Thanks to Greg Roberts, who provides a nice lead-in to today’s marquee story with this message, as posted in the comments section of yesterday’s thread (Are you in favor of the rule of law? Hypocritical, contemptuous city council “has-beens” think you’re a “wannabe”):Please call Senator Luke Kenley at (317) 232-9400 or (800) 382-9467 (State Tax and Financing Policy Commission Chairman looking at cutting tax rates for slumlords) and tell him that you do not agree that slumlords should be given a tax break. These are businesses!!!
Please see the following article:
Landlords call for parity on taxes; Floyd real estate agent among those at meeting (Courier-Journal)
Hmm.
It seems to me that begging for tax abatements in and of itself constitutes an implicit admission that rental properties are, in fact, business enterprises and not charitable undertakings.
Note, however, that Senator Kenley artfully avoided connecting the word “economic” with rental property ownership, preferring instead to deploy the word “social” in the context of “rehabbing” – as though renting your property were an act of altruism, and with filthy lucre never entering into a strictly angelic tableau.
Many rental property owners serve an "important social function in terms of rehabbing certain areas in lots of communities," Kenley said. "We're discouraging them now" instead of offering them incentives, he said.
Right, Luke. Quadplexes as touchy, feely methods of bonding with other human beings? Can I own one, too?
Perhaps we need to negotiate a bit of quid pro quo, in the sense of extending tax abatements to rental property owners, who in turn can be recognized as full-board business owners, with all the rights and responsibilities (read: code enforcement and an inspections program) implied therein.
What a marvy compromise that would be ... and already, I here Pat Harrison practicing the flicking of her Bic in preparation for a self-immolating bonfire at the court house.
By the way, Ms. Harrison never has answered the questions we asked of her on August 28: More on the “American Dream” of rental property exploitation.
Her “businesses” must really be keeping her busy these days.
9 comments:
1 call down to him.........hopefully hundreds to follow!
800) 382-9467 will get you the State house switchboard...ask for Senator Kenley and they'll put you over. I've registered my objection to landlords recieving the same tax treatment I, as an owner-occupied resident, receive.
I was surprised to read in the paper that one Floyd County landlord had only a $354 tax bill last year. This years it's $1200. That's a big increase but it seems to bring the tax up to what might be considered a reality based number considering the governemt services his tenants are entitled to. The costs to society for allowing landlords to flount codes is a real cost we ALL bear. Hope they take that into consideration up in Indy too.
Has anyone noticed that there are property tax gone wild signs up in front of some of the more egregious rental proerties in New Albany? These are mainly on Spring St-for natives & non-natives alike to see & ponder. My neighbor's and my taxes have gone up 50% and we don't feel it necessary to put signs in our yards.
The landlords make $$ off of the tenants and use the properties as tax write-offs at the end of the year. They can take off anything used to maintain the bldg within reason & then sometimes even more. I can only write off those things that improve the energy efficiency of my home.
When taxes &c. go up, raise the rent. If the tenants can't afford it, they will move. Heck, most don't pay rent anyway. They pay the 1st & last month & then get evicted after several months. Fewer renters like those would not hurt my feelings.
Think of the $$ they could rake in if they would improve and maintain the property & screen potential renters. Those that can readily afford higher rents tend to know how to act in society. The property tax increase would be covered and they would not receive flack from the homeowners that live adjacent to their "American Dream."
Kenley's comments came after a four-hour meeting during which property owners said they should be entitled to the same tax deductions and credits that are available to owner-occupied homes.
They are, on their own owner-occupied homes. Their claim makes as much sense as a car dealership asking for a homestead credit.
Real estate agent Pat Harrison of Floyd County said she and other landlords save dilapidated homes and supply affordable housing to middle- and lower-income Hoosiers.
I'm glad to know Ms. Harrison and other landlords are so interested in affordable housing. There are substantial tax credits available to help them. An excerpt is below, but more information is available at the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority's web site.
