My thoughts. The two problems are crime and taxes. Without a fundamental shift in political belief systems, these two problems will always exist in Baltimore.

Crime exists because it is not punished. Punish crime instead of letting people of the hook, and the crime will slow.

High taxes exist because you have to subsidize all those who are already subsidized by the federal government, i.e. welfare recipients. Also the government of Baltimore City thinks its wrong to make a decent living for your family without subsidizing a couple of other families.

The taxes in the city need to be lower than the county to get people to move back. And the crime needs to be lower in the city than the county to get people to move back. The problem with Baltimore, is the politicians care more about the "politics" rather than results.

When a city or government system is run unchecked by any other political belief systems nothing gets fixed. Image if GM never challenged Ford about 90 years ago; we'd all be driving Model T's. Competition is good!

It takes the people, not the government. Despite the negative press that Baltimore gets for, e.g., the crime rate, the problems are not city-wide. They are concentrated in areas where there is no sense of community, where there are abandoned houses, residents who do not unite out of fear, and parents who do not support their schools. Other neighborhoods in Baltimore are thriving because neighbors know each other, look out for each other, support their schools, call when they need city services, keep their surroundings clean, and create community. I lived in one of those neighborhoods for 13 years, then lived in a rural county because of remarriage, and am now back in the city in another cohesive neighborhood. I can walk to two parks, the art museum, the zoo, an organic farmers' market, and take the Metro to my job. When something happens in our little neighborhood, we are connected by email even while at work. Love it here!

Baltimore would benefit from a forward thinking city government that put economic revitalization a priority. The current approach of public-private partner ship is too ripe for corruption. And for what? Shopping malls and condos! These are not engines of economy. A long term view is to lift the educational level of the work force, and develop industries that can be sustained over the long term. Unfortunately, these are precisely the problems that this government has been paralyzed to change.

The decision to move into ANY older northern post industrial city (eg Baltimore) must be done for reasons other than the practical and rational.

It doesn't require an outright zealotry for modern urban living... but it's darn close.

Your lifestyle (hate that term) is the fulcrum that the merits are weighed over.

does anyone know what is the real-property tax rate for balto city?

All the property tax rates in Maryland are here: http://www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/taxrate.html

Baltimore's is $2.268 for every $100 of assessed value, according to the state.

Well as Mr Rational pointed out, you really need to want to live in an urban setting to move to any big city between DC and Boston.

But there are a few things Baltimore could do better to lessen/rearrange the tax burden in creative ways.

1. A 1% city sales tax should be added onto purchases within city lines. Exceptions could be made for groceries or non-luxury clothes of course, but for all other purchases the city needs the extra revenue. New York & Philly have added extra city sales taxes for years already and it helps shore up their budgets.

2. Work here, live here for all city employees, including Baltimore City Public Schools. This would need to be phased in over say 5 years, or perhaps on new hires. But the city cannot afford keep losing the tax revenue of its employees, and their spending power, to the County.

3. There should be some sort of commuter tax implemented on those who commute into the city to work. This is obviously not as politically feasible as the prior two ideas. But the very conceit, repeated throughout America, of an overburdened city whose tax base has deserted it to live just over the county line in the suburbs, is flawed and outmoded. NYC had a commuter tax or years which was a political hot button and ultimately got repealed. But the concept is fair and sound. Thousands make their living in Baltimore, use ts roads and public services, then commute to the County to escape paying their share of taxes. They should have to pay a small commuter tax to the city to help keep those services running.

Mr. Jones,
You have defined 3 very good ways to drive the city into complete dispair. 1) This will drive retail into the ground in any areas besides the inner harbor. If I were shopping for any big ticket item or planning a purchase of items available anywhere, I would choose the cheaper alternative as would most others. 2) If the city is having difficulty in recruiting qualified teachers etc. this would make the job that much harder. 3) This would completely drive businesses to the suburbs over a period of time. If the city is already struggling to attract businesses and workers, adding the additional burdon of costing even more would send those businesses and start-ups to another location.

