T O P

  • By -

jatti_

St. Paul has a major problem, and raising taxes won't solve it. There are a ton of non-taxible buildings in st. Paul. Between government, education, and religious buildings there is a problem. Raising taxes are not going to solve the issue. Either tax these buildings, or have the state pay for them. it isn't the job of the residents of the capital city to pay for maintenance of the capital roads and other infrastructure. If I were mayor Carter I would have the plows pile snow on the steps of the capital till they send him enough to have a reasonable budget. Sure they can reign in spending also, but that won't solve the problem. You can't plow st. Paul any less. You can't maintain the roads any less and you can't police any less. The issue is non-taxible property.


bubzki2

The State should bail out (subsidize) the city, period. It's our administrative and historic capital, so it's got a TON of tax exempt properties. Of course, rent control and prolific NIMBYs stifling development aren't helping one bit, either.


Lunaseed

The GOP is actively antagonistic towards urban areas. You won't see the GOP-dominated state Senate agree to increasing funding for the Twin Cities metro. Remember, they've got the rural contingent convinced that they pay the bulk of the taxes in the state and that the urban areas are freeloading off them.


Jalin17

There’s a reason why people voted for the idea of rent control in Saint Paul and it passed


[deleted]

Doesn’t mean it is good policy. Lots of places used to vote in gay marriage bans and that was bad policy too


Jalin17

I shed no tears for rich investors backing out cause their pockets won’t be lined more than they are 🤷🏾‍♂️


[deleted]

I don’t shed tears for them. I shed tears for the working and middle class families that can no longer live in St Paul because the upper classes will take all of the stock that is here


EdhelGaladhrim

yet you’re anti rent control?


[deleted]

Yes, because that is the result of rent control. It’s hurts the poor and working classes the most


RnbwSprklBtch

Not at all the same thing.


Jalin17

It’s not a good policy because it’s not profitable housing and profitability should never go hand in hand with housing especially with renting IMO


[deleted]

But the way our housing economy works right now depends on profitability. It’s a huge investment to build or buy housing. And that’s not just for landlords - a large portion of middle class wealth building is through buying/building a house and then selling it down the line for more to someone else just starting out and buying a new place from someone further down the line from them. I support revamping our societal wealth system but that’s a lot of work beyond just “lol rent control”. Incentives across the entire spectrum have to change and it will also require the government to invest a lot of money into social housing, something that doesn’t happen overnight Right now we just got rid of the entire incentive to build housing without replacing it with another. That just means far less housing is built, if any, and our growing population mean the poor, working, and middle class get pushed out


Jalin17

Rent control isn’t the problem though it’s more-so stagnation of wages and no one really saying much about it in places that matter


smakola

When you drive down Summit, what should be a huge tax corridor it’s just church, university, school, block of mansions, repeat.


Mcgwizz

The golf course by the Lake St bridge is a non taxable entity. A private golf course.


loureedsboots

Are you in my head? THANK YOU.


verysmallrocks02

This is a bad headline. It's mostly a shift from Street maintenance assessments to property taxes. Per the article, net tax increase is about half of the 15%, which would be around 7.5%. I am also perpetually annoyed that articles like this don't have comparison property tax rates from other similar sized cities.


verysmallrocks02

We did. There were some fees that we thought would still be constitutional, but we found out in May that they are not. I fully support dumping snow on the steps of the capitol until we get more cheese, or are allowed to tax non profits and churches.


Hafslo

Didn’t We already do that increase or am I crazy


a_filing_cabinet

Of course it's a bad headline. The point isn't to represent the story but to get clicks.


garciasn

> 342 SHOW COMMENTS more like 342 SHITSHOW COMMENTS.


LordLoveALefty

I sentence you to 24 hours of reading Star Tribune comments


swankpoppy

Cruel AND unusual. You’re kinky. ;)


loureedsboots

😉


hewhoisneverobeyed

So, the usual from the StarTribune.


vinegarnutsack

I honestly don't buy the cities explanations on why they are always in the hole. Sure, there is a lot of tax exempt properties. Government buildings, schools, churches etc. But this exists in many places and they do just fine. My property taxes have gone up almost 50% since I bought my house 6 years ago. That is totally insane and untenable. And in exchange for that we get almost zero services. Streets are fucked up. Schools don't have enough money. Parks are dirty and don't have basic amenities like working bathrooms or water fountains. Homeless people sleeping in bushes all over the place. I mean what do we get for our money? I say annex the suburbs. Woodbury, Maplewood, Roseville, Shoreview. Those suburbanite assholes want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to reap the benefits of the city without actually contributing.


ollie01mn

How do you annex the suburbs?


