It looks like he put his own poison pill in it: requiring all city govt employees to live in the City. Nice idea, but impractical. The City would further make it difficult to attract and retain workers.

Before SRB throws Stokes under the bus where are her ideas to cut the property tax?
I know she needs to consult with her keeper MOM first.

I applaud Councilman Stokes for joining the ranks of Mayoral Candidates who are listening to the residents in Baltimore City and addressing the problem of our real estate tax rate. Whether this bill is feasible or not is not the point, the point is that Councilman Stokes is willing to attempt to fix a real and tangible problem that gives people reason to flee from the city, while Rawlings-Blake appears content with the status-quo which has lead to nothing but decline.

I live in Baltimore, in a very active and voter rich area, and the general consensus is that anyone attempting to lower our tax rate is getting our votes. Until Rawlings-Blake unveils a plan to lower property taxes for this next election I don't see her as a viable candidate.

Wow Joe, I guess I shoud be surprised by the ridiculous siplicity in your thought process, but I've stopped expecting much consideration going into people's thoughts on these boards. You create the spectre of people leaving the city because of taxes. This of course is the second cousin to the usual boogeymen of crime and schools. Of course to keep the city safe--witness the historic reductions in the level of crime, particularly violent crimes like murder--and improve the schools we need to maintain our level of financial commitment to the police and the schools. (And don't make the bloated school system argument as Dr. Alonzo has been quite agressive in restructuring the systems finances to squeeze out administrative costs, reduce teh excess amount of teachers, and change the compensation model for teachers to focus on results achieved.) So your position is, "damn the schools and the cops! I want to pay less in taxes!" Well, that's ok as a position I suppose, so long as you explain how you'd pay for it. I have a sneaking suspicion that if you told people you'd accomplish it by making schools worse and the city less safe by cutting the police department, most folks then would decide to hit the exits. SRB has been the only one talking about responsible governing and actually getting results. Taking on the police and fire unions over unaffordable long term health and pension commitments (not reducing the numbers of cops or cutting their pay), focusing on increasing efficiency in government services, maintaining dedication to crime reduction by supporting the effective policing strategies of the commissioner, and refusing to opt for quick and simple sounding "solutions" to the budget problems like raiding the rainy-day fund. There's pretty much only one serious candidiate in the race and it's SRB far and away.

Geof I agree with your other ways of tackling the city's huge deficit. But as someone who is looking to buy in Baltimore (in a safer area of the city), I agree with Joe. I will live in Baltimore by the time the election rolls around - and my vote will go to someone who will seriously tackle the issue of these ridiculously high property taxes. Yes - schools and crime are part of the infamous trifecta of issues in Bmore (and you can just box that trifecta depending on where you live, if you have kids, how much money you make, etc.)... But for Baltimore to be improve on a LONG TERM HORIZON, I think first we need some sort of promise that property taxes will decrease. Things will be painful for awhile, but that will ultimately attract more people to move into this great (parts) city - - which will ultimately increase the tax base, despite the decrease.

Baltimore Geof the level of taxing in Baltimore does not equal, nor comes close to the level of services
being provided for city residents. Idealogy has nothing to do with my discontent sir.

Somebody better do SOMETHING! I for one who takes care of my property as opposed to the other 98% that do not in this city, I am tired of the neglect even in so called "Healthy Neighborhoods".
I will be out of here in about 3-4 years which would be a shame for the area that I live in, due to my property being so beneficial due to all the eyesores around me. If the city would attack all the code violations and make the people pay or fix the properties they could close their so called gap! They might get someone else to pay the property tax but probably will not get someone that actually keeps it up properly.

Whoever comes up with a plan to lower property tax gets my vote!!

The lost property tax could be made up very easily by implementing three changes.

1. Non-profits & churches pay their fair share of property tax. Right now they pay zero, however they want their trash picked up and the police/firemen to come when there is an emergency. These services are not free and should not be given to churches and nonprofits at taxpayer expense.

2. Owners of vacant houses pay a yearly penalty of $5000. If it were no longer cheap or free to sit on a vacant house then those houses would be taken care of quickly.

