A look at what's going on in Trinidad, on H Street, and in the larger area north of Capitol Hill.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tax Hike for Vacants?
Some members of the Council want to raise the vacant tax rate from $5 per $100 in accessed value, to $10 per $100. Read stories on the topic from the Examiner, and DCist.
18 comments:
Anonymous
said...
THe current rate $5/100 is already well above the occupied rate $.88/100 (before the various exemptions). The problem that needs to be addressed is that DCRA is dragging their feet in designating properties vacant to begin with. Also, there are a number of loopholes that speculators and developers use to game the system and stay at the lower rate. All of those 'for lease' signs along 'H' (on properties that are not even remotely habitable) are no accident - that's the most commonly abused loophole.
Viceroy, call Tommy Thomas. It isn't simply about the loopholes, it's also about the fact that the vacant property list is totally inaccurate, and that even the clearly still vacant properties that are on the list aren't all being taxed at the higher rate. So how about we raise the rate AND enforce the existing law?
All of the vacant houses remaining in close proximity to my house are owned now by DC. The proper application of the tax rate has encouraged private owners to do something but DC continues to drag its feet. There are 4 homes that I can see from my house that are owned by DC.
I think enforcement is more the key than anything else. I've reported the vacant next to me for a year, even had an inspector come out because of violations. It's been vacant for over 4 years, but still isn't on the list. If us mere mortals are doing what we can to get properties listed, but the government ignores us, then they need to fix that first.
Does anyone know when a house that's up for sale becomes an abandoned building? There's a house very near mine that's been on the market for 2 1/2 years. They're asking about $200,000 more than it could possibly be worth and it's just sitting there.
Regarding the loophole about the "for lease" exemption, Councilmember Wells had a new requirement added that for a property owner to get a "for lease" exemption, you must have a valid Certificate of Occupancy and it also sets a cap on the amount of time that exemption is valid: only one 8 month period.
As I recall, Tommy Wells had a similar political gambit with fireworks: there are strict laws already on the books; the laws aren't enforced; people complain; so Wells says we should make the laws stricter. This seems like classic politicking to me. We should hold these guys's feet to the fire and say, look, Tommy, don't take credit for "doing something" unless you actually address the problem. Like enforcing the laws in place and making sure the District sells off properties that it is leaving vacant.
i've invested a bunch of $$ to keep it secure, and am slowly renovating it.
why should i be taxed higher than the goofballs that just board up houses.
your cute arguments sound great, but if any one of you actually bought a second property and tried to fix it up, there are some little 'loopholes' you should consider.
you want to tax my second property at a "vacant" rate (which might house my mom, once i'm done). go for it. if that proves to be the case, i might just have to not play nice.
there should be some amenities for people that don't have a lot of money, but are trying to revitalize homes that were built last century.
think just a little bit more than you already think you are thinking.
it's a complex scenario.
before folks urge legislation, THINK.
don't just react.
it's a bit more complex than the average joe/jane thinks...
any more stringent legislation will very likely cover (as exemptions) the issues you are outlining, "poo poo" (could you please give your born name? i feel ridiculous calling an adult "poo poo").
if work is being done with dcra permits in effect, your home is not "vacant", it is "under construction", a clear and obvious difference.
big difference between that and houses sitting with no construction permits in effect, boarded up and rotting.
I think what might need to happen is to somehow tie future agency budgets to enforcement effectiveness, e.g. the more monies collected in fines --> the higher the increase in funding the following year. including performance bonuses might help too.
I think Poo Poo is the one that needs to 'think'. Alan is right doo doo, your point is already understood as not fitting with the senario being discussed.
I have heard that the city has targeted this area for implementation of the "Home Again" initiative.
My understanding is that they have taken over a number of vacant properties in Trinidad and Ivy City. They have bundled them so that they can be rehabbed by private parties then sold as homes for prices that are "affordable". That might be why so many abandoned properties show up as under D.C. control.
I would be interested in hearing how Home Again is going on the ground in reality.
Home again has been around for a couple of years. Wylie street neighbors have had a not so great experience with the contractor of the home again program on their street. The matter was brought before ANC 6A. You may be able to search their minutes for more information.
In addition, to the home again sites, the are many "scattered site" public houses that the city has owned since the 70s. The city did not maintain them well... if you have a run down moss green, or blah grey house on your street, it is probably a DC owned house. At least, they are pretty good about keeping them boarded up, and keeping the grass cut.
18 comments:
THe current rate $5/100 is already well above the occupied rate $.88/100 (before the various exemptions). The problem that needs to be addressed is that DCRA is dragging their feet in designating properties vacant to begin with. Also, there are a number of loopholes that speculators and developers use to game the system and stay at the lower rate. All of those 'for lease' signs along 'H' (on properties that are not even remotely habitable) are no accident - that's the most commonly abused loophole.
