$600,000 in Tax Assessments for Decorative Street Lights in Minneapolis

[QuietBlue]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

If someone can't absorb an extra $20 a month, then they shouldn't own a house.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. $20 here for these lights, more there for a city tax increase, some more for a county tax increase, and so on. To say nothing of all of the other miscellaneous COL increases that affect all of us. The nickels and dimes add up pretty quickly, and it leads to the death of a thousand cuts, so to speak. Maybe some or even most of the increases are necessary, but that means the ones that aren't need to be under scrutiny. It's not just $20 a month, it's $20 a month on top of everything else.

And maybe someone shouldn't own their house, but a lot of people are stuck in that situation and can't sell. Should they do a short sale or just walk away? It might benefit them personally, but I don't think those would exactly help the property values or overall condition of the neighborhood.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by QuietBlue

These things don't happen in a vacuum. $20 here for these lights, more there for a city tax increase, some more for a county tax increase, and so on. To say nothing of all of the other miscellaneous COL increases that affect all of us. The nickels and dimes add up pretty quickly, and it leads to the death of a thousand cuts, so to speak. Maybe some or even most of the increases are necessary, but that means the ones that aren't need to be under scrutiny. It's not just $20 a month, it's $20 a month on top of everything else.

And maybe someone shouldn't own their house, but a lot of people are stuck in that situation and can't sell. Should they do a short sale or just walk away? It might benefit them personally, but I don't think those would exactly help the property values or overall condition of the neighborhood.

I'm not sure exactly why it is the expense of street lights that became the straw that broke the camel's back on a six block stretch of a fairly minor thoroughfare in SW Minneapolis. It sounds to me like your complaint is more general in nature, and this specific road improvement project, which you acknowledge does not affect you personally, became the lightening rod of your discontent.

[1stpontiac]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I'm not sure exactly why it is the expense of street lights that became the straw that broke the camel's back on a six block stretch of a fairly minor thoroughfare in SW Minneapolis. It sounds to me like your complaint is more general in nature, and this specific road improvement project, which you acknowledge does not affect you personally, became the lightening rod of your discontent.

Well, I think everyone here is talking somewhat generally, since it doesn't sound like anyone here actually lives on that stretch. Despite some of the concerns I've mentioned, I'm not even saying I wouldn't have voted in favor of the improved lights if I lived there (I place a very high value on quality streetlights, wherever I am). However, I'm also considering from the perspective of someone who is having trouble making ends meet and doesn't need the additional expense. Quietblue's point is valid...over the next twenty years, while this is being paid off, how many other expenses will also be tacked on?

And if you can't afford basic critical repairs and upkeep to a house, then you shouldn't own a house. But if you can't afford cosmetic upgrades that most of your neighbors don't want? That's a little more open to debate.

[uptown_urbanist]

Originally Posted by QuietBlue

These things don't happen in a vacuum. $20 here for these lights, more there for a city tax increase, some more for a county tax increase, and so on. To say nothing of all of the other miscellaneous COL increases that affect all of us. The nickels and dimes add up pretty quickly, and it leads to the death of a thousand cuts, so to speak. Maybe some or even most of the increases are necessary, but that means the ones that aren't need to be under scrutiny. It's not just $20 a month, it's $20 a month on top of everything else.

And maybe someone shouldn't own their house, but a lot of people are stuck in that situation and can't sell. Should they do a short sale or just walk away? It might benefit them personally, but I don't think those would exactly help the property values or overall condition of the neighborhood.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this neighborhood or not. If you're talking overall condition of the neighborhood, the neighborhood as a whole is going to benefit from those new lights. It's going to look better, add more light to a busy street, and potentially transform a short stretch of Penn that currently also is home to most of the neighborhood's "problem" houses. (as well as a bunch of decent neighbors, too -- I don't want to paint the residents of that strip with one brush. But I'm sure the good neighbors would love to see the absentee landlords or problem houses clean up their act more than anyone!) Some of these house are already in foreclosure, and when I've spoken with neighbors or asked about Armatage's problems, pretty much the ONLY issues I ever heard brought up were some of these houses along Penn.

I do feel sorry for people who got in over their head and can't afford to make ends meet. But at the same time, they may well stand to benefit from this more than anyone, at least when comes to home value and potential resale value. It might not benefit the absentee landlords as much, although if the street is nicer they may be able to get more rent. The location is decent, the neighborhood is popular, Armatage School and Park is literally right there, and there's no reason that the very southern tip of Penn can't be as nice as the other parts of Armatage. Right now, it's not. It's a depressing strip of street in an otherwise nice neighborhood.

(I don't live there -- although used to live in Armatage and caught the bus on Penn -- and don't really care whether or not the street gets nice lighting or not, but think it's not unreasonable for the city to give these property owners the opportunity to improve their situation.)

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by 1stpontiac

Well, I think everyone here is talking somewhat generally, since it doesn't sound like anyone here actually lives on that stretch. Despite some of the concerns I've mentioned, I'm not even saying I wouldn't have voted in favor of the improved lights if I lived there (I place a very high value on quality streetlights, wherever I am). However, I'm also considering from the perspective of someone who is having trouble making ends meet and doesn't need the additional expense. Quietblue's point is valid...over the next twenty years, while this is being paid off, how many other expenses will also be tacked on?

And if you can't afford basic critical repairs and upkeep to a house, then you shouldn't own a house. But if you can't afford cosmetic upgrades that most of your neighbors don't want? That's a little more open to debate.

Sure, the question of cost of living is an important one, but it's a more general issue and not really about these streetlights per se. They've just become the poster child of the issue is all I'm saying.