Then how does a small town ever exist? Should they just build one Condo tower and tell everyone they have to live in the tower? Because I can tell you that the tower would sit mostly vacant and the town would be bankrupt in no time.
Property Tax Increase
- Thread starter spierceisu
- Start date
Then how does a small town ever exist? Should they just build one Condo tower and tell everyone they have to live in the tower? Because I can tell you that the tower would sit mostly vacant and the town would be bankrupt in no time.
They are specific examples but you are failing to see the land value and the improvements as two separate things. Downtown New York City is going to generate a heck of a lot more value than downtown Des Moines and that is going to generate a heck of a lot more value than downtown Marshaltown. They just are not comparable. And the ages/style of those downtowns are not going to be that much different.
Last edited:
One thing that is being missed here, is generally the developers pay for all the infrastructure. Not the city or county.
A developer has to bring water, sewer, electrical, telecommunications, and roads at their own cost. Most of those are then turned over to the city for future maintenance. Also if there is not water or sewer to a property, the developer also has to pay to have those services extended from their present location.
Also another point utilities will cost more to install in more densely populated areas, because service lines will need to be a larger diameter to service a smaller area. Though that wouldn't be a very big difference. Also their installation usually requires removal of sidewalk or road that has to be restored. Which also adds to the cost as opposed to just moving some dirt and grass.
To the bill that was just passed, I feel this may of been passed in response to Cedar Rapids's under handed plan to fund flood protection. For those who don't know, the city of Cedar Rapids asked voters twice to approve funding for flood protection this was voted down both times. So last year the city made a plan to raise the tax levy rate about 2.00 a year for 10 consecutive years. This would allow the city to fund their extravagant protection plan without asking for voter approval. My understanding is this bill will prevent underhanded moves like this in the future.
A developer has to bring water, sewer, electrical, telecommunications, and roads at their own cost. Most of those are then turned over to the city for future maintenance. Also if there is not water or sewer to a property, the developer also has to pay to have those services extended from their present location.
Also another point utilities will cost more to install in more densely populated areas, because service lines will need to be a larger diameter to service a smaller area. Though that wouldn't be a very big difference. Also their installation usually requires removal of sidewalk or road that has to be restored. Which also adds to the cost as opposed to just moving some dirt and grass.
To the bill that was just passed, I feel this may of been passed in response to Cedar Rapids's under handed plan to fund flood protection. For those who don't know, the city of Cedar Rapids asked voters twice to approve funding for flood protection this was voted down both times. So last year the city made a plan to raise the tax levy rate about 2.00 a year for 10 consecutive years. This would allow the city to fund their extravagant protection plan without asking for voter approval. My understanding is this bill will prevent underhanded moves like this in the future.
Unless then City invests in the infrastructure via TIF then gives tax breaks so tif the doesnt pay out. I have seen it.
Tif is absolutely abused by just about every city. The abuse really needs to reigned in. Right now any development in downtown comes with 100% property tax break for 10 years. It is crony capitalism at its finest.
Our city just found the wonders of TIF districts. They used it to lure a new residential development with 30-50 condos. This in a town that has had about 5 new homes in 10 years. The only way that works is giving a bunch of kickback money to the developers.
Instead of posting the percentage increase of your assessed value, post your new assessed value compared to the price you would sell your house if you were to sell tomorrow. I would wager most would still have lower assessed values than actual market, and if that's the case, you don't really have room to complain.
*Particularly if you believe certain people don't pay their fair share.
*Particularly if you believe certain people don't pay their fair share.
Actually, this was thoroughly explained in the 4 min video I posted. The point was made that what seems like a great deal for the city at the beginning, ends up being a large financial burden in the future in many of the unproductive developments we see built today.
I must be doing a terrible job explaining myself.
The size of the town/city isn't the issue, it is the style in which the neighborhoods and business districts are built and laid out.
Do you understand what I'm saying when I say traditional development pattern vs suburban development pattern?