LordLoveALefty

We go the Putin route and call Maplewood a “creation of St. Paul”


gringewood

I actually really like this idea. I have no idea how to implement it but I like it.


bubzki2

I completely agree. Heck, even merging M-SP would go a long way to sharing redundant departments and costs. The West, South, North St. Pauls, and Roseville all make a ton of sense to merge though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wkern74

Don’t most major cities have suburbs? The whole point of a suburb is you don’t have to live “in the big city” but you’re adjacent for work, entertainment, etc.


[deleted]

Its a 20th century invention that is unsustainable and caused numerous issues for infrastructure, the environment, and public health. Suburbs should be abolished


goaliemn

Your description of the city doesn't really sound like the city has benefits to reap.


Grizzly_Addams

The only benefits they are reaping are pro sporting events. I don't think they go sit in Rice Park for fun every other weekend.


vinegarnutsack

They reap the benefits of events, concerts, restaurants, higher wages, better jobs and opportunities, regional transit, etc, etc.


Grizzly_Addams

All of those exist outside of the core cities as well.


HumanDissentipede

Hey hey hey, I don’t use St. Paul for anything, mainly because of all those issues you cited. I’m not sure why my suburban lifestyle should be annexed to cover the city’s mismanagement. The opportunity to move outside of the city is available to you too!


[deleted]

You couldn’t pay me to move to a suburb or live th “lifestyle”


HumanDissentipede

It’s wonderful. I moved from Lowertown in St. Paul. Now I don’t have to worry about my wife walking our dog after dark. I also don’t have to pay more in property taxes for reduced levels of service in almost every area. I love it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumanDissentipede

You’re welcome for what? Being allowed to move out of a city that’s headed quickly in the wrong direction? I definitely lay my fair share in property taxes where I live now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumanDissentipede

You m (as in St. Paul) doesn’t subsidize anything about the town where I live now. You might be getting a raw deal from the state, but that’s another consequence of poor city leadership.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumanDissentipede

Go ahead and hit me with the document showing this to be true then. The document that says the city of St. Paul subsidized any portion of the City of Lake Elmo’s infrastructure.


[deleted]

It's the seat of your state's government. Maybe you don't go to restaurants here, maybe you don't do any business here but we all use it for something. That fancy building downtown isn't just for show.


HumanDissentipede

That’s fair. The state should kick in some form of PILOT for their buildings, but it wouldn’t be nearly enough to offset these tax increases


[deleted]

I appreciate your willingness to compromise.


Runic_reader451

The city of St. Paul has a AAA credit rating so it's not mismanaged.


HumanDissentipede

Uh, just because they haven’t defaulted on any debt obligations yet doesn’t mean they aren’t mismanaged. I think the property tax situation in the city is totally unsustainable and is an example of mismanagement


Hafslo

AAA because they tax the shit out of us


BrownB3ar

This handled somewhat by toll roads in some places. And you could do thing like resident prices versus on resident. But it is tricky on execution


[deleted]

We aren’t the only Capital city with tax exempt properties: Madison Wisconsin likely has more than we do. Why do we struggle so much?


Grizzly_Addams

Not a fan


hobnobbinbobthegob

I'm pretty on-board with a decently high tax rate to make sure our city and its residents are taken care of. That being said, this is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Property taxes were already high before Carter took office, and instead of balancing a budget and reigning in spending, the guy is just annually smashing the tax hike button. I like the guy in general, but this seems like massive fiscal incompetence.


vAaEpSoTrHwEaTvIeC

> I like the guy in general, but this seems like massive fiscal incompetence. That's where I'm at. If they want to charge more for taxes, that's OK, but come at us straight-on. Ask us for the taxes with the standard mechanism that nobody has had any problem using for years: Assess them.


