Measure 2 defeated, lawmakers mull property tax reforms
June 14, 2012 at 1:15 am in Grand Forks Herald
A constitutional measure that would have made North Dakota the first state in the nation to abolish property taxes went down in flames Tuesday, with about 77 percent of the more than 172,000 primary voters soundly saying “No” to Measure 2. But Sen. Dwight Cook, R-Mandan, said the Legislature has worked to reform property taxes for years, an effort that will continue and lawmakers already have several plans that could lower tax bills despite what happened in voting booths across the state. Continue Reading
They also need to put a limit on what local entities can give away in tax credits. With the one report that stated the four big cities have exempted almost as much as collected. There needs to be tighter controls over what they are allowed to exempt.
sayanythingblog.com/entry/north-dakotas-four-largest-cities-exempted-over-810-million-in-property-from-taxation/
Minot: $22,949,200
Grand Forks: $70,320,500
Bismarck: $327,733,500
Fargo: $389,020,000
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
5
They have had the philosophy that business needs to be protected at all costs but the average citizen gets to pay a huge property tax bill. This is exactly the same thinking that has corporations and the wealthy not paying income taxes, but ordinary people have to cough it up. I was totally against eliminating property taxes, but at the same time, I think property taxes need to be lower. If corporate interests paid their fair share, it would help.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
9
Re realist: Are you against getting rid of property taxes via Measure #2 because there were no provisions for replacing the shortfall, or is it a philosophical issue that you believe property taxes are a just way of collecting revenue? I had a problem with the measure not addressing the shortfall, but philosophically I believe that a person should not have to keep paying ‘rent’ on something they already bought and paid for.
Like or Dislike:
19 
10
I believe in paying for what I get and so far, I believe I’ve gotten a lot from my property taxes like schools, police protection and fire protection. I honestly don’t mind paying a fair price, but my issue is that some pay and some don’t pay. Those that don’t pay are the ones who have the most.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
7
Realist,
Quote any reliable source that says that the wealthy are not paying income tax. THAT IS 100% false. IRS 2009 effective tax rates (the latest year available) on the IRS website (I call that a reliable source) shows that the wealthy pay a much higher rate. Not just more tax, but a higher rate on a higher income so MUCH MORE in tax.
Show me a source that states otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
11 
9
As a percentage of their income, the wealthy pay much less and some corporations pay almost nothing. That’s why Warren Buffet’s secretary pays more tax than Warren Buffet. It’s not the total dollars that count but what does she pay in comparison to what Warren Buffet pays and according to Warren Buffet, she pay more. What more “prooof” do you need? If you have been buying the line that the wealthy pay most of the tax, then you have not realized that they are talking about total dollars and not percentages.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8
Oh, and that rate thing you’re talking about, that’s BEFORE the deductions that lawyers for wealthy people pile up so that rate comes down a lot. Wasn’t Romney rate something like 14%? That’s a lot lower than what you’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
My question is whether these abatements are permanent or temporary. I see nothing wrong with offering temporary abatements to encourage a business to locate in the city. When the time period is up, they join the tax rolls. Some cities also offer temporary abatements for people to build homes or make improvements. I did some rennovation on my rental property in Grand Forks and was granted a 3-year delay in the property tax increase.
I don’t know for certain, but my guess is that most abatements are “carrots” that encourage building and those businesses and homes will eventually become part of the property tax base.
Like or Dislike:
16 
10
Glenn: Looking at the big picture, temporary abatements might be necessary to make a deal. In rural America, especially, you could build an 8-plex for $800,000 that instantly has a value of $400,000. The bank might only loan on 70% of the $400,000 value. This isn’t big corporation activity, it’s guys like you trying to get a small piece of the action. There’s an anti-business atmosphere today that’s reached a level of dysfunction. A few of us still think business (including big business) is the root of all that’s good in America. I think the businessmen, small and large, are today’s heroes. A robust economy fuels the job makers and pays the bills. This is a position that’s very unpopular with many people, including our President.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
11
I honestly don’t know what “anti-business” attitude you are talking about. The business climate in this country has never been better and yet, corporations are pocketing their profits which are huge. I’m a small business person myself and I can see it from the inside. Instead of being anti-business, this country is pro-business 24/7 and that includes the President. If you think that adhering to commensense regulations is anti-business, then you need to go to China where there are no regulations and the land, air, water and soil is taking a heavy hit. That’s what would happen here if we didn’t keep big business from abusing their position. Do you remember when you could light a match to Lake Erie? Well, I don’t want to go back to those awful days.
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
Who wants to go back to 1970 or kill the planet like China is doing. Re-read my post. I’d take the EPA and NTSB back to 2000 in a heartbeat, though. That’s a big difference. Ask any utility company or larger manufacturer if the Fed gov’t (through Bush & Obama) has been business friendly. Of course, that’s Big business which is a swear word to many. It just happens to be piling on faster with our current president.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
Alvin,
I am a small businessman. I employ many people but I don’t get the tax breaks that some of these people do just because we’ve been here forever.. I don’t care that I have to pay taxes. What I care about is misappropriation of taxes and others not having to pay their fair share.