TIF definitely is a problem, but I'm not sure I follow how your downtown example is "crony capitalism". Because of their density, most cities downtowns are huge cash cows when it comes to collecting property taxes due to the intensity of the built environment. Nothing else within a city's (or metro's) boundaries can compete with it. Cities don't promote downtown development due to some romantic dreams about returning to the past or to give their business community buddies a free lunch. No, they do it because cities are starved for tax revenue and they understand there is no better way to grease those skids...even if the payoff is delayed a few yrs. It isn't marked, but can you locate downtown Des Moines on the map below?
Then that new housing puts demand on the schools and TIF keeps the dollars of increased revenue, unless there is a rebate agreement. TIF is another tool created by very intelligent people that made lots of money off of the idea.
The administration of TIF makes it almost not worth the effort. The intentions of TIF, I understand. But when a town of 700 people certifies $300,00.00 of TIF debt then takes 10 years worth of captured taxes to pay it back. Their lawyer makes off with a sizable percentage of the revenues. The county and state administer it. And that city ends up with a 10 foot wide 1/2 mile long paved sidewalk, that they have to maintain. One of many weird things that go on with TIF. The assessed values in this example moved up less than 1% this year, in the town mentioned.
Almost all of the small towns in Iowa were developed a long time ago. This was on the traditional and slightly denser style. They still have plenty of problems maintaining the town.
Yes, if you are talking very small rural small towns, then the discussion shifts to a reality of the times. That is, the worldwide shift of the population from rural to urban areas.
That is a completely different discussion that isn't about development patterns (because for the most part, they aren't developing anything) because there is little or no demand to live in these places any longer. i.e...they aren't growing,so they aren't creating new unproductive neighborhoods because no one is moving there. Instead, houses are devaluing due to decreased demand and their commercial districts are dead or dying.
People on this thread complaining about property tax increases for the most part seem to me be from growing towns and cities that on the service, appear to be prosperous. So the question is, despite the appearance of years of positive growth and prosperity, how do these cities continue to find themselves short on tax revenue?
I contend that a large part of that is all the shiney and new developments we witness around us aren't being built in a sustainable way....because they are far too spread out. Cities are having to .maintain and repair miles and miles of above and below ground infrastructure to maintain these places that in the end aren't able to generate enough property tax revenue/acre to justify their existence.
Last edited:
@AgentCy... maybe this will help. Another 4 min video demonstrating the financial power of a traditionally developed city block, vs one that uses the more suburban model. From Brainard Minnesota so something easy to relate to for those of us here in Iowa and the Midwest.
As an aside: this might be especially interesting to those living in places like Ankeny where there is a lot of surburban development, but they also have still have their old Uptown area and now the Prairie Trail neighborhood that use a more traditional development pattern.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is this isn't about what your or I might PREFER....but rather, how does one stack up directly against the other financially despite personal preferences. It is a black and white analysis....personal preference and bias aside. This is dollar and cents:
As an aside: this might be especially interesting to those living in places like Ankeny where there is a lot of surburban development, but they also have still have their old Uptown area and now the Prairie Trail neighborhood that use a more traditional development pattern.
I think the important thing to keep in mind is this isn't about what your or I might PREFER....but rather, how does one stack up directly against the other financially despite personal preferences. It is a black and white analysis....personal preference and bias aside. This is dollar and cents:
Mine jumped >12%, but is right around what I paid for it, and seems to be right in line with the current market.
Sucks to have the costs jump so much, but you'll probably have less luck contesting than if the assessed value goes way above what you could sell for.
The assessed values have gone up approx with inflation. So that is not the entire answer either. They should be stable and able to maintain the infrastructure as the population is stable. The real answer is the number and cost of employees for these cities and counties.
Our assessment is within a percent or two of what I believe it will sell for. Houses around us have been on both sides of our assessment. Problem is city is raising their rates and assessments are raising enough that you see near a 10% increase in rates.
I'm grateful I don't have to listen to my neighbor's Arianna Grande shriek stereo blaring where I choose to live. Freedom.....most people don't have it (or haven't had it) on Gaia throughout history.
Yeah, 10% increase is a bad look, regardless of whether it's right or not. It's just a matter of who to assign the blame to. The city for undervaluing cost of property and services? Us consumers for driving the market (demand) up? A little of both?