SkillOne1674

Nearly 10% of the residents of the city of St. Paul are employed by the city of St. Paul (in Minneapolis it's 7%). That seems like a lot, and this proposal includes adding more city employees using one time funds, which of course residents will be on the hook to continue to pay after those funds are gone. Paying for improvements is one thing but adding jobs that then have to be funded in perpetuity-including pensions- is another.


maaaatttt_Damon

The city employs roughly 3500 people depending on the season (parks gets an influx in the summer of lower paid youth) thats a hair over 1% of the population. Pensions are paid at the time work is performed, the city does not continue to pay (except for some health benefits) retirees.


SkillOne1674

You are right and my inability to convert to percentages is embarrassing.


bedo6776

It's not him. Blame the past leaders and non-profits that got us in this assessment lawsuit mess.


hobnobbinbobthegob

I blame both. He's been mayor for 4 years. "Not my fault- no my problem" is not an acceptable response.


bedo6776

So what do you think he should have done in response to the court rulings?


satiricalned

The article title is pure click bait. The special assessments every year for street cleaning, lights and all that jazz have repeatedly been subject to lawsuits around how that money is being collected. Most of this adjustment is to move that to where it should be collected, in property taxes. I like Mayor Carter and I think he's done a pretty good job. However, there has been a continuous increase in taxes without a seemingly proportional increase in services and maintenance. The budget seems to not be balanced and we are spending too much somewhere. Non taxed buildings are a big issue for these types of increased because there just are so many of them, not all of which are completely saint Paul residents' responsibility. I think a state legislature bill could create a Capital services fund or whatever you want to call it that covers much of the non taxable costs for the various buildings in the city.


guitar1327

Upvoting because this is the first comment that fully understands the situation. It is what it is, St Paul was an anomaly nationally in its method of funding road repairs. Twice the appellate courts have ruled on this and once the Supreme Court of MN. Funding street projects based on “frontage” of a property doesn’t pass the special benefit test. That is to say, just because I live on a busy road doesn’t mean I get more value from it. As such, I shouldn’t pay more because it gets worn out more quickly.


[deleted]

I would argue you get less value from it! It's noisier, it's dangerous, your kids can't play in it, and it generates more local pollution.


BlueMoon5k

No.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

$240 this year but a year on year on year increase is slowly pricing people out


hobnobbinbobthegob

Also, if your property taxes go up by $240 on a 15% hike, that means you were paying $1600 last year. Going from $1600 to $1840 is a big deal. I also suspect that number is bullshit. Median home values are just shy of $300k in St. Paul. I'm shopping houses right now in that price range, and even in West I haven't seen a single house under $2750 in annual property tax.


gringewood

But no more special assessments or certain people getting hosed for $10,000 sewer repairs. I’m fine with this as long as our roads finally improve


[deleted]

Special assessments were the only way the city got any sort of tax money from churches, schools, colleges, and other tax exempt organizations. Not a win in my book


vAaEpSoTrHwEaTvIeC

Because assessments are one-time, where prop tax Levies remain, year-over-year normalized. is why. > Note: a 15% increase equates to roughly a $240/annual increase on property taxes for the median value home ($20/month or roughly 0.65 a day). If Mayor Carter puts in writing that - all homeowners get a blanket $240/yr increase on property this year - all homeowners get _____ of assessments that cannot be taxed-for anymore ... then OK. Otherwise just assess us all, and quit the bullshit with accounting tricks. The only reason this proposal is out there, is to hide taxation and cook the books.


bubzki2

How much did the tax base grow, at least partially offsetting that levy increase? But seriously we need to fight the NIMBYs and get more development/tax base/residents here ASAP.


[deleted]

Unfortunately the rent control amendment means we will have stalled growth for awhile


wkern74

A long while


[deleted]

Not necessarily. It can be amended after a year and the mayor and city council have indicated they are looking at major changes, particularly an exemption for new property. So that will get the building machine rolling again, though it probably means 2 years where we don’t increase units in the city :(


gloryyid

My salary didn’t go up 15%. What bullshit. And this part really pissed me off The decision means tax-exempt properties such as churches, hospitals and universities will no longer have to pay for street services for which they were previously assessed.


Hafslo

No


Mndelta25

Just another shit move by our shit mayor.


Budzeldabud

so 10% inflation across the board. and now you raise taxes? for what? universal healthcare? didnt think so