There isn't an easy solution to Baltimore's problems, but taxing their way out isn't it. To attract people Baltimore must make the city a destination. To do that the city needs to 1st have a local governement that is not disfunctional. The city must also appear attractive. Let's face it, much of Baltimore is quite ugly.

As president of the Mid-Atlantic Real Estate Investors Association, I want to make it clear that the following comments are my personal thoughts and do not represent those of the Association.

I was born in Baltimore City and have lived here most of my life. As an investor, I often go to areas and look at properties in neighborhoods most people won't even drive through.

I am constantly distressed by the current condition of the city when I know what it was and what it could be.

There are several things needed that would set in motion a complete renewal of city life not just in Baltimore, but all similar cities in the northeast and midwest:

1. Learning from our experience with Prohibition during the last severe economic crises, the U.S. should legalize, regulate and tax ALL drugs (and yes, that includes heroin and cocaine among others).

This step will eliminate about 80% of the crime and reduce the homicide rate by a similar amount. People don't tend to kill each other over the making and distribution of alcohol as they did 80 years ago. Once drugs are legal, there would be no incentives for criminal activity.

The crime rate would not only be reduced in the U.S, but also internationally. From Mexico to Columbia to Afghanistan, thugs and terrorists would be deprived of their main source of funding when the huge profits disappear overnight.

In addition, legalization has the added benefits of helping out the balance sheets of our local and national governments by reducing the need for so much law enforcement infrastructure (police, courts and jails). And there would be a new revenue stream from the taxes that would be generated.

This idea may seem radical, but then so did the implementation and subsequent repeal of Prohibition.

2. The city must reduce the current property tax rate by 50% over the next 5 years.
Doing this would immediately bring new people into the city, driving up demand for city property. As more people move back into the city, the demand for businesses providing goods and services would increase creating a "virtuous cycle" of neighborhood renewal instead of a vicious cycle of decay as people abandon whole sections of the city to the criminals (see above for solving that problem).

3. The city should put all of its current inventory of vacant housing up for auction to the highest bidder. The current system is obviously not working.

The city's SCOPE program is a joke and would be laughable if not for the devastation it perpetuates. SCOPE houses sit on the MLS for months and years even as they are priced at many thousands below comparable properties.

In order to make sure a property is not sold to speculators, the city could impose restrictions that the property must be renovated (with all applicable permits) and inhabited (by an owner or renter) within 12-18 months.

Homeowners and investors would buy up the thousands of houses and within 5 year the new taxes coming in would more than make up for the 50% cut in the property tax rate.

Unfortunately, all of these solutions must be applied together. Selecting any one or two will not create the environment in which the city can once again be the kind of place where people will want to work, live and raise their families.

Suggestions about raising sales taxes or commuter taxes will only serve to drive more people and businesses out of the city. In a free market, where people can vote by moving, any jurisdiction that thinks it can tax its way to prosperity will find that economic reality has an entirely different outcome.

Mr. Smirks,

Half of the city is already in complete despair. While I can agree with you that taxing our way out of the problem is not, by any means, the only solution, presenting disproven knee-jerk conservative ideology, as you're doing, that any new taxes will cause ruin (particularly in a city which is halfway Beyond Thunderdome already) is just silly.

The city needs more money and it also needs to find a way to get its property taxes down in order to encourage new homebuyers/taxpayers to move here. I have presented some concrete ideas as to how to do this.

To counter your points:

1. A 1% sales tax hike is not going to make a difference in the retail sector. It doesn't in Philly (a city with very similar problems to our own) and it doesn't in NYC where the tax is 1.75% higher than in surrounding counties. People will not drive to the county for 1%. Plus the reasons for people to come into the city from the county to shop and spend money - specialty independent stores, entertainment districts etc are unique to the city. People will not reconsider patronizing them over 1%.

2. We desperately need city employee money to stay in the city. Plus having people policing our streets, administering services and teaching our children in the same community they live is a tremendous intangible incentive to improve all those services. As for your point of "Work here, live here" making it harder to find teachers who will work here, I ask you, how much harder could it get? We're talking about people working in some of the worst neighborhoods in the United States in incredibly hard jobs. Those who take these jobs must be doing it because they actually want to improve the city and living here will not dissuade them.

