www.eagletimes.com
www.eagletimes.com
www.eagletimes.com
Not a formula for thriving Bruce E. Richardson Springfield, Vt. 10 hrs ago 0 To the Editor, This letter concerns the recently revalued property and tax increase in Springfield, Vermont. I did an analysis of the numbers and what follows are some of my findings. There are 2,602 residential (R1) properties in the town, and 83 percent of them went down in value and conversely, 17 percent went up in value. The properties that decreased in value went down on average 22 percent. The properties that increased in value went up on average 17 percent. This resulted in an 18 percent increase in the tax rate. Over the last 10 years Springfield has had the distinction of having the highest tax rate in the state for four of these years, with the current increase, it looks like we will hold on to that distinction. What this means in terms of dollars is the properties that saw an increase in value will pay on average $1,300 more in taxes this year. This is a 38 percent increase over the previous year for them. Even 30 percent of the properties that saw their value go down will see their taxes go up an average increase of $369. There are 199 properties on the commercial side. Of these, 62 went up in value and 134 went down (3 had no change). The average increase for the properties that went up in value works out to $6,833 or a 54 percent increase over 2017. Additionally, 54 of the properties that went down in value still had an average increase in taxes of $998. Sorry to throw so many numbers at you. To put it in simpler terms, if a person purchased a house and took out a 30-year mortgage, with the current tax rate of $3.6578, when they pay off the mortgage, they would have paid more in property taxes than they did for their house. We keep hearing about how Springfield is going to attract new business; no they’re not. Businesses look to the bottom line. You cannot have tax rates this high and attract anybody. The governor wants to attract professionals to the state with a $10,000 offer to relocate for remote workers. In Springfield, if they purchased a house for $273,000, the $10,000 would pay 1 year of property taxes. This brings me back to the reappraisal. I would like to know what basis they used to evaluate the properties. The new median value of a residential property in Springfield is $111,000. You can’t have a house built for that little amount money and half the properties are valued less than that. How is that possible? In conclusion, this is not sustainable. You cannot keep increasing the tax rate and expect things to change for the better. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Vermont’s population has decreased since 2010, with Springfield’s decreasing by 4.8 percent. The schools have seen a decrease in enrollment of 6 percent over the last couple of years. While on the other side, more than 1 in 5 people in Springfield are over 65 years old. This is not the formula for a thriving community. Bruce E. Richardson Springfield, Vt.
Well, I find several things wrong with this analysis. For one, the median value of $111,000 means half the homes in town are worth more than that, and half are worth less than that. That's not impossible, that's how it works! For two, there are quite a few nice homes currently on the market for substantially less than $275,000, and very few at that price and above. Quite a bit more affordable than most places I've lived. For three, land being as cheap as it is here, it IS possible to build a house for $111,000, unless you get robbed by the building contractor. Four, Springfield having only 20% of its citizens over the age of 65 hardly seems excessive. So, as usual, Springfield's conservatives are painting a grim, but unrealistic picture to suit their ideology. Just keep tearing down the slum rentals and commercial properties. Nature abhors a vacuum, and under-valued real estate will draw people here, if the town looks nice!
ReplyDelete