The Rental Housing Tax Credit (RHTC) is a tax incentive program established under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide an incentive to developers to provide affordable rental housing. These federal income tax credits offset the building acquisition, new construction, and/or substantial rehabilitation costs for rental housing developments.
Rental Housing Tax Credits (RHTCs) are allocated to for-profit and not-for-profit developers of affordable rental housing. By reducing a developer's federal tax liability, or selling of tax credits to investors, tax credits can contribute significantly to the financial viability of developing affordable rental units. In exchange for the financing provided through the tax credit, developers agree to keep rents affordable for a period between 15 and 30 years. Units financed with RHTCs must be rented to persons at or below 60% of the area median income. RHTC rental properties are privately owned and managed. IHCDA monitors the properties during the compliance period to ensure that rents and resident’s income do not exceed the program limits and that the properties are well maintained.
That pesky last sentence might be troublesome, though.
Our dear sweet council president is sporting one of the property taxes gone wild signs now
So where does one draw the line in your opinion of being a landlord and having investment property?
I take this personal and would love someone to explain this to me.
Yes I do own investment property and continue to build my family's portfolio.
On one hand you wish to rebuild this side of the river, but you do not wish to have people who wish to invest. Being a slum loard is one thing, but you make it sound as though you desire no one to make investments in property if they cannot follow strick guidelines.
For the average Joe or Joline who wishes to help add to their income, you might be doing good and bad by making to many demands when hoping folk bring money into the downtown and other dais neighborhoods.
Respectfully yours,
When your "business" is dragging down your neighbors property values, when your rental property is home to criminals, when you don't make investments in maintence or safety, you are a slumlord. I wouldn't worry about any "strict guidelines" ever haunting this town. But it would be good if there were minimum standards being upheld. Ed, if you're a rental property owner and making investments, you're not the problem.
Ed,
As I see it, the rental property /investment industry is much like the trucking industry or any one of a thousand others in our modern society.
By that I mean for the most part the majority of those involved are honest hardworking folk just trying to improve their lot in life.
Unfortunately in any given discipline the slag always rises to the top which causes the public to take notice of the seemingly lack of interest the industry itself takes in its affairs.
I've always contended that those who are doing the right thing in a give venture usually outnumber significantly, those who are not.
As to why the honest of the group do not step up and police there own is another of the many mind boggeling ommisions of our society.
We consistently seem to wait until public outcry leads to government involvement and then agonize over big brother taking away our rights and his incopentence in doing so.
By this point in history the later part of that statement should be obvious in that government does not have enough concern for its citizens to even police itself much less private industry.
On the other hand, private industrys unwillingness to close the barn door before the horses escape is a phenomenon of their own doing (or lack therof)!
So this leads us back to the ancient query that has haunted man since his first breath. Which came first? The chicken or the egg??
Mr. Parish,
There is a VERY distinct line between being a "land lord" and a "Slum Lord".
Unfortunately the slumlord mentality seems to be the majority rule in our community.
As far as the land lord goes, no one notices, because those properties are properly maintained, with good, stable people renting the homes, and there are a lot of them out there in New Albany.
But the bad apples have spoiled the bunch for many people. The gregory's would be a prime example of this. Dozens of properties, sitting delapedated, run down, dirty, broken windows, cars piled up in the yards, and a turnstyle rental policy where hordes of people come and go almost as much as the police coming and going from the property.
The Coyles went through this type of nightmare, I went through this type of hell myself.
I have always (with the exception of this converation) always made a disclaimer indicating the separation of a good land lord, and a slum lord, and I am sorry I omitted that from this string.
But as far as tax breaks go for having multiple investment properties, I still stand against it. Why should owner occupied families carry a larger tax burden on their property, than a person who own multiple homes? After all the services we all pay for go equally to each and every home, if you own more than one, you should pay for more than one. It is a business expense, just as any other business expense would be.
Post a Comment