3. The third idea is, as I've noted, the most difficult to implement. I can't see Johns Hopkins Hospital or University relocating to Hunt Valley over it, but admittedly it could affect where some businesses set up shop. Perhaps a pan-Metro Area commuter tax could alleviate such a shift. But again this would be hard to pass through Annapolis.

In response to Alan's comment,

1. Legalization is not going to happen. It is politically impossible at this time in this country...especially regarding coke and heroin. Beyond that it is unconscionable to talk about legalizing coke and heroin for recreational purposes. The damage these drugs cause to people's lives is too great to let an idealistic, libertarian laissez faire policy exist toward them. Sure it would solve some of our problems. So would going around the city and killing every drug dealer you see. But neither of these methods have any place in a civilized society.

2. How do you propose the city make up the budget shortfalls that will ensue after cutting the property tax by 50%? The city is broke right now and you're talking about halving its property tax revenue with nothing to make up the difference? Do you know what this would mean to the crime rate and already low level of education? It's nice to pretend we don't need taxes and everyone will bloom and flourish without them, but then reality sets in.

3. Who is going to buy this vacant housing? The areas with the highest concentration of vacant housing in the city are amongst the worst neighborhoods in this country. You'd have to hold the auction at Sheppard Pratt and accept cigarettes as currency to have any hopes of selling these properties.

In response to Mr. Jones. . .

1. I didn't say that legalization of drugs was going to happen. I'm well aware of the political and economic forces with vested interests in seeing drugs remain illegal. Too many people make too much money from the status quo.

This was supposed to be about what it would take to turn around the city. It's apparent to me and many others that Drug Prohibition is the cause of many problems and a huge drain on the resources of the city (not to mention the state and national governments).

Your arguments against legalization are the same ones put up by the people who said that allowing legal sales of alcohol would ruin families and destroy society.

I think we can safely say that although alcohol causes problems, we don't see beer distributors shooting each other in turf battles. Nor do we have people robbing you for the money to feed their addiction to cheap wine.

The drug problem needs to be treated as the medical and social problem that it is and not a criminal problem.

This view is even shared by many law enforcement officials who bear the brunt of dealing with the problems of Prohibition. See LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).

2. As I said, these ideas will only work if implemented together.

The city is broke because it has taken on too many functions best left to the private sector and, through subsidies, encourages too many people to be unproductive wards of the state.

However, I can tell you that the current number of people employed by the city is too many, given that the population is about 65% of what it was 50 years ago. Yet almost no one would suggest that we close up any department and downsize the government to fit the current population. And that's before factoring in the increase in efficiencies that computers should address.

3. Almost every investor I know has the same dream. . .
To buy one or two blocks of properties (even in the worst areas) and rehab them into houses that families would be proud to live in.

The dream is to "anchor" an area and have other investors or homeowners come along when they see the rise in property values that comes with a more stable neighborhood.

But this is an almost impossible dream since the city has made it so difficult for the small investor to buy the vacant properties it owns.

These investors are not multi-millionaire developers and thus lack the connections that come with making big campaign contributions.

That's why you read about and see the big projects that are supposed to work miracles,but seldom address the plight of the people who actually live in the less glamorous parts of Baltimore.

The entire system is dysfunctional and we are simply seeing the results of many years in which politicians have ignored the elementary laws of supply and demand, cause and effect.

Cities can only regain their health to the degree that the leaders recognize that they don't have the power to command an economy to bend to their desires, well-intentioned though they may profess to be.

Let's be clear on one thing. Alcohol is in no way, shape or form the same thing as cocaine or heroin and applying a cookie cutter comparison to policies regarding their restrictions is wrong. Nobody can question that alcohol has destroyed many lives and has harmful effects. But the damages caused by alcohol pale in comparison to those caused by cocaine and heroin. This is why there is no industrialized country on earth that permits the usage of heroin or coke...not even The Netherlands. But again, as you know, this discussion is academic, as no change is going to take place on this front in our lifetimes.

