Submitted by legalpretzel t3_yqiagr in WorcesterMA
Comments
Brighteyed77 t1_ivoedla wrote
Yeah that increase of $40 a year is really going to hurt.
Karen1968a t1_ivofe7z wrote
I can’t say. The renters will have to deal with that
Shawnyshawn19 t1_ivogxeg wrote
Like rent wasn't already increasing lately anyways......
teddygrahamdispenser t1_ivolab5 wrote
Hell yeah we did! This is really great news for anyone who cares at all about making Worcester a good place to live.
teddygrahamdispenser t1_ivolkqm wrote
If the $5/month or whatever it ends up being for most landlords significantly impacts rents then I think it'll be pretty clear who is to blame.
orzechod t1_ivomfyb wrote
a triple-decker assessed at $700K will only need to raise rents by ~$4/month per unit to pay for the CPA.
Kirbyoto t1_ivorhwn wrote
>Rents about to increase
Those poor, desperate landlords will have no choice but to raise rents by 50x the actual cost of the CPA. How tragic! They're trying their best!
legalpretzel OP t1_ivorxac wrote
Fear of the sky falling is not a reason to never leave the house. Rents will do what rents do regardless of whether it’s a general tax increase or a utility rate increase. The burden won’t be borne by renters alone and many renters, very many, won’t bear it at all because the increase is negligible compared to all the other costs that are increasing.
Additional funding to make Worcester better by funding affordable housing and nice parks and good schools really is a good thing for all residents.
Karen1968a t1_ivos6sx wrote
Yep. The people who voted for it.
LetsGoHome t1_ivosjzv wrote
It's fine, the more that landlords do shitty things then the more public opinion will swing further from their side.
Karen1968a t1_ivosmtm wrote
I agree (partially). I just think people don’t always recognize that increasing taxes ultimately results in increasing costs. You think the benefits outweigh the costs, I don’t
Karen1968a t1_ivosox4 wrote
I’m sure some will use it as a reason
Karen1968a t1_ivostgj wrote
“Need” is one thing. What they will actually raise may be another
Kirbyoto t1_ivotizs wrote
They'll do that because they're liars. Just like the businesses who claim times are tough while raking in record profits, or the employers who claim nobody wants to work anymore while refusing to actually hire people.
The problem here is the landlords, not the CPA. The solution is to tighten the screws on them and prevent them from getting away with their ridiculous extortion.
goatsgomoo t1_ivouv5n wrote
> The act will add a 1.5% property tax surcharge
> The average resident can expect to pay $44.45
Wait, it was a surcharge of 1.5% of the property tax, not a surcharge of 1.5% of the property value? Damn, glad this passed even though I voted no; I thought it was going to basically double the tax rate.
Karen1968a t1_ivovmlt wrote
They do that because they can. Welcome to the real world
Karen1968a t1_ivovqim wrote
How’s that working out? 😀.
LetsGoHome t1_ivowo8l wrote
How did the election turn out?
Kirbyoto t1_ivox22j wrote
They can because they're allowed to. If they're prevented from doing it, they can't do it anymore. That's what legislation is for. Welcome to the real world.
Karen1968a t1_ivoxrla wrote
Well. I guess that depends on your perspective. I see it as taxes increasing which will ultimately result in higher rents and costs. Landlords just pass it through, probably along with a little extra for handling, so I’m not sure I see your point.
Karen1968a t1_ivoyc7k wrote
I agree. You’ll never see that legislation passed though. Money is the lifeblood of politics, even in liberal Massachusetts. Renters have no money, they do have plenty of time, and can make a lot of noise, but ultimately the landlords and property owners who do have money, will prevail.
LetsGoHome t1_ivoyrze wrote
My point is things will only be getting worse for landlords from here on out. "Passing it along" will only hasten it.
Kirbyoto t1_ivoyzlu wrote
>You’ll never see that legislation passed though.
That's a funny thing to say for someone who can't stop complaining about how much taxes will increase costs. The rhetoric you're using to complain about the CPA is the same rhetoric that landlords will use to complain about legislation against them, and frankly I feel like if there was a ballot question about controlling landlords, you'd be arguing against it.
Long story short - if the landlords are the problem, blame them, not the taxes. The taxes aren't making the prices go up, the landlords are - they're just using the taxes as an excuse. The lesson is that the government should go further, not ease up.
Karen1968a t1_ivp0umt wrote
Well yes I would. And yes increasing taxes does lead to increased rents. Is it the only reason? No. But it’s a contributing factor.
yennijb t1_ivp0vgj wrote
I'm a owner-occupied landlord of a 3family, my CPA cost is about $83/year. I will not be raising rent for that little. That works out to less than $3.50/month. That's less than I pay in transaction fees for my tenants rent ach transfers.
I'm also a member of Mass Landlords, and most of the folks I've chatted with do not have plans to increase from this passing.
orzechod t1_ivp0zsq wrote
if rent increases are disconnected from the CPA as you imply, then why mention them at all here?
Karen1968a t1_ivp11k6 wrote
Nope. Landlords and property owners have power.
Karen1968a t1_ivp1pmi wrote
So people realize that their political decisions have an impact. I’m guessing a lot of people who voted yes, don’t own property ( some do I know). They listened to the rhetoric and said “screw it, I don’t own property, no impact to me, I’ll vote yes. “. That’s all. Same with question 1, “ I’m not a millionaire, I don’t care”.
ganduvo t1_ivp2qws wrote
This is why everyone should be fully informed before voting.
SmartSherbet t1_ivp3a28 wrote
It's not really your fault; the misinformation campaigns ran strong on this one. Cheers to Yes on 5!
