Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I like it!!!!!!!

And, some people in this world are educated beyond their intelligence and are so smart they are in fact, stupid!! It was never a hello, and therefore, no good-by is necessary

Mr. Barrett has left the building

Never argue with an idiot for some may not know who the idiot is. Goodby.

Sorry Mike, be it Kapp, Knapp or Ray or Jay, it's you who refuses to look at the facts!! Again, I say again, go look up 500 Main Street in Norfolk and while you are there take the time to review the "many" others that have benefited from the assessment joke. Many hours were spent there last year by the NTP-2 identifying such cases. Tell me Mike, was Knapp's study funded and paid for by a group that paid for the answer they wanted to hear??

Oh, that's a classic response for another anti tax zealot. "Don't bother me with the fact, I have already made up my mind." Perhaps you should at least read the article in the Virginia News Letter published by the Weldon Cooper Center fro Public Service. Dr. Knapp is a professor emeritus at UVA who is a senior economist and a expert on state and local government finanace. His article concluded that..."the amendment will exacerbate an already difficult time for local government." But of course, in your post, you butcher the spelling of his name, and show your disdain for objective information and knowledge. So typical of the Moss/Dean taxpayer association approach to problem solving. That is, we know what we want to do, don't bother me with the facts. Ironically, when assessments on business property were rising faster than residential assessments, did the business community whine to the GA to create a business exemption? The answer to that question would be no. But again, the facts matter little to taxpayer associations.

Haaaaaaaa, now that response was sure interesting, but not surprising. Since you reference this Dr. Kapp guy as your example, please allow me to invite your attention to 500 Main Street in Norfolk. That commercial property sold for a tremendous value above the "so called fair market value", but yet the assessment has not changed in over 3 years. This is typical of many commercial properties in this area. Go check it out for yourself. As for me, I'd love to see a split tax roll and I'll gladly take my chances. We both know that this legislation will never happen. Bottom line, we have government by the business, for the business to give the homeowner the "BUSINESS"!!

Actually, that has been proposed in Virginia. However, as far as I know, an amendment to the constitution would be required for this as well. It is called the bifurcated rate; that is, a city would be authorized to charge a different rate for different classes of real property. So there could be a commercial rate and a residential rate. As you would expect, I prefer one uniform rate based on 100% of the fair market value. I acknowledge that in some years, the residential values may go up more than the commercial, and in the next year the opposite will occur. In the long run, the market corrects for both situations. Dr. Knapp's study in VNL showed that since 1994, the commercial rate has gone up faster than the residential rate, but again, that will balance out over time. So for now, with residential assessments in some communities actually going down while commercial assessments are increasing, I can't see where there will be much legitimate concern for a homestead exemption or a bifurcated rate.

Mike, since you are so much against the Homestead Exemption (for obvious reasons) please tell us all how you feel about the "Split Tax Roll" concept. You know, the one that would allow the cities to apply two tax per hundred rates. Say, as a commercial/business your assessment didn't go up or went up very little the city could then leave your tax per hundred stand and if the residential went up a "big Bunch" like it has been doing they could reduce the rate substantially. This would stop one group from actually getting a tax reduction winn-fall while the other group gets tax pounded. This should be interesting, I can't wait!

...you still can not tell us where the blight is in VB

Well actually, the pursuit of projects like 31st Street, the amphitheater, Town Center, the convention center, and other economic development projects which I have supported are part of a strategy adopted by councils long ago acknowledging that the Commonwealth was failing to meet its obligations, and if the city wished to continue its high level of quality services, it had to participate with the private sector to stimulate quality growth and development. Frankly, I think they have done just that, and if I had any criticism, it would be that they should have done more, not less. We need a new commerce park, we need revitaliation of the Beach district, we need better zoning to allow new urban projects to proceed, all of which will contribute to the tax base and allow us to have quality services, programs, infrastructure, and the lowest tax rate possible. Now I don't expect a bunch of anti tax zealots to understand this strategy, but what else is new?

to see how you spend the money you save.

Then you must also admit to the fact that the City has also spend millions of taxpayer dollars advancing the agenda of developers such as yourself as was the case in the 31st Street/Neptunes Corner issue. It is also true that the developers in this area have enjoyed tax breaks that other business owners didn't enjoy all the while promising that "this project will lower your taxes" and that promise is hardly ever kept. You see Mike, I have watched the city do the bidding of the developers in this city for years and as a taxpayer, have footed part of that bill so your projects could go forward, even when we voted NO in the 31st Street park issue. How many millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on lawyers to strongarm the owners of Neptunes Corner? It'd have been cheaper just to give them a fair price! Then the Council as well as yourself have the audacity to insult those of us who voted against the project by telling us we were too dumb to understand the question.

