Goshen council tables rental registration fee increase again

Author Message
 Posted 3/6/2013 5:09:23 AM
Supreme Being

Supreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme BeingSupreme Being

Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 5:51:39 AM
Posts: 16,157, Visits: 391
3/5/2013 12:00:00 AM
Goshen council tables rental registration fee increase again
Goshen council tables rental registration fee increase again
Post #210942
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/6/2013 5:56:37 AM
Forum Master Guru

Forum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master Guru

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/23/2009 12:35:27 PM
Posts: 2,288, Visits: 0
Property taxes should be used for this specific purpose.  Perhaps it is time for that refresher course in tax caps.  You do recall that rental properties (non-owner occupancy residential) is charged with a HIGHER TAX CAP that owner occupied properties?  It is a 2% cap verses residential 1% cap.  That already puts a greater burden on renters, so you wish to burden them even greater?  In rounded numbers, a good example would be as follows; $100,000 property value residential (homestead) is taxed at 1% or $1,000.  A residential rental valued at $100,000 is taxed at 2% or $2,000.  So, renters already pay more in taxes which in my estimation is an unequal burden on those renting.  As shown in the example there is double the tax revenue available for said rental inspections.  But Kauffman says, “There’s no reason that the general property tax payer should be paying for a rental registration program, in my opinion,”.  What an obfuscation!  Clearly rental properties pay twice as much and in fact, you ARE attempting an end run around an already unjust and disproportionate tax burden on many of the folks who can least afford to pay it.  How have you set aside your social justice construct for this example?  Thinking it through, you create a situation where those who cannot buy usually rent, you see fit to tax them at twice the rate a regular homeowners, then you slap them in the face with a 'rental registration program' ad infinitum.  Jeremy Stutsman is arguably one of the largest landlords in Goshen (his father-in-law Dave Pottinger may be first). He has no problem passing this increased burden onto his renters. There is no mentioned accounting about total revenues from the 'program' and the general fund offsetting needs for us to evaluate.
Post #210951
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/6/2013 6:16:27 AM
Forum Member

Forum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 4/18/2011 7:11:11 AM
Posts: 264, Visits: 1,202
How can anyone not realize that when taxes are frozen or kept low, that this won't to translate to higher fees for our needs?  

Don't enjoy the fees?   Then maybe it's time to abolish that tax cap so that property tax revenues can keep up with the rising costs?  

10 years ago we lowered the taxes collected from dividends, estates, and capital gains and ever since we have watched  "fees" rise to make up the difference,  which was made worse after we started two wars in the meantime.  It's not rocket science.

Edited: 3/6/2013 6:18:54 AM by boatkittens
Post #210956
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/6/2013 6:55:10 AM
Forum Member

Forum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum MemberForum Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/1/2007 10:59:48 AM
Posts: 228, Visits: 0
In the City of Elkhart's program, landlords with more than ten properties are exempt.  Why wouldn't the big money guys want to add a burden to the little guy.  If you are even one day late paying this fee you are fined $100.00 even if the fault is the post office or the mail going to the wrong department at the city "haul" (incorrect spelling fully intended).  The date on your cashed $10.00 check makes no difference.  This is a crooked law designed to force legally zoned multi-family housing to return to single family status no matter the cost to the owner or the need for lower cost rental housing to renters.  A blow against the poor.  All properties are already subject to inspection etc.  These are not substandard units.  One flop house in Elkhart that had been reported many times with no action taken, caused this feel-good legislation and it has served no good purpose since it was passed.  The local rental property owners association gave the program it's blessing but why wouldn't they?  This law does not apply to it's members.
Post #210965
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/6/2013 7:24:39 AM
Forum Master Guru

Forum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master Guru

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/23/2009 12:35:27 PM
Posts: 2,288, Visits: 0
Kittens says, "It's not rocket science."  You are right, it is fantastical fabrications and creative illogic.  Need more money for whatever purpose the pols pick let's just extract it with a fee.  The need for Rental Property Registration is very questionable and city admin made it up from thin air as a ruse for increase revenues.  The city used to remove snow from Main street sidewalks.  They found the convenient excuse of sidewalk vaults to suspend this citizen service.  But what for those who have, at their own expense, eliminated the vault hazard?  And please be mindful that the business buildings pay 3% or in my previous example $3,000 on that same $100,000 valuation.  The tax caps recognized that property taxes extract funds from some while others receive services and pay nothing.  Even California realized you cannot lard up property taxes ad infinitum and that was in 1983!  At some point you put the elderly out of their homes over rising property tax while they live on fixed incomes.  And the concern for renters .... ?

I'm not sure, but at one point tax caps were headed towards a Constitutional Amendment.  I'll look it up.  But, in fairness the taxes should b established as a percentage of the actual recorded sales price.  The system of reassessment is arbitrary and in fact no appreciation is realized until money changes hands.  When property values fell somehow county valuations for tax purposes didn't correspond.  Caps come close but when the system can manipulate valuations there is the potential for fraud.  

I heard yesterday that someone came up with the hair brained scheme to tax bicyclists a tax on their increase emission of CO2.  Now, let's see, perhaps if you pay taxes at or above a certain threshold we should add an excise because Egypt needs some more arms.  They make it up as they go along!!!!
Post #210969
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/6/2013 7:38:52 AM
Forum Master Guru

Forum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master GuruForum Master Guru

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/23/2009 12:35:27 PM
Posts: 2,288, Visits: 0
Here is what a quick search revealed:  

Article 10, Indiana Constitution

Indiana Constitution
Flag of Indiana.png
Articles
Preamble • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4• 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 •11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 •16
Article 10 of the Indiana Constitution is entitled Finance. It has eight sections.

