http://notenanttax.org/

Quote :

"Raleigh city council has declared war on the housing sector. It doesn’t matter if you rent or own or are building a home. First was a doubling of housing fees, and now is a gigantic tax on tenants. The Council is proposing to implement a rental tax of $30 for the first unit and $10 on each additional unit. Landlords will have to pass this tax on to tenants in higher rents. Please click the link below to take action and let your council members know how wrong this is. We worked very hard to implement reasonable landlord controls in the PROP. Now they have taken us into more draconian measures – remember their ban on the garbage disposals. It’s time to tell them what we think. If you agree, please use the NoTenantTax.org "Tell Them" page to send the Raleigh City Council a message. Please respond even if you don't own property in Raleigh, because if it starts in Raleigh it’s just a matter of time before it lands in your town!"

http://notenanttax.org/moreinfo.html

Quote :

"# The Rental Registration Fee is a regressive TAX on tenancy. The annual rental registration fee of $30 per single family rental home, and $10 per rental apartment home is a regressive tax, in that the poorest citizens will face the largest burden. The supporters of this fee say many things: this is a fee on landlords, it's only $1 per month, and everyone will benefit. Really? # This is NOT a fee on landlords, it's a TAX on TENANTS. So who will really pay this fee? Landlords will send the money to the city, but it's the renters that will pay it, since the landlords will raise their rents to compensate for the fee. The overall rent increase might actually be more than the actual amount of the fee, as they will include compliance costs (like the additional bookkeeping to keep track of the city). But make no mistake - it's the renters who will pay this tax. # According to the N&O, "Supporters of the fee say the entire city will benefit from the information collected and the additional resources for enforcing the PROP ordinance." If this is true, THEN EVERYONE SHOULD PAY FOR IT! This is why we have a property tax, if there is a benefit that everyone shares in (roads, sewer, police, fire, etc.), then we're all responsible for supporting that benefit. Even so, it is hard to see how renters will benefit from this program to the same extent that the nosy neighbors will benefit. Why should the renters pay for this? "

This should be near and dear to you if you reside within the City of Raleigh. If you rent you are going to pay it. If you own property that you may later rent you are going to pay it eventually. If you own property that you currently rent then you will pay it now.

Everyone is going to finance positions created for the purposes of "creating and maintaining a database of all rental properties in Raleigh".

Also Print this Flyer and post on all of your apartments mailboxes.
http://notenanttax.org/NoTenantTax.pdf

6/25/2008 3:11:47 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to compensate for this tax, won't the landlords have to raise their rent by just $1 per month? If they raise it by any more than that, then they are being greedy and using this tax as a means to yet again fuck over their residents. If $1 a month means more inspectors will be making sure that my landlord is not a slumlord, I'm willing to pay it. But, that's just my opinion.

6/25/2008 3:30:50 PM

6/25/2008 3:37:35 PM

I would raise the rent by $1 per month + $90 for the time it takes me to write a check and mail it in.

6/25/2008 3:38:43 PM

Quote :

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to compensate for this tax, won't the landlords have to raise their rent by just $1 per month? If they raise it by any more than that, then they are being greedy and using this tax as a means to yet again fuck over their residents. If $1 a month means more inspectors will be making sure that my landlord is not a slumlord, I'm willing to pay it. But, that's just my opinion."

The city already has plenty of housing inspectors, they plan to spend this money creating a database so they can fine the property owners easier.

Also the other prong of this for students is if you get a nuisance party ticket or any other criminal violation you will probably get evicted.

6/25/2008 3:40:09 PM

My question was not answered.

How is this tax going to raise rent anymore than just $1 a month?

^Also, the city's entire reasoning behind this tax (according to the news programs I've watched on it, which I understand could be biased), is so that they can send out more inspectors, because they do not have enough.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 3:43 PM. Reason : blah]

6/25/2008 3:41:02 PM

Quote :

"It's not as cheap as it sounds. Only $1 per month? Really? Oh, and it's ONLY $4 a gallon for gas, and Progress Energy is ONLY raising our electric bills by 16%, and PSNC Energy is ONLY raising our heating bills by another 15% (after getting a 16% increase). Oh yeah, and the Raleigh City Council wants to raise property taxes by 15%, on top of Wake County's hike of 4.9%! And who can say that they won't just raise the tax the next time they're in a budget crunch - when have you ever heard of Raleigh lowering taxes!"

City property taxes have just gone up 15% when you factor in property revaluations and the county has gone up 4.9%. You are already going to be paying that via higher rent. They are just looking for another layer of bureaucracy and way to generate fees and fines. Remember when your landlords costs go up more than likely your rent will too, most rental property owners do not do it for charity.

