http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8545/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=NDCx4K55
A couple of broader points were missed in the article, namely:
- Doing anything to further discourage the players in an industry whose work creates jobs for many others (contractors, repairmen, inspectors, appraisers, home improvement stores, appliance and entertainment vendors, schoolteachers, etc.) is narrowminded at best
- Property taxes are the largest single component of the city's revenues. The City's property tax revenues go up every time a home is sold, resulting in a new assessed value under Prop. 13. The best agents aren't just order-takers, they prompt real estate transactions. . I'll save you the computatoins but the increased property tax annuity received by the City after a home sale is much greater than the tax in the short-sighted city staff proposal
- City staff would love to double-tax the real estate industry, but probably don't expect to get away with it. So there's a proposed credit to brokers for commissoins taxed at the agent level. So why would City staff care who pays the tax? Because assessing the tax at the agent level is a clever way of sidestapping the cap which comes into play at the broker level but never would at the agent level
- City staff mailed out letters announcing the new tax without first obtaining the permission, let alone the direction, of the City Council. This opaque approach to running city management was a trademark of our now deposed City Manager's administration. It will be nice to see a few more chages in City staff once a capable new City Manager institutes policies of transparency to all and deferral to the Council which has long been absent. - David
2 comments:
Bravo to you for speaking up, David.
Your final point above is one that should be particularly troublesome to *all* stakeholders, regardless of their sentiment on the proposed new tax.
When bad public decisions are made, everyone suffers -- but when public decisions are allowed to be made with limited/no public input, our government has failed us in the most basic manner.
I couldn't agree with you more regarding hopes for increased and improved transparency, accountability, and overall focus on proper public process once a new City Manager is selected and hired.
Gerry O'Connor
GFOConnor@aol.com
Actually, I agree with David and Gerry. When the City Council learned about the city's enforcement letters, implementation was immediately suspended. The City Council Finance Sub-Committee (of which I'm a member)conducted a review of the rationale, methodology and legalities of the city's action.
The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the matter at our September 21st meeting and will then make a policy decision as to whether implementation is appropriate, reasonable and fair.
I don’t support any unnecessary new taxes on our residents or businesses (especially during recessionary times) and I’ve worked hard to eliminate unnecessary or inefficient government spending. I'm still trying to get the city to do a "zero-based budget" wherein all programs and expenditures have to be identified and justified (unfortunately, I don't have a majority of Councilmembers who agree -- at least not yet).
Those who know me (during my 9 years as a volunteer city Commissioner and my 17 months on the City Council) know I’ve always stood for open and inclusive government, as well as impartiality, reasonableness, fairness and prudence in the decision-making process.
Wayne Powell
Manhattan Beach City Councilmember
Post a Comment