30. May 2005 • Murph
Email this article
Planning Commissioner Eric Lipson has announced his intent to run against City Councilmember Marcia Higgins in the August Democratic primary for Higgins’ Council seat. So far, this is the only known-contested Council race.
The Ann Arbor News quotes Lipson on the attack,
“She is not a very visible member of council,” Lipson said.
Lipson said Higgins wasn’t involved in Rosewood Street’s traffic calming efforts a couple of years ago.
“We never got any assistance from Marcia,” Lipson said. “She never came to any of our meetings. We felt we were left hanging. ... I just feel like the 4th Ward could use more effective representation.”
Lipson called himself a “lifelong Democrat” and said Higgins was a “Democrat of convenience” who switched parties because it was easier to get elected in a strongly Democratic town.
The “Democrat-in-Name-Only” status that Lipson attaches to Higgins is somewhat weakened by her past support for same-sex benefits and, most recently, the Council’s decision to pay a living wage to trash sorters.
« Previous Article Saturday: The Bang!
Next Article Greenway hearing unbalanced? »
|
Anyone know anything about Lipson? Why should I vote for him (although I may not have moved to the 4th Ward by the time of the primary)?
—ann arbor is overrated May. 30 '05 - 06:10PM #
ArborUpdate will be, in the Goodspeed tradition, sending questionnaires to Council candidates – suggestions of questions or issues are welcome.
—Murph May. 30 '05 - 06:12PM #
—Murph May. 30 '05 - 06:12PM #
It’s June 20 for announcing for the Democratic Primary; what about independents, etc?
—Dale May. 30 '05 - 06:13PM #
—Scott Trudeau May. 30 '05 - 08:10PM #
—Juliew May. 30 '05 - 08:55PM #
Isn’t that good? I mean, based on most Ann Arbor politicians’ definition of “citizens.”
I’d be interested in hearing more about Lipson, but being “a real Democrat” isn’t going to cut it. In fact, it makes him a somewhat less attractive candidate to me, given most Ann Arbor Democrats’ records on representing non-homeowner interests.
—ann arbor is overrated May. 30 '05 - 09:17PM #
I was the Democratic candidate.
—Larry Kestenbaum May. 31 '05 - 03:14AM #
—Scott Trudeau May. 31 '05 - 01:51PM #
Link here; page 2
I can’t believe council winners in off-year elections can be elected with less than 2000 votes. We have GOT to get some more candidates in these races.
—Dale May. 31 '05 - 02:21PM #
—Juliew May. 31 '05 - 02:53PM #
—Dale May. 31 '05 - 03:00PM #
—Eric Lipson Jun. 11 '05 - 02:34AM #
I like the idea that “government should be transparent and conducted in public”.
I assume that includes holding a public hearing, at long last, on the Human Rights Commission’s Palestine resolution.
The resolution requests a cut-off of military aid to Israel.
Looking forward to the public hearing,
—Blaine. Jun. 11 '05 - 05:14AM #
Have you ever thought about what bad citizenship single-issue politics is? The inverse of single-issue politics is the disengaged majority. That’s what allows the Zionists to dominate Congress and the President.
How about you come back to the Hiller’s thread and chat some more.
—Al Braun Jun. 11 '05 - 10:57AM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 11 '05 - 03:26PM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 11 '05 - 04:15PM #
Ensure that our closets are clean, and then work on regional issues – get involved in actions to ensure the County and State police are similarly following decent standards.
These may not be on the magnitude of divestment in Israel (though I agree that divestment in weapons manufacturers, for example, is by definition good), or working against the war in Iraq, but they’re things we have direct power or influence over.
—Murph Jun. 11 '05 - 05:12PM #
Eric
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 11 '05 - 06:29PM #
Aren’t you glad, for their “single-issue” campaign?
Why not shine a light on the many billions we are compelled to give to Israel as it occupies and crushes Palestine?
We don’t give billions to crush Darfur.
We do give billions, every year, to crush Palestine—why can’t a person oppose that, without first going to Darfur, or to “get our own house in order”?
It kind of IS our own house, if we give billions to crush Palestine.
City Council used to pass such resolutions all the time—until Palestine came up.
The bottom line, to me, is:
How exactly can a public hearing, on the Human Rights Commission’s already-approved Palestine Resolution, possibly do any harm?
—Blaine. Jun. 11 '05 - 07:47PM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 11 '05 - 08:52PM #
...the Human Rights Commission, in December 2003, officially transmitted its Palestine resolution to Ann Arbor City Council, asking for a lot more than a hearing.
