urbanSTL

publiceye wrote:

tjacorn wrote:


Yep, that's a problem. Sounds like we need to clean house...especially if a land-tax is implemented and more properties fall in the hands of the LRA.

So, how much more would you like to spend?

The City’s current residents now pay for all that abandoned property’s up-keep: $5.2 million a year just to mow the lots, haul away debris, and board up the first floors of abandoned buildings; another $3 million a year to demolish the most dangerous structures. But, the problems are still far larger than the available resources. For the past six years, my primary focus has been to preserve and sell what we can. We have sought – and received — historic status for thousands of buildings throughout the City, making their rehab eligible for tax credits. And we have also worked to identify and demolish those structures that cannot be saved or that have no rehabilitation potential, placing a priority on demolishing those buildings that present immediate public safety hazards.



Our efforts have had some positive results. There were 2,500 abandoned buildings in the LRA-owned inventory in 2001. Today, there are only 1,500 – with many of the once-vacant buildings acquired, safely rehabbed, and productively re-used by private individuals and businesses. We expect the positive trends to continue, but it is not going to happen overnight. Today’s City residents will continue to pay for years to maintain the properties of private owners who abandoned them.

http://www.mayorslay.com/desk/display.asp?deskID=677

I had no idea the city spent so much on abandoned property until I read Mayor Slays blog entry on it.



That's a real problem.



But still, the land tax would help drive out investers sitting on desirable plots in Wash Ave and in the business district and thereby lead to lower vacancies and increased construction projects in those area. Eventually that growth (and increased property values) would work its way to the north side, imo.



In the mean time I have no idea what the city should do with all those properties. Eventually there will be a demand for them. The question is how soon. The land tax is a sure fire way to drive out speculators while encouraging capital investment (since it's not a tax on improvements) so I think that's a good place to start.

^ Interesting problem we have. What do we do with them? It's stated they try to preserve and sell what they can. When structures are public safety hazards, they're torn down. Not only does this save tax money but many of these abandoned buildings are used as safe houses for gangs.



Scoff if you will as I know this may not be politically correct. But what areas do the predominance of these abandoned properties reside? Dollars to doughnuts, they're in the same areas where you can find high concentrations of gang activity, drug and firearm violations. Now the only reason I'm mentioning this is because I don't see how demand in these areas will increase until societal issues are dealt with. People may disagree on why there are problems or how to best deal with them, but we can't ignore they exist.



Meanwhile, it looks as if our leadership is doing what's right.

I just read that Indianapolis has a 1% earnings tax that they are considering raising it to 1.65%. The example they give is someone earning $50,000 would pay $825 instead of $500. The projected $90M in additional revenue would hire 100 new police offers, fund police pensions and pay for a number of other crime fighting initiatives.

If history is any guide, that extra earnings tax will free up other money to buy enhanced light bars, high-tech gadgets, and other 'crime fighting initiatives'.

bprop wrote:If history is any guide, that extra earnings tax will free up other money to buy enhanced light bars, high-tech gadgets, and other 'crime fighting initiatives'.

They get enough of my money as it is. An increase isn't necessary if they bring in more residents to the city. There's a lot of opportunity between revitalizing North City, bringing in new jobs and increasing the amount of office space. More residents in the City equal more tax revenue.

do some on here want to INCREASE the earnings tax? where's the "slap's hand on head" emoticon?! Are people honestly retarded?

:bash:

Close enough.



I don't mind the 1% tax. If we make St. Louis a nice enough place to do business, 1% won't matter.

Everyone subsidizing billionaires - it's the little niceties that help (the chocoloates on the pillow of the business world) streamlined approval for projects, help with infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.

FWIW - Indianapolis just pass the increased personal income tax increase. I only mention this to ask if this is an increasing trend across large cities or not?

Indianapolis just pass the increased personal income tax increase

Not exactly. A City/County council committee has approved the tax increase, not the entire City/County council. The new funding, if it finally passes, will be used to fix their crippled public employees pension systems and add new police officers, equipment.



The City/county personal income tax increase will probably be offset by a freeze in property taxes. Doubling and tripling of property taxes over the past few years have set off a statewide tax revolt in Indiana.

publiceye wrote:

Indianapolis just pass the increased personal income tax increase

Not exactly. A City/County council committee has approved the tax increase, not the entire City/County council. The new funding, if it finally passes, will be used to fix their crippled public employees pension systems and add new police officers, equipment.



