Rolley rolls out plan to cut property taxes
Mayoral candidate Otis Rolley unveiled a plan Tuesday that he says would cut property tax rates for most homeowners by more than half in a decade.
Rolley's plan would keep property tax rates at current levels for commercial properties, including rental homes and apartments, and dramatically increase rates for vacant plots and buildings. He would also tax homes worth more than $200,000 at a slightly higher rate-- but only on the portion of the home's value that exceeds $200,000.
Rolley said that the increased revenue from blighted buildings would compensate for some of the revenue lost by the tax cuts to residential properties. He said he would also trim to city government, but did not specify which cuts he would make.
"There is enough fat within [city government] to enable us to do what we need to do," he said.
Rolley, the city's former planning director, is the third candidate to release a detailed plan to cut property taxes.
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake introduced a proposal last week that would reduce property tax rates for homeowners by 9 percent over nine years.
Former Greater Baltimore Board of Realtors vice president Joseph T. "Jody" Landers has unveiled a plan that would model Baltimore's tax structure after the District of Columbia, where vacant and blighted properties are taxed at much higher rates.
State Sen. Catherine Pugh has pledged to cut the rate in half in four years, but has not detailed the specifics of her plan.
The city's property tax rate, which is more than twice that of surrounding counties, has become a key issue in the mayor's race, which, in heavily Democratic Baltimore, is all but decided by the September primary.
Rolley said that he would put his plan on the city's ballot, so that it could not be discontinued at the whim of a future mayor. He hopes that new residents will be drawn to the city with the promise of forthcoming tax cuts.
Rolley would create five different rates at which properties would be taxed. Owner-occupied homes worth less than $200,000 would be taxed at $1.10 per hundred dollars of assessed value, after a decade of gradual reductions. .
Homes worth more than $200,000 would be taxed at $1.75, but only on the portion of the value that exceeds $200,000.
Commercial properties and vacant, but well-tended homes, would be taxed at the city's current rate for all properties-- $2.268. Blighted vacant lots would be taxed at $5 and blighted homes would be taxed at $10.
Rolley said he would lobby General Assembly to allow the city to tax different classes of properties at different rates; Rawlings-Blake would also need the state legislators to do the same.
But Rolley's plan to tax homes at $200,000 at a higher rate could be complicated by a provision of the state constitution called the "uniformity provision."
In 1977, then- Attorney General Francis Burch issued an opinion in response to a proposal from Gov. Marvin Mandel to tax properties at various rates. Burch wrote that the varied tax rates could cause a "uniformity problem," and that "an argument might be made that the tax liability is not uniform with respect to property value."
Dan Friedman, the attorney general for the general assembly, said that this portion of Rolley's proposal could require a state or city referendum.
Rolley's campaign manager Dan Fee said Rolley planned to advocate for the laws to be changed.
"Otis believes that the toughest change isn't a change in the law, but a change in people's belief that Baltimore's best days are behind it," he said.
Steve Hanke, a Johns Hopkins University economics professor, praised Rolley's dramatic cuts, but said that the plan was overly complex.
"His program is way too complicated," he said. "If you do economic reforms, this is not the way to redesign them."
But, Hanke, who has advocated for sharply dropping the city's overall property tax rate, said he preferred Rolley's proposal to Rawlings-Blake's.
"Rolley has clearly diagnosed the problem correctly," he said.
Comments
Are you kidding? Otis is just jumping on the proprty tax reduction band wagon.
Any candidate including Mayor Rawlings-Blake that is promising gradual rate reduction over 9 or 10 years is a farse.
The owner occupied tax rate needs an immediate reduction with immediate increases for vacant properties both residential and commercial.
My vote will go to the candidate with such a plan and promise to implement it.
Posted by: Buddy K | July 27, 2011 9:34 AM
Hey Buddy K, we all know you live in the county now. You had your property in The Moorings listed for rent on Craigslist for the past two years. How about paying back those homestead credits that you wrongfully claimed?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 27, 2011 12:10 PM
Rolley's tax plan seems entirely sensible. I wish I could say the same for his plan for the schools. I will not vote for any candidate who pushes a voucher system. Aside from being unworkable, vouchers undercut public education, which--to my mind at least--is the backbone of democracy. Studies have repeatedly found that their is no statistically significant improvement in the performance of students who receive vouchers to attend private schools, and yet conservatives continue to push them as a fix to the problems in education. Well, Mr Rolley would do well to note that Baltimore is not a conservative city. Right now it seems like he is throwing out any proposal which he thinks might imbue him the sheen of a reformer. Some of those proposals make a lot of sense, others like vouchers and privatizing city services, don't. Frankly, I'm seeing a lot of SRB signs in neighborhoods which I would think Rolley would need to win. The mayor may not be a visionary leader, but she has proven herself to be competent, and there is no evidence that she is corrupt. After the last few administrations, that is probably enough to endear her to a lot of city residents. If Rolley wants to unseat her, he needs to focus in on some of these issues, drop some of the others, and campaign twice as hard as anyone else. As it is, it seems that he is grasping at straws.
Posted by: CharmCityLights | July 27, 2011 1:10 PM
@charmcitylights. Not sure if you live in the city and have a child that is entering middle school. It always amazes me how many people are opposed to vouchers as some evil thing, yet if given a choice would NEVER send their child to any middle school in the city. NOT ONE. As a parent of two, homeowner and a woman LIVING in the city, not only is Rolley's education plan refreshing, he offers real ideas with real plans. Not some sort of farce, made-up, "reformer" message. Unlike SRB, he actually talks to everyday folks to gather opinions and inform his policies. Ask any parent in the city with a 5th grade student, WHO can NOT afford a private school, if they'd accept a voucher for their child to attend a better-performing, PRIVATE school, and I'm sure you'll hear a thundering YES. Many of you education folks kill me with your "education performance" language yet are the first to have your child attend a "private "school or some of newly created charter school in hopes that these are better options for your child. Tell me, what makes your children BETTER? For once,CONSIDER, being amongst the majority population, that lives BELOW the poverty line and are forced to send their children to FAILING schools. ASK them (the target population) their thoughts on choosing failing schools or having real options. Who cares about a study, I'm talking about real live PEOPLE.
Posted by: Sheila | July 28, 2011 7:11 AM
CharmCityLights misunderstands two key points:
1)Rolley supports vouchers for a very small number of kids--those in our lowest performing middle schools. Kids in these schools are not getting any kind of education at all. It is morally unacceptable to force them to be in these schools that we all know 100% cannot provide them with anything that resembles an acceptable education. Giving them another alternative is only fair. How many kids do you have in those failing and violent schools?
2) The mayor may be doing a competent job, but it's the job of managing the ongoing decline and fall of Baltimore City. If we don't act to reverse population decline right now we are going to face a series of budget crises that are going to make our current woes look like fun. Comptently cutting the budget and raising taxes to meet the growing needs of our failing infrastructure without radically growing our population and economy is not a recipe for long-term success. It's irresponsible and reckless management of our long term future. She has to go.
Posted by: G. Frangler | August 1, 2011 8:52 AM