SmartSherbet t1_ivp3ejz wrote
Which means they'd have done it whether or not we passed the CPA, and this policy actually will have little effect on rent in the city outside of what landlords would have done anyway.
Karen1968a t1_ivp40mt wrote
Perhaps Just gives them a convenient excuse
Karen1968a t1_ivp46zm wrote
I guess you’re a good person 🤷♀️
Theundercave t1_ivp7qbe wrote
A landlord cannot be a good person.
Karen1968a t1_ivp9ivq wrote
That does seem to be a common theme on Reddit 😀
goatsgomoo t1_ivpd7nz wrote
TBH I was just going by what was in the info packet; I hadn't seen any info about it from any other sources, and I couldn't find the ballot measure on Ballotpedia, which is generally where I go to research this sort of thing before voting.
Seekay2022 t1_ivpdne6 wrote
Yeah it is, and the anti-landlorders ALWAYs utterly fail at explaining why landlords who don't raise the rent, maintain their properties etc, are also evil. It's this weird, insular, kneejerk tic they have.
AceOfTheSwords t1_ivpo5e3 wrote
Are there any planned construction projects ready to go once this funding is available?
cimson-otter t1_ivprxiz wrote
Boo fucking hoo
cimson-otter t1_ivps7u6 wrote
“Extra handling “ To pay $40 extra a year?
Gtfo
Karen1968a t1_ivpvril wrote
I’d run my business (and it IS business) my way. You can run yours as you wish. And don’t forget the commercial landlords, it’s not $40 for them
cimson-otter t1_ivq4hlf wrote
Trash human
Karen1968a t1_ivq8yf4 wrote
I’m deeply hurt by that 😊
[deleted] t1_ivq8z2q wrote
[deleted]
Karen1968a t1_ivq91bc wrote
I’m deeply hurt by that 😀
beaux-tie t1_ivqb5lg wrote
There are probably some people out there with ideas, but there are a couple of issues—one is that the money won’t be collected for a while. We’re going to have to wait until at least late 2024 before we start to see projects discussed. The surcharge won’t be collected until July 2023 and the state trust fund match won’t happen until Nov 2024 (after the first year of surcharges are collected).
The second issue is that projects need to go before the 5-9 member local CPA commission, and then they recommend projects to the City Council which will approve or disapprove them.
As an example, Shrewsbury adopted the CPA in 2020 and only just in August began accepting applications for CPA projects
Enragedocelot t1_ivr0h1j wrote
> "Adding a new tax to the eighth-highest commercial tax rate is really not an indicator to our businesses and business owners that we are a business-friendly community,"
Shut the hell up, stop trying to stock pile your damn money
Enragedocelot t1_ivr0p97 wrote
id0ntwantyourlife t1_ivr4wvf wrote
I mean a shit ton of businesses did have to close their doors permanently over the past 2 years
sevencityseven t1_ivt2m50 wrote
All the people celebrating will someday realize it’s more government overreach and they will never see any value from their “$40”. Such a gen Z thing to not worry about money but complain about debt. People are begging for more taxes. Tax me more please! Fools.
ChingDemProper t1_ivupwju wrote
Why don't you just move to Alabama and live in a trailer? How is this more of an overreach than paying taxes to have roads or programs for kids so they don't shoot up the block after school?
PaulPierceBrosnan t1_ivyrr61 wrote
Gen Z isn’t complaining about their mortgage debt, they are having trouble even buying a house because they can’t climb out of student loan debt. I think that’s a different point though.
It’s possible the benefit from the $40 a year doesn’t materialize in any significant way but personally I think it’s a small fee to pay to see if we can improve the city. Aside from buying trash bags and cleaning trash off the street, how do you think you could better contribute $40 to improve Worcester?
Lr0dy t1_iwbxhko wrote
How can it be government overreach if the tax was specifically voted on and approved by a direct democratic vote by the citizens of Worcester?
I'm rapidly closing on forty, so hardly a zoomer, and I agree with this measure. I think you're just an absolutely useless numpty.
Lr0dy t1_iwbxydu wrote
No. The landlords who raised the rent. Note that they said significantly. If rent goes up by $3-5 a month, that's not significant.
Lr0dy t1_iwby6j1 wrote
Both question one and question five have only positive impacts. Any negative repercussions come solely from human greed.
Karen1968a t1_iwc6elu wrote
Karen1968a t1_iwc6gru wrote
Perhaps
Lr0dy t1_iwc6rbh wrote
Perhaps what? You seem to lack a clear understanding of cause and effect - if someone is using one thing as an excuse to do another thing, then the cause is not the first thing existing, but the person choosing to find an excuse for the second thing.
Karen1968a t1_iwc9ibv wrote
It’s over. I’ve lost interest. Im always going to be anti tax. I lost 🤷♀️
Lr0dy t1_iwcawsm wrote
Then you're anti-society. Please feel free to leave at your earliest convenience, and we ask that you cease and desist in any and all usage of services which taxes provide, like roads.
Karen1968a t1_iwcbx39 wrote
Please feel free to kiss my rich conservative white butt 😀
Lr0dy t1_iwcfk11 wrote
Ew. I think of nothing more unappealing than rich white conservatives.
Karen1968a t1_iwcox4d wrote
Well in my opinion lazy liberals looking for handouts are worse. But, just an opinion 😀
Lr0dy t1_iwdevlu wrote
Luckily, you still only get one vote, and I'm happy to say that I nullify it.
Karen1968a t1_iwdf2gx wrote
Yep. And vice versa 😀
Seekay2022 t1_iwha6e2 wrote
Sick burn yo.
Karen1968a t1_ivodtga wrote
Unfortunately not unexpected Rents about to increase