ypsi~dixit

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Now, in addition to all the other things Steve Pierce is running around claiming false credit for... IS he SERIOUSLY trying to claim credit for historic preservation, too?!

It's great that Steve(and Barb)have worked hard to restore historic buildings in Ypsilanti.

However, the ONLY reason many of Ypsilanti's historic building are even still around and available to restore is because more that 20 years ago, people like PAUL SCHREIBER recognized the value of historic architecture, and worked hard to save it.

For over two decades, Paul has led efforts to change zoning and strenghten code enforcement to save buildings and stabilize neighborhoods. He has has also worked hard to promote our historic structures through his many years of efforts with the Ypsilanti Heritage Foundation, and its annual Historic Homes Tour, etc.

This is just ONE example of the kind of foresight and dedication he'll provide as Ypsilanti's next Mayor.

I'm still waiting to hear Mr. Schreiber denounce Lisa Zubor's groundless smeer campaign against Mr. Pierce. I'm also waiting to hear him denounce city income taxes. Would you, Mr.or Ms. seek-the-truth like to have your home equity value halved? You can buy large houses in Flint and Detroit for a fraction of what you'd pay in Ypsi. Their city income taxes sure have solved their finacial problems, haven't they?!

Seek the Truth: Give the polarizing, divisive, foolish comments a rest, won't you?

Steve isn't making the claim in the letter, my good neighbors are. And their conclusions are based on their own observations and judgment. Your criticism of them is unwelcome and inappropriate. Just quit it.

Nobody should be questioning the commitment that any of the candidates have to this community. To do so is ridiculous.

Anonymous commenters who call candidates liars don't contribute much to the debate over who will best serve us, in my estimation. Give it a rest.

It's the nature of the beast.

If a candidate says "I like little puppies", then the subtext of the statement is that "The other candidates hate little puppies, and probably eat them for breakfast."

The taxes didn't solve all of Detroit and Flint's woes, but they did allow services to continue and kept Detroit afloat to reap the massive reinvestment it's experiencing today (even with a tax).

The City of Grand Rapids has an income tax and its turn around from abandoned urban center to what it is today is the most dramatic in Michigan. It's downtown is packed with activity and new investment. If you haven't been there lately, visit and then make the arguement that an income tax, by itself, drives away investment.

Saying that an income tax will drive away new homeowners and businesses and "halve" property values is a simplistic, ill-informed scare tactic.

It also deserves a rest.

Actually, Tacks, that's not correct. One of the problems with advocating an income tax is that of the cities that have enacted one, some have done well and some haven't. Grand Rapids isn't a good example because of the millions of dollars that private enterprise poured into the city, dollars that we currently don't have access to.

Currently, the information available to Council and to the public about the potential negative ramifications of an income tax is incomplete and inconclusive at best. What's worse is that even those who favor an income tax admit that it won't solve our fiscal problems - all it will do is delay receivorship. Any solution that involves the perception of considerable risk without creating a permanent solution is a hard sell.

I also don't think it is appropriate to criticize people who are frightened by the prospect of losing equity in their homes. For many, a home is a family's biggest asset. Losing equity is a legitimate concern, and one that Council is duty-bound to take into consideration prior to considering a ballot initiative. Unless you can provide hard evidence that an income tax won't result in lower property values, then you are merely speculating, which is not a basis for an accusation of fear-mongering.

By the way, Michigan law allows select communities to offer Personal Property Tax Abatement in areas they deem in need of redevelopment.

We could, for example, exempt workers at downtown businesses from the income if we worried that it would deter investment in vacant areas downtown. We could do the same with neighborhoods considered blighted or largely vacant.

If the city ends up broke, and can't afford parks, the pool, senior centers, code enforcement, etc., and, if we're forced to slash police and fire protection, what will THAT do to property values?

(Not to mention our home and auto insurance rates?)

trusty,

Pierce’s site say’s he “is opposed to implementing a City Income tax because it would discourage families and businesses from locating or staying in the community.”