Section 1

Text of Section 1:

Assessment and Taxation

Section 1. (a) Subject to this section, the General Assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and shall prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal. (b) A provision of this section permitting the General Assembly to exempt property from taxation also permits the General Assembly to exercise its legislative power to enact property tax deductions and credits for the property. The General Assembly may impose reasonable filing requirements for an exemption, deduction, or credit. (c) The General Assembly may exempt from property taxation any property in any of the following classes:

(1) Property being used for municipal, educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes.
(2) Tangible personal property other than property being held as an investment.
(3) Intangible personal property.
(4) Tangible property, including curtilage, used as a principal place of residence by an:
(A) owner of the property;
(B) individual who is buying the tangible property under a contract; or
(C) individual who has a beneficial interest in the owner of the tangible property.

(d) The General Assembly may exempt any motor vehicles, mobile homes (not otherwise exempt under this section), airplanes, boats, trailers, or similar property, provided that an excise tax in lieu of the property tax is substituted therefore. (e) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter. The following definitions apply to subsection (f) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter. The General Assembly shall, by law, limit a taxpayer's property tax liability as follows:

(1) "Other residential property" means tangible property (other than tangible property described in subsection (c)(4)) that is used for residential purposes.
(2) "Agricultural land" means land devoted to agricultural use.
(3) "Other real property" means real property that is not tangible property described in subsection (c)(4), is not other residential property, and is not agricultural land.

(f) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter. The General Assembly shall, by law, limit a taxpayer's property tax liability as follows:

(1) A taxpayer's property tax liability on tangible property described in subsection (c)(4) may not exceed one percent (1%) of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the determination of property taxes.
(2) A taxpayer's property tax liability on other residential property may not exceed two percent (2%) of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the determination of property taxes.
(3) A taxpayer's property tax liability on agricultural land may not exceed two percent (2%) of the gross assessed value of the land that is the basis for the determination of property taxes.
(4) A taxpayer's property tax liability on other real property may not exceed three percent (3%) of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for the determination of property taxes.
(5) A taxpayer's property tax liability on personal property (other than personal property that is tangible property described in subsection (c)(4) or personal property that is other residential property) within a particular taxing district may not exceed three percent (3%) of the gross assessed value of the taxpayer's personal property that is the basis for the determination of property taxes within the taxing district.

(g) This subsection applies to property taxes first due and payable in 2012 and thereafter. Property taxes imposed after being approved by the voters in a referendum shall not be considered for purposes of calculating the limits to property tax liability under subsection (f). (h) As used in this subsection, "eligible county" means only a county for which the General Assembly determines in 2008 that limits to property tax liability as described in subsection (f) are expected to reduce in 2010 the aggregate property tax revenue that would otherwise be collected by all units of local government and school corporations in the county by at least twenty percent (20%). The General Assembly may, by law, provide that property taxes imposed in an eligible county to pay debt service or make lease payments for bonds or leases issued or entered into before July 1, 2008, shall not be considered for purposes of calculating the limits to property tax liability under subsection (f). Such a law may not apply after December 31, 2019.

Post #210971
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/7/2013 9:21:09 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/2/2007 3:01:38 AM
Posts: 1, Visits: 0

Mbernard,

I feel at a disadvantage because you know who I am and I don't know you because you did not sign your post.

This is the first time I have been referred to as being oneof the, “largest landlords in Goshen.”  Icurrently own 7 properties (my house, 2 residential units and 4 commercial).  Now either I am the largest and nobody owns 8properties or you have received some incredibly bad information.  My father-in-law owns 8 properties and leases4.  So even if you add our propertiestogether we still would not even come close to being the largest propertyowners in Goshen.

As you may also know council has not voted on this yet.  I said in the meeting that I believe theprogram to be a benefit to our community. The council is still waiting on additional information which is why wetabled it for the second time, (which I seconded the motion to table). 

You mentioned I have no problem passing this increasedburden onto my renters (again I have 2 residential rentals).  Well, you should know I will not be passing thiscost on.  If it passes, this increase worksout to be $0.42 per month per unit.  Infact property taxes of my residential units have been slowly rising in thedowntown area and I have taken that extra cost out of my pocket not my tenants.

If you ever wish to fact check what you believe to be trueabout me I would welcome a phone call or we could grab a cup of coffee.  My number and email are on the City of Goshenwebsite.  It makes no since to makeirresponsible posts about information you don’t have.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Stutsman

Goshen City Council, At-Large 
Post #211100
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/7/2013 3:14:33 PM
Contributor

ContributorContributorContributorContributorContributorContributorContributorContributorContributor

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/7/2011 2:46:00 AM
Posts: 110, Visits: 1
Wow, I decided when I read MB 's latest post, that one can hallucinate and type at the same time. I know several landlords in Goshen and Jeremy's family's holdings are not in their league. Goshen's major property investors manage not their dozen or so, but hundreds of properties. 

Your credibility should be important to you, even by a false name.
Your integrity should be important to you when using others' real names.
Post #211137
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook
 Posted 3/7/2013 6:23:26 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/23/2012 6:07:19 PM
Posts: 0, Visits: 1
Wait, I'm confused.

mbernard, who styles himself Mr. Goshen, is wrong?

No. Way.
Post #211159
Add to Twitter Add to Facebook


Reading This Topic

Expand / Collapse