They receive the same services, if not more than I do but because they are in good with Mayor Wallacker or whomever they get a deduction or complete abatement in their taxes.
The list that I posted was just for the four major cities in the state. I would hedge a guess that this number is probably close to quadrupled for the state as a whole.
Like or Dislike:
18 
4
I see nothing wrong with temporary abatement as well. But you cannot tell me at those figures aren’t enough to tick you off. They give almost as much away as the state collects, but we the home owner, the small business man are supposed to suck it up for companies like Walmart and other big box stores.
Or how about the couple in Fargo that just got a 10 year abatement on their property taxes because they are going to convert the old Leef Cleaners building in Fargo into their home.. Really?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
maverick: I agree about the “temporary” thing and have no clue about ND’s loose abatement laws (compared to MN), but we probably mostly agree. I always thought MN was a little too tight with tax relief laws. Maybe ND could learn something from Minnesota’s tough abatement restrictions.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Very true and every farmer who gets 50% of his income of farming. He only has to farm 3 years and his home is exempt for life. Sorry pun intended its time to kill the sacred farmers cow. Its not the 30s anymore. Tax them the same as everybody else.
Like or Dislike:
17 
5
When a record number turns out and a measure is defeated by about 75%, it’s an overwhelming message that it was a BAD idea. Many who opposed this measure likely want change. The proponents of this measure are missing an opportunity to sck it up and hide in shame for the resources this pathetic idea wasted. Instead, they’re blaming big money. Measure #2 got hit with a huge cow pie in the face. How on earth could anyone not see that? The referral system is unspeakably expensive and inconvenient.
Like or Dislike:
11 
15
What did M2 cost you? What resources wasted? Voters having to vote?
Like or Dislike:
9 
9
My goodness, Susan. Chambers of Commerce and many groups spent huge dollars in advertising to get the message out there. I didn’t say I spent the money. Advocates of this measure cried because their advertising budget couldn’t compete with big money. I kind of assumed that meant big money SPENT by someone other than you and me, wasted on a no-brainer, no chance measure. This is exhausting.
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
Alvin, doesn’t it strike you as a little bit odd how all of the usually estranged bedfellows managed to unite against a potential threat to their cash cow? Also, they should have been using privately raised funds to fight against measure 2, and that money was spent at local businesses.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
You say “potato,” I say “patattah.” You say “spent,” I say “wasted.”
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
M2 was poorly written. That said, it was an incredibly wonderful concept.
Organized fear caused it’s failure at the polls. Of course money had something to do with it–it helped spread the fear.
Meaningful property tax reform may or may not happen. If it does, M2 was still a partial success.
My money is on the Legislature breathing a collective sigh of relief, and then accomplishing nothing useful…again. With the pressure off, there will be continued “race to the bottom”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
5
Maybe some of the fear was organized, but most of it stemmed from a realization that the measure supporters didn’t know how it was going to really work. The fear was totally justified.
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
Taxes in the state are chaotic. That’s by design.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Sen. Joe Miller, R-Park River, said Measure 2 raised a debate about state mandates that have sent expensive bills to local governments, which rely on property taxes to cover the costs. Even after the measure’s defeat, he said legislators need to take a “good, hard look” at what the state dictates to local entities, including how they spend money and levy their property tax mills.
IMO one BIG problem is that the local subdivisions (ie the Counties) don’t
know how to follow the statues and conjur up their own “Laws”.
Reducing the state mandates and/or allowing more freedom for the “Locals” to tax is a BAD idea for Incompetent government.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
WE cannot wait another 6 years for reform, something needs to be done this legislative session. Give our homes back to us, by not foreclosing if we run into a hardship like cancer, a temporary disability, a layoff. Give every homeowner a homestead credit, every homeowner, one home up to $150,000 and cap the tax rate so it can not go up more than 3% a year ever!
I think the “mandates” need to be looked at also the laws the state makes in regards to property tax and incentives. In Mandan our city writes a check to two businesses just to be in our city every month these businesses get a check, not an exemption a check! The icities determine who gets the incentives yet they are usually the smallest entity of the taxpayer pie, the funding for schools should never be exempt, it is the lion share of the property tax. STOP giving incentives to building apartment buildings.
There is no reason social services needs to come from our county social services, why should property owners only bare the burden to provide the social services when most of those receiving the services do not own property. Why do we have to pay for criminals defense when they have passed through our town? The state could pick the tab up. The soils assessment is super complicated and makes no sense to real farmers and land owners, and the county is penalized if they do not follow the state’s soil assessments. Penalized by having 5% of other funding cut if they do not go along with it.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Corporate Welfare is ALWAYS wrong.
Taxpayer-funded charity is almost always wrong. Charity should be voluntary, not enforced under penalty of law via the tax code.
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
For the people that are on here and complaining about high property taxes, do you ever contact your elected officials about it???