They need to put a time limit on the loopholes and they need to raise the rate.
Good - I say raise it even more and maybe some of these owners will decide to sell. Somebody needs to be responsible for these abandoned properties.
BJ
For the record: Alan Kimber, Tommy Wells, and a small group of concerned citizens are approaching the problem from exactly that angle!
Are there any council members we can petition on this. I'm in Ward Five, who can I call and pester on this?
Viceroy, call Tommy Thomas. It isn't simply about the loopholes, it's also about the fact that the vacant property list is totally inaccurate, and that even the clearly still vacant properties that are on the list aren't all being taxed at the higher rate. So how about we raise the rate AND enforce the existing law?
All of the vacant houses remaining in close proximity to my house are owned now by DC. The proper application of the tax rate has encouraged private owners to do something but DC continues to drag its feet. There are 4 homes that I can see from my house that are owned by DC.
I think enforcement is more the key than anything else. I've reported the vacant next to me for a year, even had an inspector come out because of violations. It's been vacant for over 4 years, but still isn't on the list. If us mere mortals are doing what we can to get properties listed, but the government ignores us, then they need to fix that first.
DCRA's enforcement has been a problem for decades. Maybe it's too big. and should be broken up, or have specific tasks transferred to another entity.
I also have a problem with district owned vacant houses and buildings, in my neighorhood. DC is the worst slumlord around.
Does anyone know when a house that's up for sale becomes an abandoned building? There's a house very near mine that's been on the market for 2 1/2 years. They're asking about $200,000 more than it could possibly be worth and it's just sitting there.
Regarding the loophole about the "for lease" exemption, Councilmember Wells had a new requirement added that for a property owner to get a "for lease" exemption, you must have a valid Certificate of Occupancy and it also sets a cap on the amount of time that exemption is valid: only one 8 month period.
As I recall, Tommy Wells had a similar political gambit with fireworks: there are strict laws already on the books; the laws aren't enforced; people complain; so Wells says we should make the laws stricter. This seems like classic politicking to me. We should hold these guys's feet to the fire and say, look, Tommy, don't take credit for "doing something" unless you actually address the problem. Like enforcing the laws in place and making sure the District sells off properties that it is leaving vacant.
problem: people can use "for lease" as an open-ended loop-hole to avoid the higher tax class
solution: close the loop-hole so vacant property can be assessed at a higher tax class
okay, sounds good to me.
ok, folks.
i just bought a second house in the hood.
it's vacant, i.e. it's not occupied.
i've invested a bunch of $$ to keep it secure, and am slowly renovating it.
why should i be taxed higher than the goofballs that just board up houses.
your cute arguments sound great, but if any one of you actually bought a second property and tried to fix it up, there are some little 'loopholes' you should consider.
you want to tax my second property at a "vacant" rate (which might house my mom, once i'm done). go for it. if that proves to be the case, i might just have to not play nice.
there should be some amenities for people that don't have a lot of money, but are trying to revitalize homes that were built last century.
think just a little bit more than you already think you are thinking.
it's a complex scenario.
before folks urge legislation, THINK.
don't just react.
it's a bit more complex than the average joe/jane thinks...
any more stringent legislation will very likely cover (as exemptions) the issues you are outlining, "poo poo" (could you please give your born name? i feel ridiculous calling an adult "poo poo").
if work is being done with dcra permits in effect, your home is not "vacant", it is "under construction", a clear and obvious difference.
big difference between that and houses sitting with no construction permits in effect, boarded up and rotting.
I think what might need to happen is to somehow tie future agency budgets to enforcement effectiveness, e.g. the more monies collected in fines --> the higher the increase in funding the following year. including performance bonuses might help too.
I think Poo Poo is the one that needs to 'think'. Alan is right doo doo, your point is already understood as not fitting with the senario being discussed.
I have heard that the city has targeted this area for implementation of the "Home Again" initiative.
My understanding is that they have taken over a number of vacant properties in Trinidad and Ivy City. They have bundled them so that they can be rehabbed by private parties then sold as homes for prices that are "affordable". That might be why so many abandoned properties show up as under D.C. control.
I would be interested in hearing how Home Again is going on the ground in reality.
-Amy
Home again has been around for a couple of years. Wylie street neighbors have had a not so great experience with the contractor of the home again program on their street. The matter was brought before ANC 6A. You may be able to search their minutes for more information.
In addition, to the home again sites, the are many "scattered site" public houses that the city has owned since the 70s. The city did not maintain them well... if you have a run down moss green, or blah grey house on your street, it is probably a DC owned house. At least, they are pretty good about keeping them boarded up, and keeping the grass cut.
Post a Comment