Showing posts with label City Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Taxes. Show all posts
Monday, November 16, 2009
Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic
10:39 PM | 
Posted by
Lance M. Gundersen, Sr.
(Link to the article is in the title)
Credit for the title goes to Mr. Lebo
Mr. Lebo, presumably writing as commenter AdirondackAl in the comments section of the linked article, points out - again - what he and others have stated on numerous occasions: that simply finding ways to save money is not going to save Gloversville.
This might come as a shock to him, but I agree.
At the same time, I am required to ask, "does that mean it shouldn't be done?"
While pinching pennies today is not a long term solution, developing greater efficiency and doing more with less today can provide the much needed time to correct this city's course.
How you ask?
While pinching pennies today is not a long term solution, developing greater efficiency and doing more with less today can provide the much needed time to correct this city's course.
How you ask?
Adversity Can Lead to Efficiency:
You might find this an odd thing for me to say, given all of the reported budget problems in the city (real, but also hyped), given the many complaints about certain services provided by DPW (real, but with extenuating circumstances), and given the popular belief in the dysfunction of the elected and appointed officials in city government (perception only, but admittedly with good cause), but I think an argument can be made that Gloversville's city services, while far from perfect, are some of the most efficiently delivered public services in the state in terms of the cost to deliver them.
The reason that any increased efficiency exists at all is only because of years of financial deprivation leading to massive budget cuts forcing the city to entertain new, more efficient methods of doing business - or, in other words, rearranging the deck chairs has, in fact, been helpful. Does anyone seriously think a plentiful money supply and lack of crisis would have caused this to come about?
Always keep in mind, I'm not saying the efficiency in Gloversville is perfect. It is far from it. What I am saying is that it is better now because of adversity than it otherwise would have been, and that continuing adversity is the "necessity" that will continue to spur "invention" onward.
Efficiency can keep us afloat:
Still, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is definitely not the answer long term; but if the environment created by adversity can lead to greater efficiency - enough efficiency that we can get underneath the city's spiraling operating costs and actually make real and meaningful cuts to the city's budget, then Gloversville has time to find other revenue ideas that can make a difference.
Always keep in mind, I'm not saying the efficiency in Gloversville is perfect. It is far from it. What I am saying is that it is better now because of adversity than it otherwise would have been, and that continuing adversity is the "necessity" that will continue to spur "invention" onward.
Efficiency can keep us afloat:
Still, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is definitely not the answer long term; but if the environment created by adversity can lead to greater efficiency - enough efficiency that we can get underneath the city's spiraling operating costs and actually make real and meaningful cuts to the city's budget, then Gloversville has time to find other revenue ideas that can make a difference.
So, let's not discount the value of those deck chairs. Their rearrangement may maintain just enough positive bouyancy to keep the SS Gloversville afloat long enough to rescue itself.
With enough time and commitment, solutions may be found:
Two solutions are already within view. The often mentioned Walmart Super Center promises to bring anywhere from $1,200,000 to $1,600,000 in additional sales and property tax revenue. And while not a lifeboat with enough capacity to save the city long term, it is the first step needed to shift some of the weight that is sinking our city. Many other businesses are awaiting its arrival to begin their own construction leading to additional sales and property tax that has yet to even be discussed. Another support in sight is the Revenue Sharing Agreement between the Town of Johnstown and Gloversville. While it has no specific dollar value associated with it, should it come to fruition it will undoubtedly be a financial benefit to the city.
Other potential solutions exist only in idea form right now but have equal potential to provide millions in city revenue, all of which ultimately will have the potential to lower our cost per thousand in property tax thus making us more attractive for investment and attractive as a home for many who currently live in more expensive areas closer to the capital district.
Time and Patience:
All of this takes time. Years have already passed on the Walmart Super Center. So, too, have years passed on the Revenue Sharing Agreement. Both of them appear close to fruition. Until those ideas, and additional valuable ideas, are available to us, it remains necessary to rearrange those deck chairs to prevent the SS Gloversville from slipping beneath the waves.
While shifting such lightweight baggage as the deck chairs may not appear to have a widespread positive impact during an emergency, the total weight of those chairs distributed correctly will see us through to another dawn where it is at least possible we will find what we need to succeed.
With enough time and commitment, solutions may be found:
Two solutions are already within view. The often mentioned Walmart Super Center promises to bring anywhere from $1,200,000 to $1,600,000 in additional sales and property tax revenue. And while not a lifeboat with enough capacity to save the city long term, it is the first step needed to shift some of the weight that is sinking our city. Many other businesses are awaiting its arrival to begin their own construction leading to additional sales and property tax that has yet to even be discussed. Another support in sight is the Revenue Sharing Agreement between the Town of Johnstown and Gloversville. While it has no specific dollar value associated with it, should it come to fruition it will undoubtedly be a financial benefit to the city.
Other potential solutions exist only in idea form right now but have equal potential to provide millions in city revenue, all of which ultimately will have the potential to lower our cost per thousand in property tax thus making us more attractive for investment and attractive as a home for many who currently live in more expensive areas closer to the capital district.
Time and Patience:
All of this takes time. Years have already passed on the Walmart Super Center. So, too, have years passed on the Revenue Sharing Agreement. Both of them appear close to fruition. Until those ideas, and additional valuable ideas, are available to us, it remains necessary to rearrange those deck chairs to prevent the SS Gloversville from slipping beneath the waves.
While shifting such lightweight baggage as the deck chairs may not appear to have a widespread positive impact during an emergency, the total weight of those chairs distributed correctly will see us through to another dawn where it is at least possible we will find what we need to succeed.
Labels:
Thursday, October 8, 2009
One Solution to Higher Taxes
Rather than the much-resurrected idea of sucking money out of non-profits (a stupid idea I addressed in an earlier article), where Gloversville should look for the extra revenue to fund itself is not property owners, but property renters.