As Mr Jones points out: "But again, as you know, this discussion is academic, as no change is going to take place on this front in our lifetimes"

Which brings us back to where we started.

The question remaining is how many of the OTHER efforts required are similarly not going to take place in our lifetimes or worse will be mismanaged as atrociously as all the other band aid programs have been over the last 40 years.

Sadly, I believe that all we can expect is just more of the same.

Last one out be sure to turn off the lights.

I think one of the things the government needs to look at is the income limits for assisting buyers. Quite frankly I think they are too low for encouraging people to move to the city. Baltimore does not need more low income residents, it needs higher income residents. As such, the city should be helping anyone who wants to move to the city and establish a primary residence there do so(and here there needs to be computer checks - if someone says it's for a primary residence but files their taxes differently for say 5 years hit them with a big fine). I am not saying don't assist low income buyers, but rather to extend the range to entice higher income people to the city. Higher income means more income tax revenue, more people with disposable income to upgrade their properties, etc.

I think another thing that the city could do is to encourage greater ownerhip of the city by it's residents. In this case, I think those guilty of minor infractions - both minors and adults - should be put to work planting flowers, picking up trash, painting over graffiti, painting class rooms, clearing empty lots, etc. By increasing the number of citizens with an active role in keeping the city nice, even if it was not totally a voluntary choice to keep the city in good shape, you create positive synergy and a culture where vandalism, littering, etc. are frowned upon.

Lower taxes, more people moving to Balt. More taxpayers, greater overall revenue.

The neighborhoods surrounding the harbor, Federal Hill, Fells Point, Harbor East & Canton should secede from the rest of Baltimore. This way the taxes from the only promising areas of the city will not go down a rathole.

"The neighborhoods surrounding the harbor, Federal Hill, Fells Point, Harbor East & Canton should secede from the rest of Baltimore. This way the taxes from the only promising areas of the city will not go down a rathole."

It's attitudes like this throughout the city and the state that really hold the city back. I don't know if this is veiled racism, blatant classism or both, but regardless of how you want to brand this ignorance, it's not helpful.

First off, there are good neighborhoods throughout the city, beyond where the tourists and county people go around the Harbor.

Second, in order to actually accomplish something in this city, we're going to need to show a little solidarity, for once, which rises above all the racial and economic barriers that have torn Baltimore apart.

A prime example of how backwards some folks have it in this city is the "Save the Park in Roland Park" brouhaha which was just recently resolved with Keswick canceling its plans to develop a retirement home in a beloved park of the Roland Park community. So much effort and political action was expended over a park where kids go sledding while right down the road are some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the United States. If people actually had better priorities regarding the problems of the city as a whole, we might actually change for the better.

Mr. Jones,

By no means am I a conservative. I provided my statements to show that localities with different tax rates will suffer consequences and your ideas are knee jerk tax and spend. I agree that more money is needed to solve Baltimore's problems, but there is no way MD citizens will support them unless there is some progress shown so investment in the city isn't the same thing as throwing money down a hole.
Your short-sighted ideas would simply further cripple the city. Your 1st 2 ideas would produce minimal revenues. The last idea might make a tiny bit of sense if you have people commuting from another tax locality, but they are almost 100% Marylanders. Do you really think that the counties would support this idea as opposed to MD providing more up front assistance? Maybe they would because they may gain the revenues from businesses that relocate. The idea of a commuter tax is ridiculous anyway as most taxes go to education and public safety - two areas that commuters affect the least.

Dear Mr. Smirks,

My ideas are far from knee jerk tax and spend. They do however derive from the realization that the city badly needs to hold onto the revenue it brings in at present while finding some way to bring down its sky high property taxes. So while we can agree "that localities with different tax rates will suffer consequences" I emphasize that the property tax is a much greater impediment to new home ownership in the city than a 1% sales tax hike, and the trade off is a good way to bring some relief to homeowners.

