I just ran into this article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/cities-helping-residents-resist-the-new-gentry.html?hp&_r=1
My understanding (which may be wrong) is that Mass.'s Proposition 2-1/2 limits the rate that the tax bill on an individual residential property can rise, so it may have the effect of "keep the taxes for longer term residents lower".
Of course, city governments hate to leave money on the table, but it seems that in some places the wave of gentrification has been so fast that the tax take is rising fast enough that the government is willing to forego some of the increase. Of course, it helps motivate the government that long-term and elderly residents generally have a high voting turnout...
Normally I'm strongly anti-NIMBY and believe in a relentlessly level playing field, but I do feel some sympathy for people who are getting priced out like this. OTOH, it's worth checking how much money they could get by selling out. There were cases like this in the 1950s, when the farmland on the outskirts of cities was forcibly turned into subdivisions because the farmers couldn't pay the property tax on the hugely increased value of their land. But the farmers made millions selling their land, so they really weren't damaged overall. In gentrification, it's the long-term renters that are most likely to take a hit.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-03-07 08:02 pm (UTC)My understanding (which may be wrong) is that Mass.'s Proposition 2-1/2 limits the rate that the tax bill on an individual residential property can rise, so it may have the effect of "keep the taxes for longer term residents lower".
Of course, city governments hate to leave money on the table, but it seems that in some places the wave of gentrification has been so fast that the tax take is rising fast enough that the government is willing to forego some of the increase. Of course, it helps motivate the government that long-term and elderly residents generally have a high voting turnout...
Normally I'm strongly anti-NIMBY and believe in a relentlessly level playing field, but I do feel some sympathy for people who are getting priced out like this. OTOH, it's worth checking how much money they could get by selling out. There were cases like this in the 1950s, when the farmland on the outskirts of cities was forcibly turned into subdivisions because the farmers couldn't pay the property tax on the hugely increased value of their land. But the farmers made millions selling their land, so they really weren't damaged overall. In gentrification, it's the long-term renters that are most likely to take a hit.