Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Taxes and Gentrification
The Baltimore City Paper offers a lesson in taxing your unchic neighbors off the block:
Some people think property-tax assessments in Baltimore's gentrifying Mount Vernon neighborhood are too low. They want the taxes increased.
These folks--some 33 members of the Mount Vernon-Belvedere Association--aren't talking about their own valuations, though. They're talking about some of their neighbors' places. The ones with the cheap apartments.
And these folks wanting the tax increase don't want their neighbors to pay those taxes. Not necessarily.
They want them to sell out.
To the pals of the tax increasers.
The best part? They openly admit all this.
"What's behind this whole tax thing for us--there's a real demand for big houses here," says Mount Vernon resident Paul Warren, who is leading the charge. "D.C. is driving it."
Warren, who telecommutes to Fairfax County, Va., from the jaw-droppingly renovated mansion he and his wife bought on the 800 block of Park Avenue in 1999, says a lot of Washington-area denizens of his acquaintance would sorely love to pick up a big ol' historic 25-foot-wide townhouse with parquet floors and plaster filigrees. He says they'd pay several hundred grand for the privilege of spending several hundred grand more fixing them up.
But nobody much is selling [the buildings, because] their absentee owners bought them cheap decades ago. Their taxes--figured on the basis of the income they derive as businesses--have remained low. And so the rents stay cheap, the landlords make money, and everyone is happy. Except the rich people who want to kick the renters out and turn them back into mansions.
fyodor|4.16.05 @ 3:16PM|#
Libertarians don't care about the poor so I say raise their damn taxes and move them the hell out of there!!
|4.16.05 @ 3:48PM|#
I predict that this thread will quickly turn into a pitched battle between joe and everybody else.
|4.16.05 @ 4:00PM|#
It seems that the rich people place a greater value on the land. The only reason the current tenants are there is that they get favorable tax treatment. When tax policy leads to an inefficient allocation of resources, that's a bad thing.
|4.16.05 @ 4:22PM|#
Xavier-
You say:
It seems that the rich people place a greater value on the
land. The only reason the current tenants are there is that they
get favorable tax treatment. When tax policy leads to an
inefficient allocation of resources, that's a bad thing.
However, the article says:
Their taxes--figured on the basis of the income they derive as
businesses--have remained low.
Now, I'm not defending the existence of taxes and I've said many
times that as long as taxes exist they should be simple to avoid
economic micromanagement via the tax code. But I'm having a hard
time figuring out how this arrangement (taxation based on income
derived from the property) is some sort of preferential treatment.
Seems to me like it's a tax that's grounded in market forces (well,
to the extent that a tax can be grounded in market forces, add in
other caveats as necessary).
Finally, there's nothing inefficient about an allocation of
resources that doesn't put everything in the hands of rich people.
If rich people really want to live in those buildings, they should
offer the property owners more money. Indeed, perhaps the current
landlords have more money than the affluent people who want to buy
those buildings. Would you still call the current allocation of
resources inefficient if it turned out that the current owners are
wealthier than the prospective buyers?
fyodor-
Gee, ya think? ;)
|4.16.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Xavier,
How is it a more efficient use of resources for one family to have
a mansion than for 4,5,10, whatever, to have apartments?
Mr. Warren argument is simple and sickening. Increase the taxes of
the landlords until they're forced to sell, evict the tenants, and
replace them with wealthier people. If his associates really wanted
the properties badly enough they'd pay more.
Why not simply have an income threshold for continued existence.
"May I see you paystub sir? Less than than one hundred thousand per
year? I'm afraid you'll have to get on the train sir."
|4.16.05 @ 5:33PM|#
eminent domain
Yes, but the houses have to be considered blight.
Mr. Warren's friends need to do some drive-bys,perhaps hire a
shopping cart guy to steal some siding and brick, then the case is
closed.
|4.16.05 @ 5:47PM|#
Happy Jack,
What constitutes blight is, regrettably, in the eye of the
beholder. Actually, worse than that, it's in the eye of the
politician.
|4.16.05 @ 5:52PM|#
Seems too me that I remember some cities (Pittsburgh?) basing
their property tax assessments on the value of the unimproved land.
In that way, they avoid the disincentives to improvements on land.
It's sorta Georgist, but makes some sense, not penalizing folks for
keeping their properties well-maintained, and investing in
them.
BTW, if the owners of the "underassessed" housing were to sell out,
what kind of Federal and state income tax hits would they take?
Those effects would bump the buyout price up some, I'd guess.
What would be really stupid would be the forced sale of the rental
units to the "gentrifiers" because increased operating costs to the
landlords made the units uneconomic, followed by a boondoggle by
local government to replace the lost apartments with subsidized
"affordable housing." Remember how hot cities were to get rid of
"flophouses" only to wind up with a permanent population of "street
people"?