You are quick to leap to an uninformed judgment that the revenue brought in by my first two ideas would be "minimal". I challenge you to give me an estimate to back that up. My rough estimate is that a 1% sales tax increase would bring in between $80-$100 Million extra per year to the city budget, or between 2.8 - 3% of the current city budget. This is not going to fix everything but it is a start. The estimate on what bringing more city employees within city lines could mean to tax revenues is too complicated for me to do in this sitting, but I challenge you to disprove how, I would guess, at least 10,000 new gainfully employed families moving into the city would not be a good thing for both the community and tax base, not to mention property values, local businesses etc.

Also, when you're done naysaying, try to provide some actual, concrete positive ideas that could solve something. Lord knows we have enough members in the Baltimore area chapter of the Can't Do It Club already.

True revitalization of Baltimore is out of reach unless a radical shift in thinking occurs. The prevailing ideology that has had a stranglehold on the city for decades must be booted out. For too long it has catered to those who scream the loudest and ignored the people who really want to make things work. For too long it's focused on the immediate gratification of vote hoarding while treating serious long-term issues like hot potatoes nobody wants to get stuck with on their watch.

Reduce taxes across the board, encourage new modern building developments for various family and income sizes, put in more fancy sidewalks and light posts, build a new elevated or subterranean transit system, cut services except for the essentials (police, fire, medical, transit), punish crime with harsher sentences, make city business more transparent, and create some sort of landmark that uniquely enriches Baltimore on top of the current attractions. The city needs more appeal to people and businesses. Baltimore needs to kick the parasites to the curb, pick itself up, and look to the future.

Unfortunately, unless that radical shift in thinking occurs, people will continue to live in a city where they all think they're stuck on a single path without hope of an alternative. It's a path where taxes and policies are used to prod people in certain directions rather than encourage and invite with opportunity. It's a path where crime and corruption run rampant and unchecked. Citizens are looked at like numbers in a herd that need to be corralled instead of agents of prosperity.

I wouldn't live in the city even if I was paid to be there. I wouldn't work in Baltimore even if the best jobs were there. Going into the city is like asking to be mugged, have your car urinated on, or to be harassed by a stressed out harbor cop. Nobody wants that sort of experience, but that's synonymous with Baltimore from where I come from.

Dear Patapsco Jones,

You Sir are what is commonly known as a bad economist. You don't take into account the food chain effect or secondary and subsequent effects.

You said in your March 31, 2009 5:39 PM post, "My rough estimate is that a 1% sales tax increase would bring in between $80-$100 Million extra per year to the city budget..."

And what would the long term impact from increasing the sales tax 1% have on the city?

I would like to quote from the famous arthur Henry Hazlitt in his book Economics in One Lesson,

"...there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups (Hazlitt chapter 1 page 1)."

Good Day,

Kevin

Wow - lots of strong opinions here.

I think the city should better encourage and reward those who provide service to the city, but not require residency for employement. As an incentive for city employees who are residents, I think there should be more scholarships available to both those city employees and their children at state and local colleges - and these should be based on performance, both academic and job.

City residency shouldn't be a criteria for employment, in my opinion, as fire fighters, police, etc. have spouses who might have jobs in the burbs and those spouses might actually be the higher wage earners so it would make sense to locate closer to their job. I would encourage Mayor Dixon to to literally ask each of the local colleges and universities to donate at least two scholarships each to city employees or their dependents who also live in the city.

I'm in favor of Baltimore getting a new landmark or attraction, but please, not more at the inner harbor. Someplace else, and with free parking. The science fiction museum out in Seattle is too far away. How about another one right here.

Must be Jonesing - Even the optomistic blue ribbon panel places sales tax revenue @ $64 million and that doesn't include the reduction of sales due to a recession (of which sales tax is less stable) or the reduction in purchases due to the higher tax (i.e. cars).

As far as employees living in the city, there is no way 10000 employees will relocate to the city at one time as you would have to grandfather those who can't resell their homes for a loss. There are approx. 15000 city employees and I would guess that 1/2 already live in the city so your numbers appear a little high. I would also venture to guess that Baltimore would discover, like every other city that has had a homestread rule that they don't work as it actually is too hard to recruit good employees. DC had one and when 1/2 of their applicants for the police force had criminal records they recinded the law. See 1980s. Thankfully some have tried some of your outdated ideas and found serious flaws in them so we won't repeat them again.