The Commission asked for City Council to just plain adopt the Palestine resolution.
In fact, the Commission drafted the resolution specifically for passage by City Council, as you’ll see below.
Still looking forward to that passage.
Failing passage, still looking forward, at least, to a Public Hearing on the Palestine Resolution.
Here it is, as the Commission officially proposed it to City Council back in 2003:
————————————-
“RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ENDING U.S. MILITARY SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL”
Proposed by the Ann Arbor Human Rights Commission on December 4, 2003
Whereas, the United States, by providing Israel with virtually unlimited diplomatic, economic, and military support, has made itself complicit in Israel’s 36-year old military occupation of Palestinian lands;
Whereas, the State of Israel’s building of a 25-foot Separation Wall that cuts through Palestinian communities, is further undermining chances for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict;
Whereas, construction of the Separation Wall deprives a significant proportion of the Palestinian people of all means for self governance, movement, commerce, and education on all levels, and makes the prospect of a viable independent Palestinian state unfeasible;
Whereas, the Unites States government has expressed its official opposition to the construction of the Separation Wall (President George W. Bush, London, Nov. 19, 2003) while at the same time refusing to use its unquestionable influence to prevent the Israeli government from proceeding with its construction;
Whereas, a majority of Jewish Americans support ending the occupation of Palestinian lands and dismantling of the Settlements (US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Sept. 23, 2003) and;
Whereas, the City of Ann Arbor has in recent months witnessed dozens of vigils, peaceful protests, teach-ins, lectures, and debates on behalf of the beleaguered Palestinian population;
RESOLVED, That the City of Ann Arbor urge the United States Federal Government to stop military aid to the state of Israel until such time that Israel ends its occupation of Palestinian lands; and
RESOLVED, That the City Administrator send copies of this resolution to our U.S. Congressional and Senate representatives, and the President of the United States.
– - – -
—Blaine. Jun. 12 '05 - 12:26AM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 12 '05 - 02:38AM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 12 '05 - 05:06PM #
In the discussions that have come up before, here and on Ann Arbor is Overrated, I think the general consensus is that this would be good for homeowners and landlords and bad for students and renters (just like basically anything that gets proposed), and would also be one more force pushing the companies that have any mobility (everybody but the U) out to the Townships.
—Murph Jun. 12 '05 - 06:00PM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 12 '05 - 08:25PM #
Why?
I would have assumed that students spend unusually high proportions of their income on rent (hence on property tax).
And a progressive income tax would seem easier on most students for obvious reasons….
—Bruce Fields Jun. 12 '05 - 08:27PM #
Students might not make much income, but every dollar of it counts, and, for a lot of students, every extra dollar they pay in income tax means an extra dollar in student loans. They might see a little bit of the property tax break, if the rental market is particularly soft that year, but it’s unlikely that they’ll see much, and definitely not enough to make up the income tax.
Homeowners, on the other hand, will enjoy their property tax break directly, as well as being the chief beneficiaries of the marginal services that will be saved or lost based on a little extra income. You can be certain that only a very few students (such as Dale, our architectural historian) care about historic preservation, for instance, or senior centers; relatively few use public swimming pools or the golf courses, etc. The benefit from the extra income is in saving programs that are not-student oriented.
Finally, there’s the decent chance that the property tax cut will end up being on “homestead” properties only, because people will otherwise complain about giving tax cuts to big corporations while people are being pushed out of their homes – conveniently neglecting to mention the fact that rental properties are non-homestead.
That’s my selection of the important objections.
—Murph Jun. 13 '05 - 12:04AM #
I have mixed feelings about the income tax issue.
A couple of points on the plus side. (1) the property tax system is broken, as I have detailed ad nauseam here before, and the city won’t be able to rely on it in the long run unless it’s fixed, which is unlikely. (2) If we had an income tax, activists would get a leg up in arguing that students should register and vote in local elections. Even students in university owned dorms would pay an income tax if they worked. (3) All those commuters who use Ann Arbor services would be paying at least something.
On the minus side: (1) there is no ability to make the income tax progressive. It’s a take-it-or-leave it package: one per cent on residents, one-half percent on nonresidents who work in the city. (2) Many of those who work in Ann Arbor but live elsewhere are poorer than people who live here. (3) Income tax revenue tends to fluctuate wildly with economic trends, unlike the very stable and predictable property tax.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 13 '05 - 12:17AM #
Why on earth not? Forgive me for rehearsing the standard econ 101 arguments, but: if I own apartment complex A, and next to me there’s an identical apartment complex B, and I charge $20 a month more rent than B, then which of us is going to have more vacancies?
