Money Magazine: Columbus-3rd highest taxed city in US (Cleveland: apartments, city hall)

[ZnGuy]

Cities with highest and lowest taxes- MSN Money

I'm suprised to see Columbus on this list. I assume it is just the city proper and not the suburbs.

[NewToCA]

Metro Columbus has high taxes, but you get a lot of services too.

Columbus has great parks, rec centers, libraries, clean environment and relatively good schools in many areas with modest to moderate cost for housing or apartments.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Metro Columbus has high taxes, but you get a lot of services too.

Columbus has great parks, rec centers, libraries, clean environment and relatively good schools in many areas with modest to moderate cost for housing or apartments.

I'm not sure about "great" parks or libraries. Maybe "ok" parks and libraries. Also, slow and unreliable public transit in most areas. Rents aren't as cheap as they were... I'd feel kind of ripped off if I still lived in Columbus. Hopefully the city decides to make some big moves with all that money.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Metro Columbus has high taxes, but you get a lot of services too.

Columbus has great parks, rec centers, libraries, clean environment and relatively good schools in many areas with modest to moderate cost for housing or apartments.

Unfortunately for most of those paying the 2.5% income tax to Columbus they do not reside in the city but rather in surrounding suburbs. It still chaps my arse that the residents of Columbus virtually helped themselves to my wallet by passing the tax increase a few years back. If I had any real choice in the matter I would not work in the city proper and instead choose one of the 'burbs with lower taxes.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I'm not sure about "great" parks or libraries. Maybe "ok" parks and libraries. Also, slow and unreliable public transit in most areas. Rents aren't as cheap as they were... I'd feel kind of ripped off if I still lived in Columbus. Hopefully the city decides to make some big moves with all that money.

The Columbus Metropolitan Library is ranked in the top 5 just about every year, and is usually in the top 3 nationally. There is nothing "OK" about it. There are 27,000+ acres of parks around the metro, and it's growing each year. While it may lack certain geographical features, such as moutains, I would think that's enough to fill most recreational needs.

Rents aren't as cheap as they used to be anywhere, as renting is much more strongly in demand right now than single-family homes. However, if you look at the numbers, Columbus' rents are not rising any faster than the national average and were fairly cheap to begin with.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

Unfortunately for most of those paying the 2.5% income tax to Columbus they do not reside in the city but rather in surrounding suburbs. It still chaps my arse that the residents of Columbus virtually helped themselves to my wallet by passing the tax increase a few years back. If I had any real choice in the matter I would not work in the city proper and instead choose one of the 'burbs with lower taxes.

Considering that the tax increase was for the city, I'm not sure how those taxes are going to benefit the suburbs which are separate entities. Columbus doesn't use city tax money to fix problems in Hilliard. So all that money is staying in the city. If you remember, it passed because the recession was causing a lot of cuts in city services. The increase restored those cuts and helped the economy stay relatively stable. I don't get complaints like this, as if people are supposed to have police, fire, parks and recreaction, decent infrastructure, etc. for free, especially with a constantly growing population.

You think the suburbs are going to be better? With the collapsed suburban housing market that shows little sign of returning, there are significant problems facing these places in the future, especially if they don't reinvest in densification (see Dublin's Bridge Street Plan).

[jbcmh81]

In any case, if you do a cost of living comparison, Ohio cities, including Columbus, are cheap places to live, no matter what the tax rates are. You can't just look at a single metric and base a conclusion on it.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The Columbus Metropolitan Library is ranked in the top 5 just about every year, and is usually in the top 3 nationally. There is nothing "OK" about it. There are 27,000+ acres of parks around the metro, and it's growing each year. While it may lack certain geographical features, such as moutains, I would think that's enough to fill most recreational needs.

Rents aren't as cheap as they used to be anywhere, as renting is much more strongly in demand right now than single-family homes. However, if you look at the numbers, Columbus' rents are not rising any faster than the national average and were fairly cheap to begin with.

It's not about how many parks there are, it's how good the parks are (which is admittedly subjective). Doesn't really have to do with geography necessarily. Not to be a Cbus-basher and Cleveland booster, but Cleveland is not a top taxed city and has cheaper rent AND has the number 1 library system (Library Name, though 2 certainly isn't bad, BUT how exactly are these rankings made?) and I'd take the Emerald Necklace over anything in Columbus, park wise.

I'm not saying it's bad, but I still think you pay a lot of taxes and don't get enough in Columbus, most importantly, in my opinion, with public transit.

Taxes are ridiculous in Boston with MUCH higher rents than anywhere in Ohio. I am totally getting ripped off here. Overall, I agree with you, Cbus is a better deal than where I live.

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Considering that the tax increase was for the city, I'm not sure how those taxes are going to benefit the suburbs which are separate entities. Columbus doesn't use city tax money to fix problems in Hilliard. So all that money is staying in the city. If you remember, it passed because the recession was causing a lot of cuts in city services. The increase restored those cuts and helped the economy stay relatively stable. I don't get complaints like this, as if people are supposed to have police, fire, parks and recreaction, decent infrastructure, etc. for free, especially with a constantly growing population.

You think the suburbs are going to be better? With the collapsed suburban housing market that shows little sign of returning, there are significant problems facing these places in the future, especially if they don't reinvest in densification (see Dublin's Bridge Street Plan).

Your first paragraph is non sequiter. I made no mention of suburban benefits in my post to which you replied. My point was, many if not most of the individuals subject to the Columbus City income tax hike reside in surrounding bedroom communities but have the misfortune of working in Columbus. The residents of Columbus, which if they are employed are the minority of tax payers in the city, decided to raise taxes on those folks that work in Columbus yet have no say on the matter because they live outside city limits.

Furthermore, most suburbs have already worked through whatever reductions in tax revenue that resulted from the Great Recession. In fact tax revenue is on the rise compared to the 2009 nadir in most communities across the state and Central Ohio municipalities in particular. In addition, property values have little bearing on Ohio municipalities and their budgets. Sure, school districts are feeling the squeeze from reduced property taxes after Central Ohio counties reassessed property values lower a couple of years back but the overwhelming majority of municipal general fund revenue is derived from income taxes, state aid, and various fees and fines. It is a common misconception that your local city hall is the force behind rising property taxes. That blame falls primarily on school districts and their associated levies. Little if any county property tax is kicked back to the cities that make up the Columbus MSA.

[Bodycount]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

It's not about how many parks there are, it's how good the parks are (which is admittedly subjective). Doesn't really have to do with geography necessarily. Not to be a Cbus-basher and Cleveland booster, but Cleveland is not a top taxed city and has cheaper rent AND has the number 1 library system (Library Name, though 2 certainly isn't bad, BUT how exactly are these rankings made?) and I'd take the Emerald Necklace over anything in Columbus, park wise.

I'm not saying it's bad, but I still think you pay a lot of taxes and don't get enough in Columbus, most importantly, in my opinion, with public transit.

Taxes are ridiculous in Boston with MUCH higher rents than anywhere in Ohio. I am totally getting ripped off here. Overall, I agree with you, Cbus is a better deal than where I live.

You're looking at the 2010 ranking for libraries which meant that was when Columbus Library funding was at it's lowest for the past 20 years. And they still ranked second which was amazing.

You can't pick and choose your years if you're trying to make a valid point.