Baltimore must change the culture of the city by reducing crime and grime and give the citizens that live there services. Provide incentives to locate grocery stores in the city like the one in Waverly. Continue selling houses to rehabbers like the program on Patterson Park's north side. Develop more jobs downtown with mass transit options through tax breaks. Foster a partnership with the state instead of the advisarial relationship that swelled during Ehrlich.

First to Kevin,

If you're going to criticize my numbers, come up with some of your own. I don't claim to be an economist, but it goes without saying that the city could use additional revenue to offset property tax hikes and the sales tax is, in many ways, one of the fairest taxes around in that those who can afford to pay more shoulder more of the burden and those who can't, don't. While I'm sure we're all very impressed at your ability to quote a first year economics textbook, you fail to provide any support as to how a 1% increase in the sales is going to hurt business in the city. Have you ever gone even 3 feet out of your way for a 1% Off Sale advertised at a store? Neither has anyone else, and the same principle applies in reverse.

As to the Smirker:

"Even the optomistic blue ribbon panel places sales tax revenue @ $64 million and that doesn't include the reduction of sales due to a recession (of which sales tax is less stable) or the reduction in purchases due to the higher tax (i.e. cars)"

Where do you get your figures? What is "the optomistic blue ribbon panel"? Also can you break down what you're talking about and write it a little more clearly? I'm not trying to be a smartass, but you don't provide any context to your numbers or your train of thought.

I'll tell you where my numbers come from, and I warn you they are, as I stated above, very rough, due to not knowing where easily accessible data is for this on the web (and if you know a better place please tell me). The State of Maryland projects to bring in approximately $3 Billion in Sales tax revenue this year - that's with the recession - as listed on the Comptroller's website. I simply took this number and divided per capita over the population of the state, then divided it by 6 to bring it down to a 1% sales tax estimate figure. Now, obviously, there is a lot of poverty in the city, but I figured this is offset to a large degree by the dining, entertainment and tourism revenue that is not present in the counties.

Your numbers are way off on City employees. There are 26,400 employees between Baltimore City and Baltimore Public Schools of which I would say at least half live in the city already, so my estimate is conservative, not high. As for your point about it being hard to find good employees with Work here/Live here, you need to wake up. This rule rule works fine in Philly. Simply because the 80's government of DC, run by a convicted coke user, couldn't make something work right doesn't mean the policy is bunk. Also public sector jobs are more valuable now than they have been in years and there is no reason, given the depths of the current crisis, to believe that is going to change anytime soon. It is true that 10,000 families would not move into the city at once from Work here/Live Here, nor should the city encourage a hard implementation of the policy. I should have specified that that number would move in over time in a phased in program - as I said above, like a 5 year thing or on new hires etc.

Seriously though, it's a little disingenuous, to put it nicely, that you're criticizing my ideas, which have worked in other, nearby cities - Philadelphia, New York - while offering up as the answer to our problems opening Grocery Stores and trying to set up a housing rehabbers organization in the midst of a housing market collapse. (BTW, Newsflash: the Patterson Park CDC just went bankrupt.) You also include "Develop more jobs downtown with mass transit options through tax breaks." How? You're aware mass transit options cost money right? Tax breaks mean the City has less money. So how does a tax break build the Red Line or buy more buses? Don't mail it in, Smirks. If you put as much thought into some real solutions (and no Giant Food does not qualify) for this city as you did into criticizing others ideas, we might get somewhere.

I must weigh in on the conversation. I am a happy new Baltimore homeowner. We moved here from DC just over a year ago and love this city. We are just finishing renovating a beautiful townhouse near Charles Village with the help of Healthy Neighborhoods, a great pro-revitalization program that more people should know about. What we love about Baltimore is the strong sense of place, the lack of arrogance and pretension, the great variety of neighborhoods, the friendliness of the people, and the great real estate to be found here!