The City/county personal income tax increase will probably be offset by a freeze in property taxes. Doubling and tripling of property taxes over the past few years have set off a statewide tax revolt in Indiana.

Yes - you're more correct, though it does look like the increase will pass. And of course they'll freeze property taxes now - after they've doubled.



So I'm wondering if the earnings tax is an archaic device used in places like Indiana and Missouri or if it's gaining popularity?

How is it not a nice place to do business. How is the City anti-business? Please, tell me how doing business here is hard, especially when we subsidize billionaires!

subsidizing billionaires?? please elaborate.

Doug wrote:How is it not a nice place to do business. How is the City anti-business? Please, tell me how doing business here is hard, especially when we subsidize billionaires!

Actually, I can name several ways how the city is anti-business.

1) One, it is EXTREMELY pro-union. Unions and their members (at least the big wigs) have a lot of pull in the city and get away with a lot of things that they shouldn't. If anyone wants to run a non-union shop, they would definitely have to jump through a lot of hoops.

2) The sales tax is higher in the city compared to that in the county. In fact, I made a few bucks (by accident), when I bought something in the county and returned it in the city. Not a big deal, but to make a city shop on par with the county as far as the price, the owner has to take a hit on his profit margins.

3) The taxes on real estate in the city are ridiculous and even though a building is not appraised correctly it is practically impossible to challenge the appraisal and get a fair amount, which is STILL higher than what you would pay in the county.

4) The employee tax is yet another reason why it would be bad to have a lot of employees in a city, when just a few miles away is the alluring county with less taxes.



Overall, I think the City should be doing whatever it can to compete with the County, and they have done a good job of that in the residential sector, but now it is time to start handling commerce since one can't live without the other.

The sales tax is higher in the city compared to that in the county. In fact, I made a few bucks (by accident), when I bought something in the county and returned it in the city. Not a big deal, but to make a city shop on par with the county as far as the price, the owner has to take a hit on his profit margins.

Great- I didn't know this. Maybe that's why the county retail blows that of the city's out of the water. Hopefully the city will continue to get a stronger retail presence.

I sugest Mr Fleming target cincy businesses and tout our 1% tax as a reason to look into moving here to the LOU .. u know save that .65%

Now wait a minute .. we just have to hope most other major cities that charge NOTHING and other states that don't have a state income tax don't think of this.. or we'll be wasting our marketing dollars!



Damn those billionaires with their thousands of jobs .. it seem to me they have to many options.

The sales tax is higher in the city compared to that in the county.

Not necessarily. It depends on the municipality.

That brings me to this question:



The Mrs. and I are looking to buy some furniture at Macy's. Is there a Macy's in the area that would have lower sales tax than others? Downtown vs. Richmond Heights? West County?



(for the record, I don't mind the earnings tax)

^ I'd try the South County Center location, which is in an unincorporated area, therefore there's no municipal tax.



Don't quote me on the exact rate, but off the top of my head, I think the county sales tax rate is 6.075%.

The basic City of St. Loius sales tax is currently 7.741% (not counting special districts etc.).

^So you'd save $16.66 if you bought a $1000 TV in the City vs S. County. I would honestly rather spend my money in the City when I can. Granted how many places can you buy a TV in the City? Does the DT Macy's even have an electronics dept?

^ Sales tax only becomes a consideration for me when I know I have no choice but to shop in the county. Otherwise, I shop in the city as much as possible.



Famous-Barr eliminated the electronics department downtown some time in the early 1990s, and in its other stores not long after that. Interestingly, during the period in which May Company was purchased by Macy's Inc. (then Federated), the furniture department was supposed to close, and then a decision was made to keep it open. The furniture department at the downtown Macy's is on the seventh floor, and as long as you don't mind the extra hit in sales tax, I'd recommend giving it a try.

I think it is unfair and overtaxation to charge a retailer a earnings tax and a sales tax. (not to mention the other taxes)



By being a retailer you are paying the sales tax.



That should really be enough.



the sales tax should cancel out the earnings tax, for retailers.