In fact, it is entirely possible that requiring renters to "pay their fair share" could alleviate any need for a raise in taxes.
The first thing on people's minds, especially the mind of renters, is going to be, "Hey, Gundersen! I pay rent! Taxes are built into the rent I pay, so get off my back, you clown!"
Well, the answer to that is yes, there are property taxes built into your rent.
And, no, those taxes are not sufficient.
Before you blow a gasket, please let me explain.
I pay taxes on a piece of property in Gloversville. The taxes I pay on this property, offset by the Veteran's STAR exemption, help to keep city services running for four people.
You, the renter, pay anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 (or less) of the total taxes on the property you inhabit, and you probably have a similar number of people living with you; yet you demand the same level of services as someone who owns their own property and pays all of the taxes.
What's more, statistically, renters are more likely than owners to utilize city services (for many reasons, not just police calls to the residence).
So, my question back to you is this:
Why do I have to pay full price and you don't?
Well? Why?
It's not about how much square footage one lives in. It's about paying PER PERSON for the services we all rely on to help us out - usually in an emergency.
In 2009, I paid $1347 in city taxes, or $112.25/month.
If everyone shared in the process evenly, that figure might be lower.
It seems to me that a graduated scale based on age, veteran's status and perhaps other factors could be generated easily enough and that figure become the basis for non-property owning renters to contribute to the proper functioning of our city government (a piece of legislation that addresses this issue from a slightly different direction is already in the hands of the Fire Chief and City Assessor both of whom helped to craft it).
Just to give you all an idea, there are currently about 1166 apartments in this city belonging to buldings with 3 or more apartments. If everyone were to pay $1347 the total would be $1,570,602 in collected taxes.
Imagine how that could help the city's finances!
I imagine there would be collateral benefits as well. For example, who in their right mind would continue to trash the city when the taxes built into their rent are only going to go up if it continues to happen? There is absolutely no incentive like a financial incentive.
Give it some thought.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Quarterly Tax Payments
I recently had the rare good fortune to listen in on Talk of the Town. One of the topics of discussion was the creation of a quarterly payment plan for city taxes. A gentleman called up wanting to know why it wasn't possible to do this. He was, apparently, frustrated that it was so difficult for him to get his taxes together annually.
While Councilman Castiglione did call in as well and say he would look into that, I can tell him right now (having already looked into the matter three years ago) that the primary reason it cannot be done is that it would undoubtedly require the dedicated services of a finance employee - a finance employee who does not currently exist - meaning a slight raise in taxes or decrease in some other worthy city business, to hire a new employee.
If the city feels it is in the financial position to make that happen, then by all means go for it.
I still think it is a waste of time and effort.
The caller's problem has nothing to do with an inability to pay annually. The problem is his inability to budget effectively. Changing payments to quarterly may seem like an adequate solution, but one has to ask oneself how that is supposed to improve his apparent inability to budget monthly. All he has to do is remove $XX from his income every month to cover the cost. Why is either he or the local government supposed to believe paying every three months will make that process easier? It is budgeting 101. He either has it, or he doesn't.
Another reason this is a waste of time is that there is already this really cool little financial vehicle known as an Escrow Account. True, when people pay off their homes their escrow account often goes away too; but it doesn't have to.
Anyone can set up an escrow account and make regular payments into it. Let a for-profit financial institution cover the cost of the labor necessary to do this function, rather than forcing the city, and therefore the taxpayers to (I hate to be obscenely rude here but...) foot the bill for one guy who apparently is incompetent at managing his money.
That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.
Lance
While Councilman Castiglione did call in as well and say he would look into that, I can tell him right now (having already looked into the matter three years ago) that the primary reason it cannot be done is that it would undoubtedly require the dedicated services of a finance employee - a finance employee who does not currently exist - meaning a slight raise in taxes or decrease in some other worthy city business, to hire a new employee.
If the city feels it is in the financial position to make that happen, then by all means go for it.
I still think it is a waste of time and effort.
The caller's problem has nothing to do with an inability to pay annually. The problem is his inability to budget effectively. Changing payments to quarterly may seem like an adequate solution, but one has to ask oneself how that is supposed to improve his apparent inability to budget monthly. All he has to do is remove $XX from his income every month to cover the cost. Why is either he or the local government supposed to believe paying every three months will make that process easier? It is budgeting 101. He either has it, or he doesn't.
Another reason this is a waste of time is that there is already this really cool little financial vehicle known as an Escrow Account. True, when people pay off their homes their escrow account often goes away too; but it doesn't have to.
Anyone can set up an escrow account and make regular payments into it. Let a for-profit financial institution cover the cost of the labor necessary to do this function, rather than forcing the city, and therefore the taxpayers to (I hate to be obscenely rude here but...) foot the bill for one guy who apparently is incompetent at managing his money.
That's my position, and I'm sticking to it.
Lance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
.jpeg)
- Lance M. Gundersen, Sr.
- A lot of authors and bloggers have written about living intentionally. Each define it differently, but the basic gist of the idea is to have a plan and do everything in one's power to make it a reality. My plan was to live debt-free, and then spend my time doing the things I want to do - like finishing at least a Master's in an area I can put to use in my community. I started this process with a Masters in Work and Labor Policy with an Advanced Certificate in City Administration, but then switched to a Master's in Urban Planning focusing on Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure (and learning a fair bit about environmental planning, Brownfield redevelopment, community planning and more). I have also begun accomplishing a whole basket of cycling, sailing, hiking and personal enrichment goals which are each in various states of accomplishment. Feel free to stop by and read my musings. Comment if you like. Please be respectful, and I apologize that it's even necessary to have to say that at this stage of our existence.