In terms of what will revitalize Baltimore, more programs like Healthy Neighborhoods which encourage people to get in and re-create beauty block by block would be a great start.

Jonesing- Bad ideas don't get you anywhere. That is my point. Perhaps there are no easy answers and that is why the city is in the funk it is. The ideas behind transit and revitalization of neighborhoods are based on state assistance. Don't you know that the state runs the Maryland Transit Administration? My numbers were from the Baltimore City Blue ribbon panel on lowering the property tax. A simple google search would provide the numbers as opposed to some fuzzy math as you present. The # of city employees came directly from the Baltimore City web page.

BTW New York recinded it's commuter tax and Philadelphia is hardly a poster child for prosperity. It's economy never reached the heights others did in the 90's, they just had their newspapers go bankrupt, many large businesses located in NJ and start-ups are non existant. Please tell me how Philadelphia and New York are such good examples of a commuter tax? Another place that has a commuter tax - Pittsburgh. Spin their economy for us please.

Thanks for the referral to the Blue Ribbon Report. The Local Option Sales Tax estimate on their report is indeed at $64 Million. So it is less than my admittedly fuzzy math estimate. But what's important here after looking over their report is that this is highest projected revenue generating idea which alone would reduce the current property tax by over 10%. I repeat over 10%. Now, let's combine ideas. Let's say we were to lure more of your beloved Giant Foods, but actually think bigger and expand it to all Big Box stores to the city, so people don't have to drive to the County to shop, and up the sales tax 1%. Then we might actually start getting somewhere.

Your numbers are accurate on the number of City employees but you're not taking into account Baltimore City Public Schools, which is also part of my Work here/Live here suggestion.

I'm well aware New York State, not City, rescinded the NYC commuter tax. I was living there at the time and I included that info on my first post above. I also never said either NYC or Philly are good examples of a commuter tax (as I know NYC doesn't have one). What they are good examples of is a higher local sales tax shoring up budgets within neighboring cities and Philly is a good example of a successful Work here/Live here for city employees. The Philly economy is certainly not perfect but this program has not caused the doom & gloom throughout their city hiring that you predict for Baltimore.

I didn't predict doom and gloom, just that your suggested policies make the city worse, not better. I agree that more retail is a good idea, and the way to get it into the city is NOT to tax it more. Perhaps a better work here live here idea would be to provide incentives instead of completly resticting employees as the negative consequences are too high. Anyway, both ideas are better than the commuter tax, which as an urban planner, I believe is devestating to a city long term.

I'll just close this (hopefully) with reiterating what I wrote above regarding a 1% city sales tax. Have you ever gone even 3 feet out of your way for a 1% Off Sale? Neither has anyone else, and the same principle applies in reverse. Psychologically, people are more forgiving of a small sales tax increase than the sticker shock of having to double their property tax bill.

There really are problems with the sales tax increase you propose. There is the psychological feeling that you shouldn't have to pay more for something elsewhere. It is true that if I was @ the Inner Harbor for the day and I saw something I wanted, I may buy it, but if I had a large purchase like a car, I'd rather buy it across the line than pay the $250-$300 it would cost for the privilege to purchase in the city esp since I don’t live in the city. Cars and other big ticket items are a large chunk of the anticipated "windfall" and without them the return would be much less. Think cigarette tax. The tax receipts are always less than anticipated as people either quit, smoke less or go elsewhere for their purchases. Come to think of it, if smokers are willing to buy cartons of cigarettes in other states to save $.50 a pack, why wouldn't shoppers go elsewhere for large or often purchased items? To address your last sentence. If the same people were responsible for the entirety of the purchases that are suffering from the burden of high property taxes and they had no other shopping locations from which to choose, I would agree. Hey, maybe the property tax would be less if 2/3 of the city properties weren't shells of little or no value. If the state really wants to help Baltimore they should limit development to areas with existing infrastructure first. When people move to the city as they were recently doing when housing prices in the suburbs were extremely high, provide them with services. Sorry I don't have any plans to turn the city around in 1-5 years, but any idea that has any validity will take time. Too bad in a recession that time is greatly extended.