Jamie,

Great group of articles -- some of the best investigative reporting I've seen in the Sun in a long time. Props to you and Scott.

Delegate Rosenberg's sliding scale is completely unworkable. The best solution would be to do a revenue neutral assessment re-set for every property in Baltimore City, with any increase in gross revenue lowering of the tax rate. Then, the State should implement an income tax credit for property taxes that would apply to any amount over a percentage of a household's adjusted gross income for their principal residence (say 3% or 5%). The value of the tax break would be capped at $5,000 per household, so that the million dollar houses would be excluded.

Under this plan, it your income was $50,000, any amount of property taxes you paid over $1,500 (3%) or $2,500 (5%) would be credited back to you on your income tax refund. This would essentially make Baltimore a much more middle-class friendly place to live. The Homeowners Tax Credit already protects the poorest City residents.

And finally, the whole break would be phased out in steps to zero once Baltimore's tax rate achieves a rough parity (say 125%) of that of its suburban neighbors.

Evan

The only way this is going to get fixed without causing riots is by lowering the overall city tax rate to compensate for any increases in tax payments for those under the act. You need to meet in the middle, otherwise this charade is just an excuse to raise the tax rate for a good chunk of the population. My worry is that city hall will say they will use the revenue to reduce rates and then we will coincidentally have a "surprise" dire budget deficit where we need to use the funds for the "budget emergency" or some other crap.

The split-rate property tax bill needs to be re-introduced in the MD Legislature this year, with no interference from the Baltimore folks this time. The owners of vacants use the same City services we all use, yet they pay far less than most homeowners...simply due to the lack of improvements made to their properties.

Bmore Slumlord Watch,

A point that has never been addressed directly either by you, or your supporters:

The city government already owns 25% of all the abandoned residential property in the city. They are very difficult to buy from, i.e. they do a very bad job of disposing of the property they already own. Your plan would only make matters worse by turning privately owned abandoned property into publicly owned abandoned property, in doing so becoming a direct liability on the city, as opposed to an indirect liability on the city, and increasing the barriers to the property ever becoming viable.

Regarding Jamie's article, nice piece, good points, we've hashed many of them within discussion threads here, I fear it will be used as a tool to increase revenues, rather than a revenue neutral adjustment of tax bills towards equality, or even true income progressivity.

You think Creig Northrop will do another interview with you now? Let the expert tell us how great a time it is to buy. Just tell him I have a home I am trying to sell and I would like some creative financing. You think he would help?

Jack, I'm guessing you read this story: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-bz-creig-northrop-lawsuit-20111219,0,3563255.story

Josh, you're assuming none of the owners of vacants would pay the tax - a lot of them DO pay their property taxes, as they're waiting for that 'big payoff' someday. Everyone thinks their property is worth a fortune...yes, even slumlords.

It is a reasonable assumption to make. The reason these properties sit abandoned is fairly simple: a cost benefit analysis reveals that the cost to renovate exceeds the benefit from selling or renting. To increase the cost further would only tilt the scales towards tax sale.

Prudent policy would be to tilt those scales towards renovation by decreasing the cost to renovate, much of it city imposed through the permitting process which represents "double licensure," that is, the tradesman who does the work must be licensed, but then his work must be licensed as well.

Much of the problem is due to a broad backdrop of issues that is beyond the narrow scope of property tax policy, but tilting the marginal analysis against renovating is counterproductive to solving a problem virtually all of us agree exists, as well as agree should be solved.

Regarding that backdrop, Bmore suffers from the basic problem of cronyist, regressive economic policy that favors the biggest and the richest, often transferring wealth to them directly (Cordish, Legg Mason, Bozzuto, State Center, Ed Hale, Angelos...), while simultaneously either outlawing, or impeding entry level entrepreneurship through government imposed entry barriers.

The great discrepancies in property taxes in Baltimore City have little or nothing to do with the homestead credit. I am a property manager and have managed several properties in the city. Two identical rowhomes, both registered as rental properties, with the same square footage inside and out, same floorplan, built by the same builder two blocks from each other have very different tax bills. One house has property taxes of less than $800 a year, while the other house has property taxes of more than $2200 per year.

Jim, do you mean the homes have very different assessed values? (That should be the only reason for a difference in tax bills, assuming neither of the properties is receiving any sort of tax credit.)

I'd be interested to know the addresses of those properties.

Maybe I missed it, but nowhere in all of the articles did I see how people who have undeserved homestead status and credits can go about getting the situation resolved on their own, without the drama. Not filling out the form to request the credits was supposed to have nixed them since 2008, but that has not been the case. Barring a change in status, once awarded, credits have remained, whether they were requested or not. Admittedly, self-reporting is not as titillating as hours of investigating, cross-referencing and exposing. But it is far cheaper, potentially faster, and could easily be a cost effective part of the equation.

Re: "The owners of vacants use the same City services we all use" might not be totally true. After all, they're vacant, and if no one is regularly there to use them, fewer of some services could be required. Trash collection, water and sewer services come to mind.

magic, property owners who discover that they're getting a homestead credit they don't qualify for can call the state Department of Assessments and Taxation to request that it be taken off. What I don't know is what will happen to someone who's been getting it for years without being eligible -- might the jurisdiction try to collect back taxes with penalties? Possibly. The city is doing that now when it finds ineligible owners.

The 2007 law that requires people apply for the homestead credit set a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline for anyone who already owned at that point. So it won't be until the tax year starting July 1, 2013 that credits will disappear because of lack of an application.

I think that there are many other reasons for differences in taxes, other than the Homestead Credit

On many blocks in Baltimore[especially in "gentrified" areas like Canton,Fed Hill,Fells Point,ect, there are vast differences in home values .

One house on a block may be occupied.But is "Unrehabbed". So its value might only be a fifth or a sixth of the value of a high end rehab .And there are many levels of rehabs. Different levels produce different prices and values.

this sort of thing probably happens in most cities. But i think Baltimore is especially prone to it. On my own block in Highlandtown, all of the houses are the exact same size. But some houses have been rehabbed.And others havent.My own was unrehabed.And i paid $45,000 for it.A year later, someone bought a very nicely rehabed house on the block for $320,000. Thats a huge difference in price for two houses that are the exact same size.And is entirly attributable to the scale of rehab.A year ago two rehabed houses were sold on my block.One wasnt a great rehab.And sold for $140,000.The other was a very good rehab job.It sold for $250,000.Once again, a large difference in price,due to the difference in the quality of the rehab

Pete, differences in the homes themselves is a very common reason for tax differences, and it seems reasonable and fair to me. That's why I only looked at homes with very similar assessed values. (Now, homeowners may argue that their assessment or their neighbor's assessment is wrong, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)