As you say, some cities with a tax have done well, some have not.

So, where is the evidence that if Ypsi enacts an income tax, as anon suggested, our property values will be cut in half? Are anon and others seriously suggesting that an income tax is the cause for Detroit’s troubles over the past few decades and not white-flight, race riots, auto industry decline, etc.?

Blaming an income tax on the condition of Flint/Detroit is like saying that bandage’s cause cuts. After all, whereever you see a bandage, there's a cut beneath it.

I owned a home in Detroit prior to moving to Ypsi. I purchased it for $30,000 and sold it for $67,000 six years later (it was on the market less than a week). How did the income tax hurt my property value?

I can agree with what you've said, “ramifications” are “incomplete and inconclusive.” That's fair. But to suggest that property values will be “halved” simply from the passage of an income tax…

In response to your questions, one at a time:

There is no evidence property values will be cut in half. I didn't say that was the case. I said you're in error to use GR as an example. It's much bigger than Ypsi, and it had donors with gazillions of dollars who were interested in pouring them into the city's center. We don't. You can't equate the two. Your example proves nothing.

I don't know what they're suggesting, you should ask them.

The vagaries of calculating gains/losses in real estate are too complex to reach a conclusion with the data you've provided. For example, one would need info on equivalent properties in similar cities without income taxes, the yearly average increases in values of those properties, and sales data for equivalents in the year you sold (in cities without income taxes) at the very least to attribute any loss or gain to an income tax. If equivalents in non-income tax cities increased in value at a rate greater than your property did, then you lost money b/c of the tax. If not, then you didn't. Since virtually all real estate increased substantially over the last 10 years, a mere increase (even a sizable one) doesn't automatically establish that you came out ahead.

Less rhetoric, more facts:

http://www.cityofypsilanti.com/news/SolvencyPlan

[aside]

"Ypsi-fixit" is an adorably clever name and should be adopted by any civic group that forms to advise City Council or whatever.

[/aside]

trusty,

Right again. We can't look to Grand Rapids to predict what will happen to Ypsi. But neither can we look to Detroit/Flint. I agree with your post. I was responding anon who made an association between low Detroit/Flint property values and an income tax.

It's an association I've been hearing a lot lately. The arguement is that property values are low in Detroit > they have an income tax > therefore income taxes cause low property values.

Detroit also has trees. Maybe trees cause low property tax.

It's just bad logic. That's all I'm trying to suggest. I don't think we're in disagreement.

Gotcha - you're right - it is bad logic.

What I'd like to see us as a community really focus on is the fact that this problem can't be solved by us alone. What really needs a fix is the State's structural deficit.

Gee-whiz, if we could get Mr. Devos to spend some of that campaign $$$ on some bricks and mortar projects, then he might actually have somehing to show for all that expense, but don't hold your breath!

Our property tax is a heavy burden every summer and every winter, and I have been in my house 17 years, unlike my newer neighbors who are paying so much more in property taxes due to the pop-up. Along with that heavy burden is the last 5 years of cuts in schools and cuts in city services with only promises of more cuts. Now we see a glut of homes on the market. You cannot convince me a city income tax is the solution. It will just be more that won't be enough.

Paul Schreiber did an excellent analysis of the income tax proposals and showed that a City income tax would increase the average resident's tax burdern by 33%.

His study can be found HERE.

33% eh! I guess I'll just give up eating red meat, like my doctor suggests!

(jaw drops)

The report never says 33 percent; it says:

"However, the percentage of annual income paid for taxes in Ypsilanti jumps from 2.36% to 3.18%..."

Yes, 3.18 is 33% more than 2.36, but it's .82% higher. One sounds like a lot, the other doesn't. Folks chose one way of saying or the other depending on how they want to spin it. Bottom line, the report says if you're the perfect "average" Ypsi resident, you'll pay $352 more.