Ever go to a city council, county commision, park board, school district, etc. meeting?
You need to attend these meetings and let your elected officials know that taxes are too high, if that is the case. Also, let them know what services should be cut.
Being an armchair activist is not effective. Attend the meeting. If you think the city is wasting money on bike paths, dog parks, hanging flower baskets, street pole banners, etc. then attend a meeting and let them know.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
Yeah, if your a glutton for punishment. Especially if you prefer Blank Stares over Condesending Frowns!
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
The public sector has declared war on the private sector in this state!
Like or Dislike:
9 
12
Realist: Maybe you didn’t understand my question to you, or you chose not to answer it. I asked whether you liked a property tax as a way of raising revenue or whether you specifically had a problem with Measure 2. We all understand, even die-hard libertarians such as myself, that we must pay for goods and services received. Where we differ is how we pay for them, who should provide them, and what choice we have in paying or not paying for services we do not use. My real world example, as an argument against property tax, are those who are on a fixed income who get priced out of their own home. I know a fellow who built a house north of 32nd Ave. in GF in the mid 80’s when it was still farmland for around $45,000. Now his taxes are far more than his original mortgage payment was when he built, and have risen at a faster rate than his wages. In another 10 years or so he’ll retire and have to rely on what he has saved to live on. To add to that, he and his wife were unable to have children, and she was unable to work, so they’ve only had one income, and never used the school system that they have been forced to pay for. So I ask this question to all of the property tax supporters, i.e., the ones who voted against Measure 2, have you ever considered that there may be better and less regressive ways of paying for the services you want in a civilized society that don’t involve the threat of kicking someone out of their own home?
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
Most of the time, taxes are a bargain. How much are you willing pay for getting 200+lb firefighters to come running to your house to help save your investment or how much is your life worth when you call 911 when you have a heart attack. Don’t want to participate? I bet you do when you feel your chest constrict and you feel the life ooze out of your body. Then you’d pay, right? Well, most of us like to know that we have those services. No kids? I’m glad that our children are all able to be educated. That helps me when I try to hire people to do stuff they learn in school even if I don’t have kids. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to you. It’s called civilized society.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
Realist: What part of “We all understand, even die-hard libertarians such as myself, that we must pay for goods and services received.” did you not understand? Maybe you should put a muzzle on your dogma for a minute because it’s drowning out your reason and logic. I’ve heard that straw man argument so many times from my liberal friends that I could poke a pencil in my ears to avoid listening to it again. Since I’m not in love with every form of taxation ever conceived, I must not want roads to drive on, or firemen to save my arse from burning myself, or the police to protect me from the bad men, yadayadayada. Let’s move past that, since I’ve already acknowledged that we have essential and non-essential services, and they need to be paid for. Is a property tax fair, or would it be more fair to base the use of services on a consumption tax? Simple question.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
There’s a misconception that tax abatements and deferrals are for the rich. You could build a $10 million factory that gets temporary tax relief to aid in the startup. Often times, these
ventures fail and your city still has the asset in your industrial park. Many people lose on such a venture, but cheapskates like me (the taxpayer) gain because the next owner purchases this
bargain. Eventually all of these structures pay taxes. These transactions are more complicated than “hot is hot and cold is cold”. Also, real estate taxes is not rent. Street sweeping, snow
removal, street lights, etc. are maintenance, not rent. Maybe the beef is that libraries, flood control and water towers should be paid for with a variety of taxes and not real estate taxes.
Guess what: in many states, sales tax and income tax partially fund such things. This measure was bad government and guess what, free-thinking liberals and libertarians defeated it en masse.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
In the 60′s the Beatles came out with the song “Tax Man,” And in the 80′s Robin Williams played Popeye where there was a scene with tax collectors looking at everything for a tax. In both the song and the movie segment you have a good example of what most of us feel about the lengths that the taxation progams appear to go for money off of everything. So it’s no surprise that we want some real relief from this on going burdon to tax more and more. What this measure would have done naturally would have switched those taxes into bigger cuts in other segments, and taxes or permit increases in some places that have none. It is indeed a frustrating mess.
Maybe now a more realistic approach will come down the pike, but it’s up to all of us to remind those who represent us that they shouldn’t take a rejection of this bill as a green light to go back to business as usual. I know they talk the talk now……But once the story dies down they need to be reminded that something more needs to be done to lesson some of the burdens…
One thing some of the counties out west could do is come up with some sort of tax break for those who don’t gouge original residents for rent to the extent they are in some places because of the oil money. A tax break incentive just might help keep some people from being forced to leave (Although it’s probably too little too late by now)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Tundrabeast, the voice of reason. While harvesting the oil and natural gas resources in the number two oil-producing state in he union, every taxpayer should wet his beak. It’s probably already happening to a certain degree, so it’s partly an issue of lawmakers educating the masses. Throw gobs of these revenues to the oil patch. The reports out of there seem devastating to some of us in our quiet, affordable, traditional neighborhoods. The key word is REASON, something Measure #2 greatly lacked.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0