So, if I’m given the opportunity to lower my rents, why wouldn’t I?
No doubt the market in rental housing is less than perfect, but still I think the burden of proof is on you to provide an argument why the changes in landlords’ expenses won’t effect rents.
—Bruce Fields Jun. 13 '05 - 02:04AM #
I hate to say it, but let Ann Arbor not repeat the mistake of Detroit in putting through an income tax. If the tax was done on a county wide basis, then it would make sense, but to have only the city with an income tax will grow the adjacent areas even faster than they already are growing. An income tax will kill this city over time as the middle class will flee the city for the, “Ann Arbor schools, township taxes.” An income tax would probably reduce the cities’ tax base over time. I think it would be better to reverse the decades long trend of businesses paying less tax on their business property by automaticly stepping the taxable value of property to the SEV every 10 years. Give the windfall to homeowners and renters and then you could get support for millage elections for various popular programs. Have the city use its bully pulpit to push for an ammendment to the State Constitiution to get this done.
—Chuck Jun. 13 '05 - 02:45AM #
1. Comparing apartments is not as easy as you portray. These aren’t two cans of the same soup, one campbell’s and one store brand.
2. Students more or less HAVE to get an apt in Ann Arbor, so it’s not open competition. The competition is between students fighting for a finite or even scarce resource (decent, proximate housing), not landlords fighting for a scarce resource (tenants). The perception of the housing scarcity favors landlords even more.
3. Because of the restricted flow of information foundational to #1, students can’t look at the rent before and after the property tax cut and know they aren’t getting a piece of the savings—students are bargaining from a position of VERY limited information.
—Dale Jun. 13 '05 - 02:47AM #
It would seem to me that this might be a better option than screwing around with an income tax. I’ll have to think about it…
—todd Jun. 13 '05 - 12:49PM #
One is that there’s asymmetric information – a market failure condition. My current landlord, for example, manages 60-odd properties, from houses to apartment buildings, and knows all of the other landlords in town. I’m renting one house (with my housemates), and have extremely limited information about the other properties in town. We’re not dealing on equal terms, so I’m not going to be able to negotiate the lease that is economically optimal.
A second is outside the realm of economics, in business. (Marc R. can correct me if my development class imparted knowledge doesn’t get the management details quite right.) Big landlords don’t mind having a vacant property or two; they can write it off as a business expense, and bring down the amount of taxable income they have to deal with on the other properties. Their ideal situation is not to drop the rents on all of their properties commensurate with the property tax break in order to ensure fullness. Their best interest is in letting some of the properties go vacant and continue collecting higher rents on the other ones in order to maximize post-tax income. I, on the other hand, do not have the luxury of choosing not to have a place to live in order to maximize my post-tax (post-rent) income. Yes, I’ve seriously considered living in a van at times, but I do have to have a place to live. I have far less flexibility than the landlords. All residents have to find a place to live; not all properties have to find tenants.
—Murph Jun. 13 '05 - 02:48PM #
It is a myth favored by economic conservatives that people fled the city of Detroit to escape its taxes.
Almost nobody left Detroit for economic reasons. Almost anyone in Southeast Michigan could live cheaper in Detroit, because the housing costs are so stunningly low. That’s why Detroit’s population is now predominantly poor people who can’t afford to live anywhere else.
Rather, people moved out of Detroit because they wanted to live in a place with less crime, better schools, a more suburban enviroment, and less of a stigma than Detroit, and they were willing to tolerate a higher cost of living to do so. (Obviously race or racism was a factor too.)
When I lived in Detroit as a Wayne State law student in 1979-82, I often encountered suburbanites who were appalled that I lived in the city. Not one of them cited the income tax as a reason that I shouldn’t live there.
Moreover, Detroit’s income tax (under a special law) is three times higher than what Ann Arbor would be allowed to levy. If you want to compare the economic effects of a city income tax, look to the other communities around the state which have the 1% tax, not Detroit.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 13 '05 - 05:43PM #
Moreover, even if it were to pass statewide, it would probably require separate votes per county to implement such a tax. Given the deep hostility in much of this county both to the county government and taxes in general, I can’t imagine such a proposal winning.