Kevin
|4.16.05 @ 6:07PM|#
David- it's in the eye of the politician
Usually true, but fortunately, at least not in Lakewood.
|4.16.05 @ 6:22PM|#
David-
Yeah, if those poor people won't hand over property to their
betters, who clearly are able to make better use of it, well, they
don't deserve a place in our society!
Even worse are the landlords who rent houses to poor people when
rich people could have made better use of those houses. Clearly
those landlords are traitors to their own class.
|4.16.05 @ 9:15PM|#
Mr. Warren and his followers are obviously rich. They should
just buy up the apartment buildings. Most of those owners will
probably take a nice lump sum over having to maintain and mete for
years on end.
Of course, that would actually involve not getting the government
involved, which is far too much to hope for anymore.
Eminent domain? Sadly, Mr. Warren would get screwed, because they
would obviously need to put up a big hotel and shopping mall
instead of houses.
|4.16.05 @ 10:42PM|#
Mr. Warren would get screwed, because they would obviously
need to put up a big hotel and shopping mall instead of
houses.
Historic part of town... big church there, some museums and stuff;
not where you'd allow a walmart.
|4.16.05 @ 11:16PM|#
So there are buildings being assessed at under $100,000 that are
actually worth several hundred thousand dollars.
The City assesses homeowners' property based on its market value,
but they assess rental property based on the rents that are being
charged. This creates a situation in which homeowners are paying
much higher taxes for similar buildings.
The lower a rental property owner can get for rent for his
apartments, the lower his taxes are. So property owners get
preferential tax treatment if they let their properties fall into
disrepair, or if they rent out the space in the buildings rather
than occupy it themselves.
If reading the linked article gives you headache, welcome to my
world.
|4.16.05 @ 11:24PM|#
thoreau,
"I'm having a hard time figuring out how this arrangement (taxation
based on income derived from the property) is some sort of
preferential treatment."
The rental property owners are paying less in property taxes than
the owners of buildings with comparable market values.
|4.16.05 @ 11:26PM|#
That is to say, "...than the OWNER-OCCUPANTS of buildings with
comparable market values."
That, btw, is the antonymn of "absentee owner."
"Owner-occupant"
|4.16.05 @ 11:29PM|#
"How is it a more efficient use of resources for one family to
have a mansion than for 4,5,10, whatever, to have
apartments?"
I'd like someone who takes umbridge at the term "market
fundamentalist" to answer this. How can you claim it is more
efficient to house 1-5 people in a 5000 square foot house than
20-30, just because the housing budget of the first exceeds that of
the second? Does your definition of the word "efficient" actually
bear any resemblance to the concept of efficiency?
|4.16.05 @ 11:36PM|#
Since the concept of "blight" has come up...
Although the label is much abused for nefarious reasons, there
actually is something called "blight."
And it almost never involves property that is owned by low or
moderate income people. In cases of actual blight, the owners are
almost always people who are wealthy enough to have plenty of
choices, who make the choice to starve and abandon their property,
because their time and investment is more profitably spent
elsewhere.
|4.17.05 @ 12:36AM|#
Not all blight involves slum landlords. Government is often the cause, though it rarely has the honesty to blame itself, or the politicians who vote for blight-causing regulations. Well-intentioned things like rent control and land use restrictions are famous for causing blight.
|4.17.05 @ 2:27AM|#
This libertarian cares more about the working poor than the
rich, especially rich bastards that use the government as their own
personal gang-bangers. I think the tenants of these apartments
should start their own association for the purpose of making these
rich fucks' lives pure hell. In my libertarian utopian fantasy, any
rich person that tries to use the government to mess with someone
(undeserving of it) would be immediately publicly executed and have
their entire estate confiscated.
I really don't understand some libertarians. Why don't you
understand that the government and many of the rich are damn near
one and the same--both use money to oppress the powerless. I would
think that one of the main moral reasons for libertarianism is to
take this type of power away from the government and the (immoral)
rich.
|4.17.05 @ 3:22AM|#
It might mean something to add that the apartments in Mt. Vernon
are generally, if not exclusively, leased by gay men (Mt. Vernon is
the heart of Baltimore's gay community), something that everyone in
Baltimore kinda knows, but the article doesn't mention.
One imagines interesting slogans at that hypothetical tenant's
association meeting.
And, yeah, gay men kept that part of town alive when no one else
wanted to be there.
|4.17.05 @ 4:22AM|#
The City assesses homeowners' property based on its market
value, but they assess rental property based on the rents that are
being charged. This creates a situation in which homeowners are
paying much higher taxes for similar buildings.
