I actually went through the Allegheny county “newcomer tax” just some months ago.
It was a bit of a strange process to appeal (I lost; my house is very weird for the area).
While I do see the benefit for not raising taxes so consistently for long-term owners (and could definitely see gentrification-esque effects) it does seem like a pretty obvious - if bitter - pill to swallow if the area is going to have any chance of continued growth.
Ultimately to the end of allowing Pittsburgh and the surrounding area to be a place with agglomeration effects, growth, and opportunities enough to allow smart and ambitious young people to remain in the area as opposed to brain draining into the Acela corridor.
It’s sad when a city that could go either way chooses to rust and its most talented young people no longer have the option of staying in their home if they want dynamic careers.
I’ve become intimately familiar with Youngstown, OH - about 70 miles away from the Pittsburgh - and it’s a great case study of how far a once-powerhouse city can fall if it doesn’t a actively reinvent itself.
And if you read the linked paper, particularly the "Effects of Reassessments on Split-Rate Taxing Bodies" (split rate being the riff you're referring to), making land value assessments more accurate of course makes land value taxation more appealing.
Property taxes have a component that redistributes wealth from landlords to the working people, but it also has a component that penalizes making better use of the land. The former is usually called "land value tax" and the latter is the part of the tax that is proportional to the improved value of the land. The latter part incentivizes some uncertain amount more towards mcmansions and away from multi-unit buildings.
Unexpected to see this talked about on HN.
I actually went through the Allegheny county “newcomer tax” just some months ago.
It was a bit of a strange process to appeal (I lost; my house is very weird for the area).
While I do see the benefit for not raising taxes so consistently for long-term owners (and could definitely see gentrification-esque effects) it does seem like a pretty obvious - if bitter - pill to swallow if the area is going to have any chance of continued growth.
If the only way to have growth is to kick out the existing inhabitants, one wonders what the purpose of “growth” is.
How can you sustain a city if the existing inhabitants children would rather leave?
Continued growth to what end...?
Ultimately to the end of allowing Pittsburgh and the surrounding area to be a place with agglomeration effects, growth, and opportunities enough to allow smart and ambitious young people to remain in the area as opposed to brain draining into the Acela corridor.
It’s sad when a city that could go either way chooses to rust and its most talented young people no longer have the option of staying in their home if they want dynamic careers.
Jobs and new families?
I’ve become intimately familiar with Youngstown, OH - about 70 miles away from the Pittsburgh - and it’s a great case study of how far a once-powerhouse city can fall if it doesn’t a actively reinvent itself.
Why don't they go back to their riff on land value tax? Property taxes are regressive and stifle growth, development, and improvements.
Agreed as does the org putting out the linked paper https://www.prohousingpgh.org/blog/policy-land-value-taxes
And if you read the linked paper, particularly the "Effects of Reassessments on Split-Rate Taxing Bodies" (split rate being the riff you're referring to), making land value assessments more accurate of course makes land value taxation more appealing.
Property taxes are the only thing that can redistribute wealth from landlords to the working people.
Your company definitely bought / financed it, so it is clear evidence of your financial means at the purchase time.
Businesses that own land don't pay federal taxes, they can just declare 0 profit every year while paying for range rovers for the owners.
Property taxes have a component that redistributes wealth from landlords to the working people, but it also has a component that penalizes making better use of the land. The former is usually called "land value tax" and the latter is the part of the tax that is proportional to the improved value of the land. The latter part incentivizes some uncertain amount more towards mcmansions and away from multi-unit buildings.
> Property taxes are the only thing that can redistribute wealth from landlords to the working people.
Eh? Working people always pay the property tax, landlords do not.