It cannot be overstated how irresponsible the legislature is on these issues. For example, the state budget is about $8 billion (and they’re currently trying to deal with a $900 million shortfall). The Republican response is to eliminate the single business tax, which brings in $2 billion/year, and not replace it with anything.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 13 '05 - 05:51PM #
I grew up in suburban Detroit, and I agree with you that the primary reasons people moved out of Detroit did not include the city income tax. I do think that in the 1950’s through the 1970’s, the time of white flight, racism and fear were the biggest reasons driving most people from Detroit.
Now, however, Detroit’s income tax is frequently cited as yet another reason not to live or work there, along with crime, an appalling school system, and completely dysfunctional political leadership.
—tom Jun. 13 '05 - 05:58PM #
It’s true that Detroit has the state’s highest city income tax by a factor of three. It’s also true that people who don’t live in the city probably don’t relish the thought of preparing another tax form.
But I suspect that Detroit with no city income tax (even if the tax revenue magically appeared some other way) would not change anybody’s view of Detroit as a place to live.
I think in the 1990 US Census, the average value of owner occupied homes in Detroit was $29,000, compared to $130,000-something in the suburbs.
Okay, houses in Detroit are smaller and older, but nearly identical houses facing each other across the city limits are different in value by at least a factor of two.
Except for the very wealthy, it is not mathematically possible that a 3% income tax is such a huge burden as to make it more expensive to live in a house worth half as much.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 13 '05 - 06:13PM #
However, several people I’ve talked to have pointed out that their home and auto insurance rates zoomed upwards when they moved into the D. It seems like it’s been a dealbreaker in a couple cases. (totally unrelated to Ann Arbor, I know, but…)
—Dale Jun. 13 '05 - 06:22PM #
I don’t doubt that if you sat down and ran the numbers, Detroit’s income tax does not make it more expensive to live there for the reasons you point out. But, the perception is that it is another damned tax you have to pay, and it is another hassle you have to go through in April. So it is another disincentive for people to live there.
—tom Jun. 13 '05 - 06:25PM #
—js Jun. 13 '05 - 06:27PM #
“All residents have to find a place to live; not all properties have to find tenants.”
Note that these arguments do not support specifically the claim that property tax decreases would not affect rents.
Instead, they are arguments that landlords can charge as much as they want for rents. Which raises the question—why don’t they just go ahead and do that now? Why is my rent $700 a month and not $7000? If it were possible for a landlords here to charge new york or san francisco rents, I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t….
“Because of the restricted flow of information foundational to #1, students can’t look at the rent before and after the property tax cut and know they aren’t getting a piece of the savings-students are bargaining from a position of VERY limited information.”
This is no different from the current situation; I have no clue whatsoever what my landlord’s expenses are. I couldn’t give you even the roughest pie-chart. I just comparison-shop. The necessary assumption is that you know what prices things are selling for, not that you know all the sellers’ expenses.
So I still don’t see any reason why in the long run decreases in landlords’ expenses won’t affect rents.
—Bruce Fields Jun. 13 '05 - 10:51PM #
There is quiet talk among my affluent neighbors that no one should buy a new house in town because Prop A means your taxes will go through the roof. So people who might like a bigger house are staying put because of taxes. I know another couple who built a house and were shocked by the tax bill. They are trying to sell it. So is another couple.
It might not be entirely visible, but there is concern about taxes, but no one wants to admit it.
But…the greenbelt will make property more expensive in the city, and if it weren’t for Michigan’s screwed up property tax system, that would help the city budget.
God, now that I really think about it, it’s a real mess. Property taxes. Who came up with Michigan’s stupid, stupid tax system?
—JennyD Jun. 13 '05 - 11:44PM #
I think the logic is basically the supply and the demand are fixed, regardless of the property tax, and the supply/demand dynamic sets the price of rents, not the fixed costs (taxes, maintenance, etc.) of maintaining a rental property.
—Scott Trudeau Jun. 14 '05 - 12:49AM #
Why is your rent $700 and not $450 or $500? There are other places in town that charge less for what you’ve got, no matter what you’ve got.
Because of two external forces that shape the priorities of people who have to rent as laid out helpfully above by Murph, (and to that I’d add that renters often have to move quickly, whereas landlords can afford to wait), and because looking for a place is a lot of unpaid work, you’re unlikely to enter into an equal relationship with a landlord (especially if they own more than one property).
Think about it this way: you’ve already shown that you will pay $700. Are you likely to move across town if your landlord keeps the rent the same? Even if his costs decrease? And if the majority of other landlords keep their capitalist inertia from overwhelming this sudden flush of cash from a drop in their property taxes, how likely is it that the consensus on what the market will bear will suddenly change for the advantage of the tenant?