OK, that part makes sense.
This part doesn't:
The lower a rental property owner can get for rent for his
apartments, the lower his taxes are. So property owners get
preferential tax treatment if they let their properties fall into
disrepair, or if they rent out the space in the buildings rather
than occupy it themselves.
Right, but the only way to pay the lower taxes is if that disrepair
translates into lower rent. And lower rent translates into less
revenue for the owner. Are you saying that the tax formulas are so
screwed up that the loss of rent would actually be compensated for
by lower taxes?
I can see sense in a formula that says tax = X% of rent. (Yes, yes,
I know, that tax is still bad because it's a tax, but I'm using the
word "sense" in a more colloquial fashion, not as a statement of
compliance with libertarian dogma.) If you decrease your rents
collected by $1, you save X% of $1 in taxes, but as long as X
|4.17.05 @ 8:36AM|#
On the assumption that this scheme works(i wish I could say I
don't think it will, but the side wth more cash in any argument
usually seems to get its way), how long before the group demanding
tax increases on the absentee owenrs, starts clamoring for lower
property taxes?
Apart from that, shouldn't the libertatarian stance on this be the
the owner-occupants pay the same lower rate of tax on their
property that the abesentee owners do?
|4.17.05 @ 11:28AM|#
thoreau, I'm no investor, but I think the idea is that you
charge as much in rent as you can while doing only minimal
maintenance. So your income from the property plus taxes maybe just
covers your expenses, no loss, no gain either. Then you wait until
the value has risen so much that you can get a ton of money for
even a shitty property. Maximum gain with minimal investment and
labor.
Jesse (or somebody in B'more), is this near that big Greek style
church up on a hill, kind of near the Maryland Institute? I don't
know Baltimore, but I had a friend who lived in a row house, sounds
like the same area. Really incredible buildings, gigantic row
houses. I wish someone would drag something like that over the
Rockies and plant it here in Phoenix.
|4.17.05 @ 11:40AM|#
I've always thought that, property values be damned, property taxes should be based on the price a homeowner first paid for the house, with increases only at the rate of inflation, and should reflect higher market values ONLY when the owner is selling. The current system basically ensures that poor folks can keep their homes only until some wealthier person decides he'd like it.
|4.17.05 @ 11:43AM|#
If this is the gay-district of baltimore... I seriously doubt we can assume these apartments to be slums. Maybe the owners of the mansions, want to buy the apartments because they are better maintained and will be low-cost conversions into single occupant homes.
|4.17.05 @ 12:07PM|#
I'm confused.
something called "blight." And it almost never involves
property that is owned by low or moderate income people.
According to the link, 93% of property in Lakewood would fall under
the definition of "blight."
So, either Lakewood is an outlier, or it's a town mainly comprised
of renters.
P.S.: The city planners in Lakewood decided that having a one-car
garage is "blight." Isn't increasing traffic congestion and
pollution (more cars) a bad thing?
b-psycho|4.17.05 @ 12:37PM|#
Isn't this the same kind of garbage bigoted morons used to use
to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods?
Telling so'n'so they can't do what they want with their property is
utter complete bullshit. You wanna rent it out go ahead, you wanna
pave part of a backyard for a basketball court fine, you wanna
paint it purple & green stripes that's your perogative. Them
That Pay The Bills Make The Rules.
As if someone else's concern over their property value somehow
outweighs your right to use your property however you wish, Ha!
|4.17.05 @ 6:33PM|#
As someone mentioned earlier, its likely that the current owners of the properties in question are considerably wealthier than the prospective purchasers. Hence they probably have a bit more sway in the community, and hence can effectively fight against changes in the tax code that would hurt them. I'd really love to see the big money vs. big money slapfight that would come out of that!
|4.17.05 @ 8:52PM|#
That IJ link about Lakewood cracked me up. I used to live within
walking distance of that part of Lakewood. Not only is it
not blighted under any reasonably definition, it contains
some of the best shopping and nightlife in the city, and it borders
Rocky River, one of the most affluent suburbs in the county, so as
one can imagine there's a crossover effect there.
Friggin' politicians.
|4.17.05 @ 9:13PM|#
Happty Jack, the blight designation in Lakewood was bogus. And
the POLITICIANS in Lakewood decided having a one car garage was
blight. The planners just went along with their bosses.
thoreau, as for the second part that you took issue with, I don't
claim that the lower taxes fully made up for the lower rents, just
that they helped ameliorate the investor-owner's costs in owning
the rental housing, thus allowing them to keep collecting sub-par
rents without deciding that investments makes sense. Most rental
property owners would rather keep collecing "good enough" rents and
invest little or nothing in the property, than collect great rents,
at the expense of having their capital tied up in building
improvements. I'd be curious if anyone can point me to a good
explaination of this phenomenon.
|4.17.05 @ 10:42PM|#
re: joe's request for why slumlords are that way.
