Like so many political issues, there is more than one way to characterize any given policy, and the Multi Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) as discussed above is a good example. To truly understand the exemption and why it exists, or most any policy, we need to look at its history. When the MFTE was adopted many years ago it was a very different time politically and economically, especially with respect to housing. The primary goal was to get people living downtown so that they would support the businesses and keep downtown healthy. That’s the concept. The businesses – retail, restaurants, theater, etc. – are what defines a downtown. Those businesses require enough people with sufficient means to survive. And it appears that the MFTE was successful, or at a minimum played a part in all the new development downtown. Now we’ll actually see if that concept, people living downtown, helps maintain our city core.
But similar to the current zoning policy (also adopted years ago) that allows an extra two stories of height in the city’s core to get people living there (the West Bay Yards proposal takes advantage of this policy), it is time to evaluate and change these laws to address our current political climate. Our housing needs are now much more tied to the economy and the need for “affordable housing”, however we want to define affordable. My understanding is that these policies are being looked at this year by the city. The council is certainly aware of the issues, differing opinions and options.
Lastly, I would not characterize the forfeiture of tax revenue as a subsidy. Subsidy implies that we are giving something away, costing the taxpayers. That simply isn’t the case. What we are doing is not collecting taxes on the residential portion of buildings that might not even have been built without these policies. As these buildings are in an already dense and central part of the city, I’d think the substantial taxes we do collect on the property for the property and commercial space should still pay most, if not all, of the added cost for services.
So we can characterize the same policies, the same events, in any number of ways. A healthy downtown needs regular care and feeding; that’s what the city was trying to do. I prefer to think that possibly the city actually accomplished what they set out to do years ago, and now it’s time to reflect and change with the times.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