In all, I think that you’re missing the motivation of landlords and ascribing more good will than the system could bear and still resemble the market we have.
—js Jun. 14 '05 - 02:12AM #
You seem to have missed my main point about Detroit’s income tax. That is, the central cities need to compete with their suburban neighbors and there are limits that they do not control but must pay heed to. No doubt, Detroit’s decline was complex but I maintain that the income tax, which was passed in Detroit’s hayday, did not help the situation. Now Detroit has dug itself into a nice big hole that is going to be really hard to dig out from. The income tax is a barrier to more middle class families either staying or moving in, but the city cannot afford to get rid of it. I still maintain that the City of Ann Arbor would see money flee to the Scio’s and Pittsfield’s even faster if we had an income tax. Personally, I like what Indianapolis did, the city and county are one and the same. Indiana also allows a local income tax only at the county level, a much better way to have a local income tax.
—Chuck Jun. 14 '05 - 05:55AM #
No, I think you’re just wrong about the income tax, which, by the way, was last increased during a very low point in Detroit’s economic life.
Even WITH the income tax as high as it is, I doubt there is any suburban middle-income family in Southeast Michigan which could not live cheaper in Detroit.
In other words, there is a steep economic incentive to move to the central city, but they choose not to do so for non-economic reasons.
Recently in the Detroit News, however, there was a piece about affluent families who own very nice houses in Detroit. In some areas, these houses have been rising in value, not to suburban levels, but to pretty significant numbers. Because Detroit’s property tax rates are extremely high, people with homes that approach “normal” values are paying startling sums in annual property taxes.
Combine all housing costs, and these families are still paying a lot less than they would for the same house in Royal Oak. Still, the kinds of homes that might be attractive to suburbanites come with tax bills which, in absolute numbers, probably seem scary.
If Detroit didn’t have an income tax, the only legal alternative would be to raise its high property tax rates even higher.
Much as it might be desired, there is no legal basis for a countywide income tax in Michigan. It is hard to imagine our legislature creating one, and it is even harder to imagine it being passed in a statewide referendum.
Moreover, Eight Mile Road is the county line. If Wayne County had a county income tax, anyone could move across the street to Oakland or Macomb counties to avoid it.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 14 '05 - 11:26AM #
In other words, there is a steep economic incentive to move to the central city, but they choose not to do so for non-economic reasons.”
Is that true, when you look at higher taxes and much higher insurance rates, the costs begin to balance, and when you consider very real quality of life issues—schools, roads, street lights, crime, garbage pickup, etc. When voluntary Detroiter Keith Owens is talking about giving up (citing, among other things, a pack of wild pit bulls that showed up in his front yard one day), it’s hard to make the argument to anyone to move into the city…
—Scott Trudeau Jun. 14 '05 - 01:49PM #
Whether it’s an income tax or a property tax, I like taxes levied at the county level (I had no problem voting for the countywide 1-mill special education millage.) Tell me Detroit would not be better off tax base wise if all of Wayne County were a single governmental unit like Indianapolis (My Liberal elitist ways make me cringe at the thought of giving a bunch of Hoosiers credit for anything, but here I must. Indianapolis spends about one-third the amount per capita on police services than Detroit!) Larry, let’s face it, you don’t want a situation where the rich people live in one city and all the poor and/or lower than average people live next door in another city. The income tax is only a small part of the Detroit story, but still, part of it. The people in the top 10% of the national income distribution are not going to move into Detroit in any big numbers. Another consideration you are not taking into account is what quality of life a given tax dollar will buy; there’s two sides to the value equation, what does it cost and what do I get for my money. I keep trying to make the point that local governments have to manage the value equation well or they face a flight of their most productive citizens which will ultimately hurt the poor the hardest. You don’t want to get yourself into the hole that Detroit has to manage in the first place. Detroit has a tax structure designed to tax poor people. The way things stand now, a person of means moving to Detroit is looking at paying a lot, but not getting much in return to show for it.
—Chuck Jun. 14 '05 - 04:47PM #
Keith Owens is not being taxed or priced out of the city. He’s talking about leaving because of noneconomic, quality of life issues. That was precisely my point! To describe Detroit’s problem in economic incentive terms is to misdiagnose it.
Chuck, you’re trying to change the subject, too. OF COURSE there are severe quality of life issues in Detroit which lead middle-class families to choose to live in the suburbs.
