The census is also reporting data in the building permit survey that appears to be wildly inaccurate

Dupes looks strong from the service line. And looked great overall. Seems like she'll be a strong pickup. Blair also looked good on serve receive for the most part, and her presence in the front row makes the block pretty formidable - Olivia, Bre, and Blair in front row is a lot.

Oh, the author is an absolute garbage person who smears colleagues in public and has cost a local landmark literal millions of dollars in funding bc he torpedoed its chance at historic tax credits in a fit of pique.

He writes for CP bc nobody w/ more credibility will have him.

I think the main thing we just like to do is calmly and politely share the facts. People have a lot of misconceptions about housing, and it's a very emotional topic. Use data and personal experience when possible.

What was the org?

Minimum lot sizes are about as close to an economic segregation tool as exists in the current zoning framework, and therefore is essentially a racial segregation tool. Minimum lot sizes are racist, get rid of em.

We will undoubtedly produce some policy discussion around this.

One other point - as of right now, this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Nobody is being forced out of their homes due to a reassessment bc we don't do them.

The admin only released the text of their plan today, so I haven't had a chance to produce cogent thoughts on exactly what I would change, but my initial thoughts is that it targets people who are fully able to pay their property taxes. My parents, retired and not remotely poor, might qualify!

Renters are much poorer than homeowners. By a pretty wide margin. If you're going to implement yet another program intended to help homeowners, it ought to be very tightly targeted at people who have the greatest need. Otherwise your just soaking poor renters to benefit wealthier homeowners.

I'll also note that we already richly subsidize homeownership. We provide a homestead exemption (renters don't get this), mortgage interest deductions (renters don't get this), home repair grants (renters don't get this), down payment assistance (renters don't get this)...I could go on.

But if you must have a program like this, target it very narrowly at very poor individuals - consider asset tests, or tie it to other gov programs - for example, you qualify if you are on another form or gov assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, etc). And structure as a deferral, not an exemption.

That's a complicated answer prob best suited not for social media. But, for starters, reassess every three years so nobody sees big jumps. If you want to have a tax relief program, know that you're using dollars from poorer individuals (renters) to subsidize richer individuals (homeowners).

Is the focus on assessed value required by the enabling legislation? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on tax burden rather than assessed value? My reading of the legislation indicates that a property owner could see a decrease in tax burden following a reassessment...

Not a high bar lol. "This is better than one of the most disastrous pieces of housing policy ever devised" isn't exactly a great barometer.

I'm not suggesting that all parcels will get the exemption, I'm suggesting that many parcels would be eligible. Whether the homeowners themselves are eligible is a different question.

In this case won't this apply to basically 100% of parcels once we finally do a reassessment...? When you wait 15 years between reassessment, nearly everyone will see assessed value go up significantly, even though their tax burden may not change much at all.

Increase in assessed value, or increase in tax liability? These could be different, correct?