Lot’s of different ways to skin #2 but a Vacant Lot Registration Fee is probably easier than either a fine (Coston used to promote this idea) or a Land Tax (my idea and certainly couldn’t be short term).

Now this is the kind of back and forth I like. Perhaps I should republish the “Guide” to deal more squarely with McGrath’s questions and to include Eric’s ideas

Outside of that, we aren’t too far apart on the property tax ideas. I feel that some allowance for improvements is ok, its just that taxing extra for installing some plumbing is silly. Plus, taking it out of the equation should make assessments easier (and cheaper)

As for the TWW comment, well… just a bit of a plug ahead of the October 14th court date (look, another plug : ) )

As for the reason why so few wealthy people live here… well the larger housing stock isn’t here, plus there are other competing townships with no public schools or other amenities like Princeton. Its not because the middle or lower class hate them. They have their uses. : )

Good back and forth but you went all the way from business tax to Water Works in that one.

You’ve got some beliefs and philosophy baked in to your comment that are seperate from what will actually balance the budget.

You “believe” that low income people ought to be prioritized. This implies that you “believe” they are a privileged class. That’s OK lots of people agree with you.

We have lots of government spending that provides privilege to the poor over the rich. In general middle class people seem to hate the rich. For reason’s of jealousy I suppose.

It seems a shame that we should hate productive, wealth creating people so much so as to not welcome them in to our community.

This is a strong and troubling thread in Trenton and I think an underlying sociological reason for our problems. Trentonians simply reject successful people.

We must, so few live her.

The difference in property taxes paid between some of the largest homes in Trenton to some of the least expensive is only a 3 or 4 to 1 ratio. If you figure that we need 60,000 low income residents, then we would need about 15-20K of the wealthier variety. I would rather welcome the working class / young urbanites and give them an easy path to building themselves up in a low tax / close to work and transportation environment sink that we should be. We now have the added Train Station development, but it appears that we are locked into bad development agreements in the immediate vicinity that may tie up the area with empty buildings due to Pilot programs that last decades. Furthermore, the city has really dragged its feet on developing a plan to improve entertainment districts like Chambersburg and the like. Given the low cost of Taxi service ( a true asset) in the city, we should be able to utilize an entertainment district anywhere in th city through taxi’s and public transportation. I would live to see the buildings on 129 become more commercial as they woulld rise in value for their ability to generate revenue from suburban visitors.

With a solid working class, I think that you have greater potential for increased revenues, rather than established upper class residents whose spending potential may have already reached its max.

Personally, I think that the home improvement tax is too much. There should be no extra tax for an added bathroom or a finished 3rd floor or basement if you don’t change the footprint of the building. Plus, the added tax that we add on for building out when you don’t really change its use or significantly change the look should be much lower / no difference in your property tax. That way people can update their homes a little more worry free. Plus, they won’t worry about filing the proper papers with city inspectors to get the job done right. This could particularly help businesses looking to adapt older buildings.

I am of the belief that as much as 10% (or $5 million) in tax revenue is never collected from abandoned / city owned properties. Add to that some possible lack of collection for traffic tickets and other fines and you probably have only about $7 million in unrealized revenue.

After that, the city should really look at its costs. We pay way too much in annual debt service, which shows a historic case of mismanagement. We need to address this problem now. After that we should look at unneeded services. We should look at the consultants we hire without even knowing it. From the article in today’s Times, it was mentioned how we have already been hiring a business administrator as a consultant. Then they have the gall to say that at $75 per hour for 1,000 hours / year the new “assistant” BA would do more work than two full time lower paid positions putting in 2,000 hours EACH.

Overall I believe that we have about $2 million in poorly documented (in the budget binder) and possibly unneeded “Professional, Consultant, and Specialized Services” line items, including $1 million between the Mayor’s office and Administration alone.

Bottom Line: Our goverment should be in the business of streamlining services and cutting expenses and not in the business of finding new revenue simply through new taxes. Utilizing utility service and generating revenues from outside of the city is much preferred. That is why I am so against the sale of the Water Utility. This year alone we should be making AT LEAST $7 or $8 million in profit. The potential for revenue coming from outside of the city in future years with the outlook of water costs is enourmous. Cutting off the utility at the borders only adds $4-5 million in annual costs to city residents through increased rates and a loss of $2-3 million in city revenue, and any profit taking would only equate to the most regressive of taxes for one of the most essential services, water.

Businesses pay sales tax but to the state.

Sometimes they expand which leads to more property tax.

You’re asking the right question. How does our revenue increase? What levers can we pull to increase it? What are the second order things that can be done to affect revenues?

For instance lower property taxes decreases revenue directly but has a 2nd order effect on increased investment. It’s important to make good assumptions about these 1st and 2nd order effects AND the timing involved.

As far as I know, retail business has no impact. The building owner is already paying property tax whether the building is occupied or not.

The first order of business (as I believe you said) is to get our assessment process working.

I proposed income tax as well, which is more closely tied to profits.

Further to my argument for high income residents is that they buy expensive homes and therefore pay more property tax. We’re a good example as we’ve almost doubled the value of our property through our renovation. I should think Trenton needs more of that. You don’t get by attracting more low income residents.

I invite you to do the math on income distribution.

We need to add 16 times the population of Lambertville and with their CPI just to get to average.

That is, we need to add around 60,000 new residents. Our current neighborhoods aren’t enough. We need new neighborhoods and all of them have to be mid to upper income (like Lambertville).

Cities just can’t work without wealth. There only around 20 households in Trenton with over $200K in income and that’s still middle class. I suspect there are no high net worth or high income people at all. We need that to help build our community.

The math doesn’t work when we keep focusing on low income residents. It hasn’t for the last 20 years.