6/25/2008 3:49:22 PM

^I understand that, but I also think that asking for this tax to not happen is like putting a band aid over a bullet wound. I think the real issue here is how MUCH rent will go up, because I promise you that landlords will use this to raise their rent way higher than the necessary amount that would compensate for this tax and the property tax hikes. I am completely behind protecting tenants, especially those in lower-income situations, but shouldn't they be protected from their money-grubbing landlords moreso than a $1 tax?

6/25/2008 4:02:31 PM

Quote :

"Only $1 per month? Really? Oh, and it's ONLY $4 a gallon for gas, and Progress Energy is ONLY raising our electric bills by 16%, and PSNC Energy is ONLY raising our heating bills by another 15% (after getting a 16% increase). Oh yeah, and the Raleigh City Council wants to raise property taxes by 15%, on top of Wake County's hike of 4.9%! And who can say that they won't just raise the tax the next time they're in a budget crunch - when have you ever heard of Raleigh lowering taxes!"

let's rewrite part of that, assuming an $800/month rent, then see how the comparisons hold up

Quote :

"Only $1 0.125% more per month? Really? Oh, and it's ONLY $4 300% increase over 4 years per gallon for gas, and Progress Energy is ONLY raising our electric bills by 16%, and PSNC Energy is ONLY raising our heating bills by another 15% (after getting a 16% increase). Oh yeah, and the Raleigh City Council wants to raise property taxes by 15%, on top of Wake County's hike of 4.9%! "

the first comparison of "only $4/gallon" practically invalidates the whole argument. Yes - adding $1/month or $12/year really is comparable to $4 gas, which you probably go through $50 worth per week.

i'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that the city of raleigh is not a bunch of money grubbing assholes, but the same people bitching about this are probably the same who think that a "gas tax holiday", which might save you $25-30 across 4 months, counts as "much needed relief"

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/25/2008 4:20:18 PM

Yeah... no.

Here's another article about this tax:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3059115/

Allow me to quote part of it.

Quote :

"Tenants could be fined $100 for noise or nuisance violations, and some crimes they commit could be held against the landlord's permit, under the proposal. The crimes include prostitution, possession of stolen goods, weapons and liquor offenses and gambling violations. Landlords who receive several violations could be fined and be forced to attend management classes."

In short, landlords who own a lot of property in a poor area that has a higher crime rate will have a much increased risk of being fined by the city, and they may even have to take time out of their working schedule to take courses that they might even be forced to pay for.

The problem isn't the $30 initial + $10 per additional apartment tax. The problem is that this will encourage reciprocal action against landlords that lease out low-rent properties unknowingly to people who end up carrying out criminal acts on the premises. You can do a background check for your tenants and see if they have a prior criminal record, but unless you've got a bunch of spare time on your hands you are not going to go over there every day to see if they have friends or colleagues over who do something illegal on your property.

The full effect of what this could be is a minor increase in rent due to property taxes and fees, a more substantial increase in rent (or application fees, whatever the landlord decides is better for business) to offset the cost of a background check for every tenant that applies to lease an apartment, and yet another substantial increase in rent to either help pay for some sort of liability insurance (i.e. to pay for fines/whatever should something go wrong with their tenants) or just an increase in rent to provide money that will be sunk into a savings fund just in case the city tries to fine the shit out of them because one of their tenants decided to do something stupid and illegal on their property.

In my opinion, this kind of tries to fund a new program in a rather unfair manner (bypassing home owners and just targeting landlords and their tenants, who usually don't have high income, to pay for this program) and it does so in light of property tax increases that should boost revenue for the city anyway (that could fund a program like this). This also unfairly pushes some of the liability for public order and safety from the city police and inspectors onto the landlords. As a landlord your job should be to make sure that whoever you lease to isn't going to be a total asshole to their neighbors, that your tenants will have acceptable living conditions, and that your property is not going to be destroyed by your tenants. If you are to be liable when your tenants break the law, this would mean that you are required to protect your interests in other ways. You'll have to do background checks, you may have to do regular inspections, and you may have to pay for insurance in case legal action is brought against you by the city (in the form of fines or whatever else this pandora's box of an act will end up making acceptable in a courtroom). This will result in plenty of rent increases that end up hitting low-income low-rent tenants more than tenants that pay higher rent (and have a higher income) in other parts of town.

Besides all that, if they don't vote against this act it'll give their opposing candidate some nice political fodder once election season rolls around. This move is so poorly thought out that I don't see why any council members would vote for it. It's just bad for business.

[Edited on June 25, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : r... words]

6/25/2008 5:09:33 PM