The Boston City Council today approved a measure that will ask voters in November to add a 1% surcharge to annual property-tax bills for a fund to pay for more housing for seniors, veterans and low-income residents and for improvements to and expansions of city parks and open space.
The proposed Community Preservation Act measure now goes to Mayor Walsh, who recently said he supports the measure.
Officials estimate the measure would bring in $16.5 million a year.
Only City Councilor Bill Linehan (South Boston, South End, Chinatown) voted against the idea. "I believe we as a city rely too much on property tax for our revenue," he said.
He also objected to the "anomaly" of letting voters, rather than elected officials, make decisions on tax issues.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Sorry about that
By Gary C
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 2:55pm
But obviously the value of your property (now somewhere north of $1 million, I'm guessing) has jumped up quite a bit too.
But he wants to stay
By Anonyme
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:01pm
Everyone's house is going up in value, some a lot, due to location. But income for most people is not going up at the same rate, which is a real burden for people. Higher property value are great if you are flipping houses, not if you want to stay where you live.
Depends where you live
By adamg
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:55pm
Because of 2 1/2, property taxes are almost a zero-sum game. So the fact that property values and taxes are skyrocketing in South Boston sucks for people who want to stay, but means those of us in the more remote sections of Roslindale see little increases in our taxes, because while our houses are appreciating, they're not doing so anywhere near the extent they are in South Boston (or other parts of Roslindale, for that matter).
My taxes went down
By Anonyme
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 9:18pm
This year, my taxes actually went down slightly due to Prop 2 1/2. As you correctly pointed out, it is pretty much a zero-sum game.
A few years ago, residential taxes went way up due to a sharp decline in commercial values. Given that the city charges a higher rate for commercial property, this had quite an impact.
How does that help
By nightmoves
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:10pm
people that can't move for whatever reason? The hacks just want to force out all the natives and stock the place with nosebleed transients that don't vote.
"whatever reason"
By HarryMattison
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:12pm
can't move? don't want to move?
if you're property is now worth $1.3million
By bosguy22
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:19pm
Take out some equity to pay the taxes.
That's an awful idea.
By Boston_res
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:48pm
Why would anyone borrow money to pay taxes? Sounds like the kind of move that's given us lots of national debt.
Because a large portion of
By piscis
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 4:12pm
Because a large portion of their net worth is tied up in an illiquid asset?
Well
By bosguy22
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 4:32pm
If paying and additional $9k a year in taxes is enough of a burden that you'd be forced to move, that's a decision you'll have to make. I'm sorry property values have gone up instead of down.
I believe the city has a tax
By anon
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 5:55pm
I believe the city has a tax-to-lien program which does exactly that.
Duh
By nightmoves
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:53pm
My job is here. My family is here. I own my house outright. Moving isn't an option. Stop the spending!
Okay
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 9:38pm
Explain how you are not being subsidized by others already if you are soooo poor?
I'm betting that you get more in services than you could pay for out of your pocket if you didn't pay taxes.
Nope, no subsidies and no
By anon
Thu, 05/12/2016 - 2:20am
Nope, no subsidies and no medical insurance Also no job for the last two years, no one wants a 62 year old. Some of us prefer to be independent not dependant. One of my points is if the hacks are getting four times the money they were getting twelve years ago, why do they need more now. Could it be they want all the money?
My counter point is
By Waquiot
Thu, 05/12/2016 - 9:29am
Your house is worth at least 3 times what it was 12 years ago.
Shell Game
By Arthur
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 3:59pm
I asked my councilors about this tax increase and was told it can only be used for parks, historical sites and structures, and affordable housing. They also were very upset that I kept referring to it as a "tax increase", insisting it was "only a surcharge". I replied that we already have budgets for these things and they told me that this would allow them to decrease their budgets as this new revenue stream would help fund those initiatives. I asked what would be done with the saved money? Would my "taxes" be decreased now that we have the money from the "surcharge"? There's was some stammering. I asked if it was possible that the increased revenue would be put into what they say it will be put into, but the money saved on the budget decreases to these departments go toward the mayor's or the council's pet projects such as the plans to redevelop Widett Circle? I'm definitely onto something because two of the at-large councilors insistently responded with "Where did you hear that?". To simplify it for the unwashed, uneducated masses, let's say the parks budget is $100. The surcharge brings in enough that we can short the parks budget by $10, bringing it down to $90. The $10 that was shorter is now made up by the surcharge, bringing it back to $100. However, even though they shorted the budget by $10, they didn't give it back to the taxpayer, it goes someplace else. The question is, where does it go? It's just a shell game. They're taking it out of your left pocket instead of your right. Vote NO to the lies.
Exactly
By Stevil
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 10:11pm
That's howvthese things work. Fortunately there are sites like this where you can expose these shenanigans to at least some residents.
Nothing says affordability
By DPM
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 4:40pm
Nothing says affordability like a tax increase.
Listen to Your City Council
By Arthur
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 4:57pm
It's not a tax increase, it's only "a surcharge".
let the landlords pay it
By hanging in hyde park
Wed, 05/11/2016 - 5:17pm
I would love to see more affordable housing in Boston, but this isn't the way. As someone else pointed out, the amount of money raised won't be enough to accomplish much of anything. But if the city council really wants this, how about charging greedy landlords who are a big part of why we're in this mess in the first place. Double or triple to greedy *and* absentee landlords.
Property Tax Surcharge
By P.L. Loud
Thu, 05/12/2016 - 6:42am
Our employee's hard at work devising ways to spend our money! Democrats never saw a tax they did not like. With all the construction ongoing in Boston how about a decrease we voted for?
Pages
Add comment