Hey, there! Log in / Register

City council sets tax rate

By adamg on Wed, 12/11/2024 - 6:25pm

The Dorchester Reporter reports on the quick vote today by the Boston City Council to set tax rates that could mean a more than 10% increase for residential property owners after state senators refused to OK a deal between Mayor Wu and local business groups on a three-year measure to east that burden somewhat by letting the city increase commercial tax rates. The council also approved the usual tax break for residential owners who live in their own homes.

Topics: 
Business
Politics
Free tagging: 
City Council
property tax


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

By Lane Straddler on Wed, 12/11/2024 - 6:36pm.

"East that burden"?

By John Costello on Wed, 12/11/2024 - 7:52pm.

by Cornershop.

By BobGoblin on Wed, 12/11/2024 - 7:41pm.

Will there also be a 10% tax increase next year?

By eddie van halen on Wed, 12/11/2024 - 7:54pm.

whether there's another 8 percent increase to a $4.6 billion dollar budget.

By Residente on Thu, 12/12/2024 - 9:40am.

From another news source, not nearly as good as UHUB:

"Boston state Senator Nick Collins received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from prominent members of the city’s commercial real estate and hospitality industries in the weeks leading up to his move on Beacon Hill Monday to delay Mayor Michelle Wu’s proposal to hike commercial property tax rates.

According to Collins’s campaign finance filings, the donors include several real estate consultants, the chief executives and other executives of local real estate firms and hotel operators, and two attorneys from the firm that owns the Prudential Center and other major office towers. All told, Collins raised more than $25,000 in October and November, public records show, with almost all of it coming from real estate interests. By comparison, in November 2022, when Collins was previously up for reelection, he raised just $1,323."

By StillFromDorchester on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 3:52am.

When we had to get a second mortgage so we could send our oldest to private school because most Boston High Schools are a disgrace, we said it's fine we'll stay in the city for the numerous other benefits.
When we see the city over spending on programs we don't need, we said . it's fine we'll stay in the city for the numerous other benefits.
When we are told we need to pay $472.63 more in property taxes to pay "our fair share" , it's hard to keep saying we'll stay in the city for the numerous other benefits.
If a lifelong resident says this what do they think businesses will also say if they are over taxed?

By Pete X on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 8:54am.

It's amazing to me that this ended in a plea to "think of the businesses".

By StillFromDorchester on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 9:20am.

The city will not be able to increase the budget every year like they do now.
Where do business or My family get the money to pay more taxes? I suppose the business will pass that cost on to customers or move where taxes are lower, we can't raise taxes to pay our bills like the city of Boston does.
I don't see this current administration cutting back, so yes. it's worrisome. Look at other big cities which followed the same path Wu is paving , Tax and Spend won't work in my opinion.

472 dollars to my family is a lot of money and if more money doesn't come in, guess what? We cut spending to pay the important bills, something Boston seems incapable or unwilling to do

By eddie van halen on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 9:24am.

Businesses contribute to the overall health, vitality, and economy of the city. This applies most to small business, in my opinion, which is already quickly disappearing.

By Pete X on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 9:43am.

Wu was trying to mitigate this tax increase, and was blocked by a corrupt senator taking donations from businesses, right?

Also, re the budget increase: Worth understanding why it was necessary. Federal funds to Boston schools were cut and Boston had to make up the difference.

By StillFromDorchester on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 10:11am.

No one at city hall or the State House has clean hands ...well almost no one

By eddie van halen on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 10:16am.

what fiscal responsibility and budgeting really means.

By Pete X on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 10:41am.

So what is fiscally irresponsible in this years budget?

According to this report by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau: https://www.bmrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/RU41224Budget.pdf

The $4.64B operation budget represents a $344.0M increase from FY24, or an increase of 8.0%, driven by increased spending on Boston Public Schools, debt service, pension payments, and the creation of a new Planning Department.

So you can't cut debt service or pension payments. Are you going to cut schools, where the city's contribution increased (about 1.9% of the 8% increase) but the total school budget actually DECREASED due to ending of emergency aid, or the new planning department (only approx 1% of that 8% increase), which was an explicit promise Wu made during the campaign?

By eddie van halen on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 10:46am.

You're only looking at what was increased, and you're only looking at those expenditures in raw numbers. Sounds nice to imply it was because of schools, or all because of a planning department or because of federal funding decreases, but the devils are in the details. You forgot about the loss of revenue from commercial buildings. Does anyone in City Hall have a responsibility to project changes? Any responsibility to operate within its means? Any responsibility to have reserves? And if Nick Costello is corrupt is that the label you're applying to all those who voted against the bill?

By Pete X on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 11:12am.

Took a bunch of new donations and then singlehandedly held the deal up until businesses could get other senators on board. Sounds pretty corrupt to me. Literally a quid pro quo.

And yes, there's likely a bunch of corruption on Beacon Hill, made opaque by the shenanigans of Speaker for Life Ron Mariano and President for Life Karen Spilka.

By eddie van halen on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 11:17am.

"They're all corrupt" on BH, City Hall as no responsibility to effectively govern, and when the city fails other people have to bail them out. Got it.

By Pete X on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 11:29am.

They're not all corrupt, but Beacon Hill is a deeply opaque institution for a reason. By contrast, City Hall is directly responsible to its constituents and the mayor can be voted out by the people she represents. The only people who can vote out Ron Mariano are a few thousand people in Quincy, who will never do this because of all the power he brings them.

The city is not having other people bail them out, it wants to temporarily adjust the percentage that businesses and residents pay in taxes... literally the people and organizations that make up the city. But because of an outdated lack of home rule Boston cannot do this without the "other people" like Mariano and Spilka letting them do it.

By eddie van halen on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 11:33am.

I got it right.

By robo on Fri, 12/13/2024 - 12:11pm.

That ended up being 30% more than reality. Either Wu was using scare tactics, or the assessor is making things up.