affordable when you look at the rate in comparison to other parts of the country. It is the overinflated home values that are killer. I love Everett, but I'm not sure how anyone can afford to stay here. Its too bad because actually I think Everett has the most affordable family living situation around here, but the costs are only going to go up. House prices haven't dropped enough and salaries (even for professionals) are not enough to offset the 75 to 100 % higher costs for rent/mortgages over many other parts of the country. Frankly I will take a 10 to 20% hit in my salary by moving to Michigan or Illinois in order to get a 50 to 60 % reduction in monthly/annual housing costs.
Michael
I am an average resident of Everett who would like to see more communication about anything and everything to do with Everett |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 11:11:28 AM
|
| My kids didn't move out west but they moved to other New England states. Their tax rate maybe higher but their assessments are much lower. So, their tax bills are much less, as well as their mortgage payments and property insurance as well as car insurance and water and sewer. This is why we are losing our young people, they just can't afford housing here any longer. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Taxes
