Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Karen1968a t1_ivodtga wrote

Unfortunately not unexpected Rents about to increase

−17

Ikirio t1_ivogyg0 wrote

Oh well.... I was pretty against this but I will also probably be one of the people that benefit from it so I guess fuck it.

2

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.

17

orzechod t1_ivomqti wrote

good. I like having nicer outdoor spaces and more affordable-housing options, and I like having a say in where specifically my tax money goes to.

32

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!

17

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.

6

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

−3

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.

11

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.

25

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.

7

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.

0

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.

1

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.

7

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.

11

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”.

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

3

AceOfTheSwords t1_ivpo5e3 wrote

Are there any planned construction projects ready to go once this funding is available?

2

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

3

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

0

hawilder t1_ivrwzgh wrote

Well that sucks. Everything is soooo expensive. Cost of living is so unmanageable rn- food, gas and the electric is severely increasing. I was not in favor of any tax increase at this time for ANYTHING.

2

dc_dobbz t1_ivrzybb wrote

Whoa!! Congrats. I never thought I’d see it. Do you have a Housing Trustfund yet?

2

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.

1

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?

2

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.

2

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.

2

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.

2