In the Dec. 26 edition of the Homer News, you printed a Chris Story opinion piece. He stated that he felt “meaningful” reform was needed “to address the systemic issues in our property taxation system” and proposed a change. That sounds OK, but he didn’t offer any details. He admitted that changes “could reduce borough tax revenue.”
Like Chris, I have lived in Homer for a long time and have seen Homer grow. When I moved here Pioneer Avenue wasn’t paved, the fire department was all volunteer, and the Homer bypass (now called the Sterling Highway) was only an idea. A lot has changed since then. There’s still no place else that I would rather live.
Each of us has our own reasons for living here. Aside from the beautiful view, Homer has much to offer. Over the years, we have contributed to the infrastructure that we have requested: public safety, fire protection, medical services, a well-maintained road system, etc. to make living here more pleasant and convenient. While the funding for these services is diverse, federal, state and local, a lot of it comes from property tax revenue. If we take that away, we must find an alternative to paying for those things or give them up.
The Fair Tax-Property Tax Reform resolution that Chris and his cohorts are proposing supposedly “ensures fairness, predictability and equity” and seeks to “protect the rights of property owners.” Their biggest gripe is that “tax assessments often reflect unrealized gains due to market fluctuations.”
Their resolution proposed a six-point framework. Points 1, 5 and 6 all address the property assessment. Point 1 establishes a base rate, Point 5 would eliminate assessment increases and Point 6 would allow an adjustment, if the assessment drops below the base rate.
They want it both ways: no increase in assessment if the property value goes up, but a decrease, if it goes down. Point 2 addresses the tax rate. That is the percentage of your assessed value that you pay yearly. I’ve been paying property tax here for many years and have never had a problem with the tax rate. I have, however, appealed the value assessment of my property, which is every citizen’s right to do.
Point 3 would allow family transfers of property with no change in the base rate assessment. This is akin to the transfer of family wealth in the nobility in England and is restricted in this country.
Point 4 would exempt seniors and persons with disabilities. This, of all the points, might warrant further discussion, but I must point out that seniors already qualify for a $350,000 exemption on their property tax.
I find it ironic that this property tax reform proposal is put forward by a professional Realtor and his biggest gripe is the property valuation. When I complained to the borough tax assessor’s office about the big jump in my assessment, I was told the market had gone up in my area.
Other than the sellers, the biggest beneficiaries of higher property values are the real estate agents. And, on top of that, this area would not attract new buyers if we didn’t have good roads, good hospitals and a safe community to live in. Those amenities are paid for in substantial part with our property taxes. You can’t have it both ways, Chris.
David Stutzer is a Homer resident.