You've earned this one, Brea and forgive me if I find your concerns for renters and lower income people a little more than dishonest. Of course, YOU can apply for the homestead exemption and I'd be very interested

Well that is certainly a fair criticism, but it is not all true. We are commercial real estate developers specializing in office, retail, flex, and industrial buildings. We have built some residential projects, but only to a limited degree. But we do lease spaces to many businesses, but of course, as documented herein by many others, those tenants generally pay the real estate taxes as a pass through on their lease. So the increases in real estate taxes would have been directly passed through to tenants in 90% of our leases. The full service leases would get the increase as soon as possible. But frankly, your criticism misses the point; I used to be a local government employee, so I know what the effect of such a loss of revenue would be. And since I am now a commercial real estate developer, I knew that if the residential tax base were cut by 20%, that small businesses would immediately get a 30% increase in their taxes. So I combined my knowledge in these areas with my comprehension that most politicians who proposed the HE had not a clue of the impact, and that's why I opposed it as strongly as I could.

Mike, if you cared at all about lower income people, you would build houses that they could actually afford-but you don't. The only thing you really care about is the possibility of YOUR taxes being raised on the products YOUR company builds, which are homes and that you might not be able to sell them for the handsome profits you have enjoyed heretofore. The only concern you have for a decrease in tax revenue is the possibility that the City won't be able to afford the corporate welfare that the developers in this city have enjoyed (at taxpayer expense) for years because the money just won't be there.

Mike, you could at least be honest enough to admit that the heart of the matter for you has nothing to do with caring about lower income people because these are the VERY SAME people who would suffer under the Redevelopment and Housing Authority you support-which would be like Christmas every day for you-so I shall ask you again, where is the blight?

Like you always do. The point is that a flat reduction is fair. Just because one can afford 2 million dollar house does it mean that that person does not qualify for tax fairness. Same goes for the person that can afford a 200 grand home. Standing in line is something that I've had to do before and if need be would do again.

I've worked my way up from a collage drop-out to a person going for his 3rd degree. And at each step up the ladder I've noticed one common thread. That is, the more you do better for yourself the more that the Government steps in to slap you on the hand just because you've been climbing that ladder. Just because one can afford it does not make it fair.

So my hope for this HE was not the reduction but as a catalyst to get ineffective people out of office. These are the same people that saw a surplus as a reason to increase the budget the following year on artificially inflated prices on homes. This is pure irresponsibility at best, at worst criminal.

Well Mike, thanks for making it real clear. Give me my 20% tax break, the rest be damned. Fact is, it would not have been a 20% tax break, only a 20% exemption of the assessment. But since no city could handle a 20% reduction in the residential real estate tax base, the rate would have had to increase to make up for that. In most cases I reviewed, the rate increase would have made up the difference, so you would have paid as much tax as the year before. But to qualify for the exemption, you would have had to file an application, prove you owned the home, and proved you did not rent it out. And since there are 106,000 homes at the Beach, it would have been a long line to stand in to still pay higher taxes than you did the year before. So frankly, you should send Senator Stolle a thank you note for sparing you the effort required to still pay more real estate tax than you did the year before.

It is disingenuous to call for a referendum, knowing what the result will be. Naked power does not good law make.

So there should have never been a referendum on 31st as well then? Because we all know what the result will be. The city council doing it anyway.

That's true; people who rent apartments, homes, business real estate and condos feel they should not have to pay higher taxes so wealthy homeowners can have a tax break.

This is disingenuous as well. Because 10% is 10%. And I'm sorry, I would love to have a 20% reduction in my taxes no matter how much or less that would be. A flat rate is fair and equitable so stop playing the class warfare. I'm not rich but 20% would be nice for this middle class family.

I own 2 rentals that I am paying a mortgage on & my home which is paid for. I get 3 quarterly tax statements. Oddly enough, if the taxes are increased on my rental properties, the rent also mysteriously rises as soon as the lease or rental agreement is no longer valid. Furthermore I evaluate other rentals in the immediate area, and make the appropriate adjustments, trying my best to keep at the lower end to assure it stays rented, but have to get enough to pay the mortgage & the rental property's taxes. It's quite a challenge, actually.

You know that any increase in rent to a Navy family would cause an increase in the BAH. SO PLEASE stop using this as an excuse.