My Turn: Not fair that property owners pay taxes for all
It seems to me that the current system of obligating the property owners to pay increased taxes on the land and improvements they own is flawed.
Sound off on the important issues at
It is not fair that all of the voters in the city have a say in obligating a particular class of people who own property to the payment of increased taxes, to finance projects that clearly benefit all of the people.
The argument that the people who rent apartments or commercial space will have their rents raised to cover the cost to the property owner is not true. First, the market place in Juneau does not allow for increases in rent over the increased heating oil costs. Second, a lease or rental agreement may not be adjustable until renewal. Third, what about the private land owner who works at a salaried job just to have a comfortable home to live in? That person will have to decide whether to pay for taxes, food, heat utilities, or maintenance. Fourth, what about the person who owns undeveloped land? That person has no recourse to cover increased property taxes. Either pay or lose the property.
Another issue that raises the cost to private property owners is the city owning property. Since the city does not pay property taxes, that reduces the tax base and increases the cost to each private property owner. Let's get the property out of the city's hands and into the private sector.
I do not consider the idea of low cost housing to be a reasonable idea. To begin with, there is no way, given the price of land, subdivision requirements and city code requirements, that anyone can build "low cost" housing. If you want to see an example of what works, take a drive out to the Tee Harbor Subdivision (Cohen Drive), and view the private homes that are all on the tax rolls. (That, by the way, was a state land auction/sale, not a city idea.)
Another thing that bothers me is when the proponents of bond issues state that the project is eligible for 70 percent reimbursement from the state. That in no way guarantees that the state will reimburse the city at that level. I suppose you can figure out who will pay any shortfall between the eligible and actual level of state contributions.
You may remember the situation with Riverside Drive, in which we were told that the road improvements qualified for 70 percent reimbursement only to find out that that was not true. The money was taken out of sales tax revenue at the expense of several other projects being delayed. Do you know what level the state is going to reimburse us for on our new school bond issue?
We need to change the current system to something that is more equitable. How about some combination of user fees, sales taxes, voter tax, new ideas? Perhaps we need to change the system so that only the people being asked to take on the obligation to finance these projects are the ones to have the ability to vote on the issue.
Better yet, let everyone that votes for the bond be obligated to pay for it.
• W.D. Field is a local contractor and homeowner born and raised in Juneau.