Ann Arbor Area Community News
In the short-term, this will create serious challenges for the local governments because: (1) The City will lose over $3,000,000 in annual property tax revenue, including more than $1,000,000 in general fund revenues (police, fire, etc), and more than $300,000 in parks millage revenue — these translate into real cuts in services; (2) The City must maintain a high quality of life. After all, that’s what ultimately draws good talent to the UM. Will we be able to do that if we lay off police officers, close parks, etc.?; (3) The UM’s anticipated job growth will occur over ten years. How do we pay to maintain City services in the meantime?
Steve Bean responded:
First, I think that Ann Arbor’s situation as home to a holder of much land area that can’t be taxed may be different than Detroit’s or perhaps that of other cities that have instituted an income tax. Maybe we’re more well suited to it in that sense. Perhaps even more so because that landowner is also the largest employer and pays high wages on average.
John Q wrote:
One of the knocks against the income tax is that it would require a lot of renters to start paying the income tax while their landlords enjoy a windfall in reduced property taxes (and no, I don’t expect the landlords to pass along the reduction in property taxes in reduced rents). By implementing the income tax, the city has effectively increased the tax burden on renters with no return in benefit. While renters don’t directly pay property taxes, it’s always factored into the rent they pay so most are already contributing their share in taxes to city services.
« Previous Article Will the UM buy the Pfizer site?
Next Article Bello Vino and Kitchen Port Closed for Business »
New Comments(twitter feed)
Arbor Update Topics