I'm a neighborhood landlord who owns 14 buildings (mostly houses
& duplexes) within a 3x4 block area in an historic district.
I've invested much personal capital and more sweat equity making
the apartments places where I would feel at home. This results in
higher taxes of course, but also results in far more livable
neighborhood.
However, while I get OK rents compared to the mean(new construction
trumps all - nothing like tearing up Iowa farmland for sh*tty beige
condos), the ugly truth is that crappy tenants that pay lower rent
never move!! A landlord's dream. My tenants are successful young
folks, and generally move after they finish school, or find a
house. Regular income slightly worse than the average, but
consistent, coupled with no maintenance make poor people a bingo
group to lazy landlords who have attended one too many Carlton
Sheets seminars.
Poor tenants also complain less than my higher paying tenants. In
exchange for mediocre rent, landlords get a stable money machine,
and the community gets rusty cars in the alley. Of course, the
landlords don't live there, after all. It's a WIN-WIN!!
Except for the few of us who appreciate older homes and are trying
to improve the neighborhood.
The only cure I've come up with is to buy, fix, hold and
control.
|4.17.05 @ 11:01PM|#
"The planners just went along with their bosses."
Aah, planners are using the Nurnberg defense.
"Most rental property owners would rather keep collecing "good
enough" rents and invest little or nothing in the property, than
collect great rents, at the expense of having their capital tied up
in building improvements."
That's an assertion, not a fact. How many people really prefer
making less money to more?
|4.18.05 @ 12:08AM|#
And Joe enters the fray, clucking about the poorer people
because they just aren't paying what he thinks they should in
taxes.
So there are buildings being assessed at under $100,000 that
are actually worth several hundred thousand dollars.
Then, gee, maybe your would-be friends should offer to buy out
these rental properties, Joe.
If reading the linked article gives you headache, welcome to my
world.
Welcome to the world people like you help make, maybe.
|4.18.05 @ 5:31AM|#
This is proof that DC isn't big enough for all the assholes that
live there, now they're spreading out to Baltimore and and beyond.
I'd be scared if I lived in Richmond, the pods are probably already
being loaded onto the trucks this very moment.
I think the solution is to move DC to East St. Louis.
|4.18.05 @ 5:34AM|#
Well maybe that's not fair. What did East St. Louis ever do to anybody, I suppose.
|4.18.05 @ 7:39AM|#
Note: in Baltimore 95% of the buildings are on leased land. The leases run for 99 years.
|4.19.05 @ 9:25AM|#
Jennifer, your prescription was adopted in California as
Proposition 13. It's been a catastrophe.
Imagine you're living in a house you bought for $100,000. It's
market value is now $400,000. You get a job 100 miles away, in a
community that has roughly the same property values. So either you
move, and your property taxes quadruple, or you drive 100 miles
each way to and from work.
That's assuming you can find a house to buy in the new town, which
is full of other people unwilling to move because of the same quirk
in tax policy.
|4.19.05 @ 9:35AM|#
Totally unfair, all else being equal, no ones prefers to make
less money than more. But the point is, all else is not equal -
making more money by improving the quality of your rental property
ties us your capital and your time, which impose their own costs on
the transaction.
What a stunner, Half an Eric misread my posts. I haven't actually
ventured an opinion about the tax disparity, as eager as you are to
assume that I'm arguing whatever is the opposite on your take. I
just explained why it is, in fact, preferential treatment for the
rental property owners. Sometimes, preferential treatment is a good
way to achieve public benefits.
Why would my would-be friends want to buy these properties? Who
exactly are my would-be friends, anyway? Your blind assumptions
have expanded to the point that your post is meaningless.
|4.19.05 @ 9:45AM|#
btw, Totally Unfair, thanks for the Godwin. I win!
Seriously, the analogy falls apart because the Nuremburg defense is
an affirmative defense for somebody who obeyed illegal orders. I've
never been issues an illegal order in my life, much less obeyed
one.
Do you really want public employees deciding which fully-legal
instruction to follow, and which to ignore, from the
democratically-elected, legitimate officials they report to?
|4.19.05 @ 10:21AM|#
Do you really want public employees deciding which
fully-legal instruction to follow, and which to ignore, from the
democratically-elected, legitimate officials they report
to?
Well, sometimes preferential treatment is a good way to achieve
public benefits.
|4.19.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Joe-
Do you prefer the current system, where the government can
literally tax people out of their homes?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245