I'll pay that to keep the busses running, the fires fighting and parks a buzzing before I'd buy more cow anyday.

Tacks, again, you've got it a bit wrong. Mathematical conventions require one to express a percentage increase in the manner stated by Brian, not in the manner you've suggested. You can't simply add or subtract the numbers, because the proportion differs depending on what numbers you use. To express the proportion increase, you've got to use the 1/3, or you're not really making a comparison.

And doesn't it strike you as an extremely expensive way to simply buy time, as one candidate has proposed?

I've reviewed the Plante Moran study that the City had them do. I find it odd that they haven't set forth several actual family and business scenarios detailing real-life examples of how this will affect people.

I think the community deserves to know precisely what the economic impact of an income tax will be on residents, businesses, and workers prior to being asked to vote on it.

"I think the community deserves to know precisely what the economic impact of an income tax will be on residents, businesses, and workers prior to being asked to vote on it."

I am an Ypsi property owner worried about my property values. It's obvious that receivership----basically bankruptcy---would kill them. trusty getto: if an income tax was the ONLY way to save the city, would you support a vote on it? No BS on all the "plans" out there. Just: what if an income tax was the only way? You seem to know Steve Pierce's thinking on many issues. Would he be willing to put it to the people?

Paul Schreiber spoke of an income tax buying us maybe 5 years during which we would, he said, magically persuade the State to change its ways and shower us with cash.

If you think that's realistic, you're living in a dream world.

Lansing could care shit about Ypsi. An income tax is not the answer.

KB: Your hypothetical is incomplete. If it was the only way to save the city temporarily and then the city would go into receivorship anyway, then no. It would be stupid to increase our taxes and then end up in receivorship anyhow.

It's the city that acknowledges that the benefit is temporary -- that's not something I made up.

So, I don't get the hypothetical, unless it's not intended to mirror anything that is likely to happen in the reality we live in -- which would make it irrelevant.

As everything else in life, evaluation requires a risk/benefit analysis. We haven't been provided any objective evaluation of what the risk is at all, and the benefit, we're told, is temporary.

Isn't it the job of the public servants we elect to perform this function? To objectively evaluate the risks and the benefits, and then to let us as citizens decide?

BTW: I would never presume to speak for Steve. Why don't you ask him?

That said, quite frankly, I was under the impression that Council made that decision as a group and that the Mayor couldn't solely hold it back if Council wanted a ballot initiative anyway. Someone correct me if I have this wrong, please.

Personally, I love the whole "put it to a vote" line.

City Council has less than 30 days to pass an ordinance on second reading to put the income tax on the ballot for November?

Will they do it? Of course not. Why not? Because they aren't sincere about putting it in front of the people either.

A Gubernatorial general election is the second largest election (next to a Presidential general election) we'll see as far as turnout goes. That would be a great time for the community to weigh in.

I'm all for voting on the income tax this November. Write your councilmembers and see how serious they are about making it happen.

I am finding your discussion informative and interesting. I am wondering if anyone can explain why we would need an income tax that raises the average citizens tax rate by 33%; given that the budget is estimated as a 6% shortfall. (I came up with an estimated 6% shortfall by taking the estimated $800,000 shortfall for next year and then dividing it by the $13,500,000 in annual revenues).

Is my math wrong? my figures? Does this seem strange to anyone else?

Could a 4th person please run?

"Personally, I love the whole "put it to a vote" line."

Yes, Brian. Putting it to a vote, like the rest of democracy, is so passé.

trustygetto provides a nice soft snow of words to sidestep my question. TG: Are you so against a tax that you would be willing to see Ypsi go into receivership---ie go bankrupt? It's a simple question, really. Let's see how much more complex he can make it.

Meanwhile, our property value hangs in the balance.

LOL, oh leighton! That's a good one! As is a person of good will would want to, given the consequences.

Who'd be a good write-in candidate? Kircher for Mayor?

All the good ones, lay low.