Yeah, Detroit would be better off if it didn’t get into this hole in the first place. I don’t agree that the income tax put it there. And anyway, here in real life, there’s no rewind button available, and there is zero likelihood of any kind of countywide tax system in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren. You and I would vote for it, and maybe others here, but we’d be in a tiny minority.
Ann Arbor and Detroit are NOT AT ALL similarly situated. Detroit has a deep stigma which depresses the value of property there; Ann Arbor’s prestige inflates its value. Detroit is a cheap place to live compared to its surroundings, and has been for 50 years, yet is continuously losing population and business; Ann Arbor is more expensive than adjoining areas, more so all the time, yet is growing.
Both Detroit and Ann Arbor have high property tax rates, but Ann Arbor has high rates AND high values, so that a standard house here pays a whole lot more property tax than the same house would just about anywhere else in Michigan.
Detroit has a 3% city income tax which may have hurt its image, but does not reverse the economic incentives vs. the suburbs. Ann Arbor would only be allowed to levy a 1% city income tax.
If you really want to convince me that Ann Arbor would hurt itself economically by shifting incrementally away from the property tax toward a city income tax, let’s talk about the other cities in the state with a 1% income tax.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 14 '05 - 08:41PM #
—Scott Trudeau Jun. 14 '05 - 09:01PM #
(and i grew up in detroit’s Mumford district. now, lou, show me some luuuuuuuv!!!!!!)
—peter honeyman Jun. 14 '05 - 09:59PM #
I think the main thing that put Detroit in the hole was the de-industrialization of the auto industry in Detroit. The auto industry has not added jobs in Detroit on net in about 30-40 years. Blatant racism is clearly a factor. But did the income tax help the situation? I bet it accelerated the exit of the middle class. My point is, it did not help the situation any and probably made a bad situation worse. I’ve looked at the population growth rates for Ann Arbor, Scio and Pittsfield and Scio and Pittsfield are gaining population rapidly while Ann Arbor population growth is flat. The 1% income tax with the property tax offset is designed to ensnare a politician’s favorite target: a taxpayer who can’t vote! The point is to tax UofM by taxing the payrole of the employees who don’t live in Ann Arbor, effectively. This will allow the city to spend more, but on what? Will the citizens of Ann Arbor really get that much more from the increased spending? I doubt it. What do local governments do? Let’s see, Police, Fire, Parks, Garbage Pickup, Bus Service, Summer Camps for Kids, Road Repair. All these services could be better, but are they really that bad off in Ann Arbor? I feel the situation is similar to the Giant Jail situation. When the county builds it the Judges will say, “hay, we have all this Jail space, let’s fill it up!” And then we are back to a shortage of Jail space, only with a higher expense base. The supply leads to the demand, and likewise, increased revenue will lead to increased expenses, not leaner, more efficient government. The City of Ann Arbor should levy the same taxes as the surrounding communities in amounts that are similar. The political battles should be over how the monies are allocated, but we should never create some huge, monsterous money eating bureacratic machine that’s in constant need of a money fix.
—Chuck Jun. 15 '05 - 02:40AM #
I strongly disagree with all that, including the assumptions underlying it, but I’m sure everybody is getting tired of this discussion.
—Larry Kestenbaum Jun. 15 '05 - 04:01AM #
In Ypsilanti Township, across the street from the City, I was paying $583 every 6 months for full coverage on a 98 VW Golf. After moving to Hamtramck, my insurance company wanted over $1300/6. When we sold our second car, the rate increased to over $1450 every 6 months. PLPD is still $750.
Homeowners insurance under the Michigan Basic program is very affordable; less than $400/yr. Insurance on the contents is not so cheap at around $900/yr for $20,000 in coverage.
The income tax in Detroit is actually somewhat less than 3% now due to a 1998 agreement to lower the tax to 2% over 10 years.
—Hillary Jun. 15 '05 - 04:58AM #
—Eric Lipson. Jun. 17 '05 - 03:52AM #
I’m now a Special Ed Teacher in Homewood, Illinois. I’ve been reading about all of your mom’s published books! Hope you are all doing well!
—Carol Gilbert Jul. 26 '05 - 03:54AM #
Wow, what a blast from the past! Great to hear from you. I share those fine memories of our familes’ get-togethers. I’d love to hear more about how you and your family are doing. This is probably not the right forum for it. I’m in the Ann Arbor phone book. Let’s try to talk.
—Eric Lipson Jul. 26 '05 - 02:51PM #