Rapid City Journal examines both sides of Amendment D

This morning the Rapid City Journal discusses the two sides of Amendment D - Solution or more problems?
Amendment D will protect homeowners from being taxed out of their homes amid rising property values, supporters say.

Amendment D is a dangerous fix that could do serious harm to school districts and shift the tax burden to first-time homebuyers and anybody who wants to buy farms or other real property in South Dakota, opponents say.

and...

In a nutshell, this constitutional amendment would roll back everyone’s property-tax assessments — the county’s estimate of real-estate value — to 2003 levels and
then allow them to rise only 3 percent per year. The only time the assessed value would change is when a person constructs a new building, remodels an existing one or sells the real estate to someone else.

When a person sells, the actual sale price would become the new valuation.

Sen. Bill Napoli, the Rapid City Republican who has been spearheading the statewide
Amendment D campaign, said the amendment is a fair, simple way to stabilize property taxes. Each year, the Legislature tries — and fails — to fix the system.

“If Amendment D does not pass, the Legislature has got to fix this (property-tax system) one way or the other. And if they don’t, shame on them,” Napoli said.

and..

Opponents say Amendment D will create serious inequities in the tax structure.

“Napoli would tell you it’s unequal but fair,” David Owen of South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry said. “We have a different value system than that.” The chamber is one of several business and government groups campaigning against Amendment D.

There is no question that Amendment D would, over time, create situations where the owners of two homes of equal value would be paying unequal taxes.

and...

Even if Amendment D passes, South Dakota’s debate about property taxes will likely continue.

Read it all here.

Comments

Poliglut said…
This Amendment has NOTHING to do with taxes. It's about property values. If towns, cities or school districts need more money, they'll just raise tax rates, which are not affected by the amendment.

Current system: property assessed values are set at 85% similar properties, a kind of averaging.

Napoli's system: property assessed at 100% of last sale price.

Two houses side-by-side built 20 years ago, original owners. Someone buying one of them would pay nearly TWICE the tax. FOR THE SAME SERVICES.

Maybe the old guy should just get one fire engine? Or second chance on a police call?

The tax increase for the new buyer is HUGE: nearly 100%! This is very unstable and unpredictable. Another Californiz deal.

DUMP IT.
Anonymous said…
WRONG POLIGLUT !!

The numbers you are using are false !!

I have made spread sheets and you need a market almost double the south dakota average to get to that level of difference.

EVEN SO, If they pay twice what I pay, they should pay twice the taxes.

The way it works now, the taxes are raised for everybody so the new rich guy can afford to buy a bigger and more expensive house !! screw them, if they can afford the house letem pay the taxes !!
Anonymous said…
Spreadsheets: cool!

Didn't the Enron guys have lots of those, too?
Anonymous said…
Here is how it works now...

Lets peek at the Newcombe ranch sale in Meade county.

Guy pays 6 million for land appraised at 2 million. The land will be taxed at 6 million for one year. The increase in land value will lower the mil levy for all for one year because of the increase in total valuation. The next year, the Newcombe ranch value goes back to 2 million in assessed value. But, because the county gets the same amount of money, the levy will go back up to collect the same amount of taxes. I hope all the ag folks in Meade enjoy their one year tax cut, because their taxes will go back up, the year after, to pay the taxes for the Florida playboy that wants to hunt in South Dakota.

Under amendment D:

His taxes (Newcombe ranch) would stay at the 6 million assessment level, and the rest of the ag property in Meade county would not have to make up the difference !! nor could an assessor come buy and re-assess the neighboring property to equal the Newcombe ranch assessment.

I LOVE D !!!!!!!!
Anonymous said…
Ya Enron had speadsheets, they also wrote the current property tax system,,lol
Anonymous said…
Using the old system, I will keep raising the rent on all my renters to make up for the rise in taxes. With Amendment D this will not be necessary. Renters like Amendment D and so do landlords. Amendment D is the right thing for me. My vote is Yes on D.
Anonymous said…
poliglut needs lots of help. He's so wrong one wonders how he made it this far in life.

Old system: your property is assessed at market value using the sale of other properties to guesstimate the value of yours. (watch out for that new developement near your 20 year old home).
property is then "TAXED" at 85% of assessed value.

New system: purchase price sets assessment and that is capped at a 3% per year maximum growth to match the 3% maximum growth in local budgets. (no need to be concerned about that new developement near your 20 year old home).
property is then "TAXED" at 85% of assessed value.

Another error is his "two house" nonsense. The 3% growth rate is conveniently disregarded. Because of this factor differences will not be as great as he claims. There will be no "double, triple or 5 times taxes" on identical properties.

A $30,000 mobile home and a $500,000, school superintendent's home, pay vastly different taxes. Yet they receive THE SAME SERVICES. Should we be sending just half an ambulance to the mobile home??

This is a South Dakota deal.
Vote YES on Amendment D! I am.
poliglut said…
10:13

Ya, RIGHT. The local tax mil levy will be decreased because ONE GUY Bought the Ranch.

What planet are you from, anyway? This guy is going to get KILLED on taxes. Even if they did decrease the mil rate, he'd end up paying a HUGELY disproportionate share of taxes. THINK IT THROUGH before you come up with these fantasies!

In truth, he'll NOT BUY because of it. The real estate market will be THROTTLED.

Dream on, and read up on the history of Callfornia's "lock-in", an artificial market force - an unintended consequence - that creates immeasurable deadweight loss. (Look it up.)

History does not lie. And California now can't get rid of the problem.
Anonymous said…
Amendment D is a bad idea. I don't wanna see the state's economy get slowed down because bad tax policy like Amendment D was approved. Vote No on D!
Anonymous said…
Poliglut and friends;

California experienced incredible growth after prop 13, the devastation came after the ill advised tax increase in 1994 ?

Read all about history of prop 13, not just the links that support your bias, polls in California indicate that Californians would pass prop 13 AGAIN if it were on the ballot today. How bad could it be if the majority of Californians still support prop 13 today ??

besides, there are big differences between prop 13 and amendment D:

Prop 13 cut property tax revenue by 57%, D is revenue neutral for general operating funds.

Prop 13 capped the mil levy, D does not.

prop 13 was a max of 2% growth, D is rate of inflation or 3%,= much better.

bottom line, D is much better than prop 13 anyways !!!!
Anonymous said…
you can sure tell it when the realtors and other scammers of the current system get online,

VOTE YES ON D !!
Anonymous said…
Poliglut 12:15

Yes, every sale affects the mil levy, call the director of equalization in Meade county and ask if you dont believe me. The Newcombe sale was a non ag-z sale, that means he will pay on the 6 million assessed value for one year, then the assessed value returns to the previous valuation, in this case about 2 million.

I appreciate your zeal on this matter, but it would be better for all of us if you could be more accurate with your statemments. You are obviously commenting from information based on rumor and propaganda, no offense intended.
Anonymous said…
Sounds like if D passes it will help slow the ridiculous increases in the selling prices of property. This will be good for first-time home buyers, not bad. I'm voting YES.
Anonymous said…
I am sure all the "no on D experts will lower their selling price when they sell their property just to allow those poor young folks buy a home. Not a chance in he** that they will. Bankers will continue to loan them the principal, charge them interest, sell them a homeoweners policy, mortage insurance, credit insurance and finance the taxes too. All those young'uns want to know is, "How much is this going to cost a month? Voting YES on D!

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th