3. The BDC and the city need to reform their way of selling property. It takes at least a year for the BDC to sell a property from the time they get it until the time it is sold. Most of these properties become BDC controlled for several years.

That would do more than offset the reduction in property tax.

Our city council's logic blows me away....

The tax credit “keeps a lot of us in our homes,” Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke said after the meeting.

So what you are saying Mary Pat is that we can't get rid of the homestead credit because the regular taxes are to high??? Hmmmm, maybe that is why Carl Stokes has made it the center of his campaign.

And these are the geniuses that are running the city.

I am getting quite bored with the argument that taxes cannot be cut without drastic cuts in education and public safety funding. This is just not the case.

By prudently reducing the tax rate over a fixed number of years, we can increase the assessed base, attract new residents, and build our business community. This would all result in a STRONGER and WEALTHIER Baltimore OVER TIME.

The economic difficulties we face today make this the IDEAL time for change. Any recovery will create new revenues that will only serve to help in the transition to the new tax structure. We have had only four or five non-crisis years in our budget over the last three decades. Our revenue model doesn't work. You can raise tax rates and cut spending and expect to grow the city over time.

Those who manage the status quo want you to think that failure is success. Losing another 4.6% in population over the last decade proves that what we are doing is failing. If Bill Cole, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the others in City Hall can show us how this is working, then vote for them. If they can't convince you that down is up and that failure is success, then consider one of the other options on September 13.

Aaron and SLL, I appreciate the insight, but your positions are no different than the usual voter position: you want everything, so long as you don't have to pay for it. A little background: I've lived in the city for over 16 years, originally moving here from Howard County. I'm married and have a child who is soon to be school-age. The area I live in has terrific elementary--and even middle--schools. If that were threatened by cuts because we irresponsibly cut taxes, I'd move. In a heart beat. The others in my area which have formed the backbone of growth in my neighborhood would likely do the same. Why stay if the schools aren't as good? Who cares if you pay the same taxes as the county if the schools are worse? And the police force isn't as good in a city where crime is more of a concern? Families are the lifeblood the city needs to sustain itself. Not childless 20-somethings who patronize bars and walk to their downtown office. (And I say that as a former member of that demographic.) Aaron, you can be as tired of economic reality as much as you want, but the fundamental truth is that if you enact a tax policy that leaves you tens of millions of dollars short every year--and the hope that maybe increased demand will pick-up your lost tax revenue--you've got to cut your expenses. It's not a false truth, it's a truth. Own it. City costs go to water/transportation, parks & rec (including libraries), police & fire, and schools, with the most going to schools and police & fire. That's the list. If Stokes thinks he's going to be able to go to the state to increase aid to make up for the short fall so the city can compete closer to suburban jurisdictions on tax costs, he's delusional. So as a concept sure, wouldn't we all love it if our tax bill was less (well, my own is pricey, but it's not crippling or something I obsess about--I just think of the of the schools I have in my neighborhood and the cops who respond quickly if I see something suspicious down the street) but you want something, you pay for it. Civic energy has gone a long way in my neighborhood, it's resuscitated areas formery cruised by prostitutes, druggies, and general lay-abouts. The schools are good, with strong test scores, and the cops have cleared away the trouble-makers. I wouldn't trade that for a lower tax bill if the cost was not as good schools or weaker police. It;s an easy choice really.

BaltimoreGeof, Your observations about voters who want something for nothing are right on. After all, it appears your main concern is having other people pay for your child's education.

I wish as you said: "City costs go to water/transportation, parks & rec (including libraries), police & fire, and schools, with the most going to schools and police & fire. That's the list." Unfortunately, the "list" has gone well beyond these basic services, which it should be limited to.

There is a lot of fat to cut if we had a City government with the conviction to do it. Check out the budget on-line.

I would seriously like someone/anyone to tell me why I pay city and county taxes when I clearly live in the city? Baltimore City...not Baltimore county. I'm not on no City/County line. And what should I do?? How do I find info about this??? THANX.

I agree with "john" "Joe" and "Scott". And YES, figure it out by now "geniuses" run the city. LOL

BTW, are any other candidates supporting property tax reductions?