Options: Abatements based on market health

Plain Dealer associate editor Joe Frolik doubts that setting up different tax abatement terms based on the health of a neighborhood's market can survive the politics it would take to get it done.

Trying to re-tool Cleveland's system now that its been running in order to target areas or reduce the level of abatement may be difficult, but certainly not impossible. Many cities have target areas or designated zones for tax abatements or a sliding scale of years.

  • Fort Wayne designates certain parcels of land as Economic Revitalization Areas (ERA's). 
  • In Houston, Texas, residential tax abatement can only happen in Enterprise Zones, which is any census block group in which the poverty level is 20% or higher and the median sale price doesn’t exceed $146,000 (or 10% above the median sales price in the area).
  • Detroit has tried a different set up with its Neighborhood Enterprise Zones, areas in the city where developers can apply for a 50 percent tax abatement.
  • Washington, DC has a $5,000 federal income tax credit for first-time homebuyers who purchase a home in certain areas of the District. It's a one-shot deal—you get the credit the year you buy the house. And if your income exceeds a certain limit ($130,000 for a married couple), you don't get the credit.

In Cleveland, neighborhoods like Ohio City, where north of Lorain Avenue and east of W. 45th the average home price approaches $150,000 and south of Lorain is far below that, could be a test market for Enterprise Zones. Setting a standard based on hitting a ceiling in value may be more insulated from politics because no one area is branded a loser.

Questions to be explored: 

  • Are there census blocks, or whole neighborhoods, in Cleveland where tax abatements have sufficiently improved the market to consider amending the incentive?
  • What is the appropriate level of improvement to determine changing or removing tax abatement?
  • Is there an example of a city that has amended its tax abatement policy by reducing the number of years, adding a phase-out, or changing to target zones? (Philadelphia, PA is in the midst of its own debate on whether to mend or end its 10-year tax abatement. See articles below).

Resources:

March 31, 2006 - 2:09pm

More not less abatements

Tom Bier Says:

In December 2001, we surveyed buyers of new homes and asked: "How important is property tax abatement for the success of new housing?"  92% said "very important", 7% said "modestly important" and 1% said "slightly or not important."  

My view is that without the abatement that has been available for the past 15 years, little would have happened. 
Cleveland was an extremely weak housing market, and I believe it is still very weak. Most of the city's neighborhoods are unstable. Good suburban options are easily available. 

All of this is the consequence of a weak regional economy which results in little regional population growth.  In the context of the region, there is very little middle class demand to live in Cleveland (and the inner suburbs as well).

As long as the region and consequently
Cleveland are so weak, the city must use tax abatement to compensate for that weakness. The inner suburbs are finding out they are in the same boat.  The suburban outward movement to the adjacent counties is massive.  How will the inner suburbs combat that?  More tax abatement. 

April 11, 2007 - 2:02pm

Mayor Jackson proposes strategic tax abatements

Marc Lefkowitz Says:

From the Plain Dealer:

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson wants City Council to revise the residential tax abatements from 15 years to seven on most houses built in the city.

Jackson also proposes 12-year tax breaks for houses built with environmentally friendly designs and for houses with features for senior citizens.

Under Jackson's proposal, renovated homes would get only a seven-year, 100 percent abatement. But renovated homes that include energy-saving designs or features for the elderly would qualify for tax breaks of 10 years.

Councilman Matt Zone said he fears that the proposed 10-year and 12-year tax breaks would be of no use to most home buyers. Zone said the buyers would find it impractical to invest in costly energy-saving designs.

The thinking behind this seems solid: reduce the homeownership costs for Clevelanders, who lead the nation in home foreclosures because they cannot afford to live in a home. I'm surprised at Matt Zone's reaction. He supports energy efficiency for new townhomes, but not for older homes and less well off home owners who need it most? Instead of poo poohing the idea, let's cheer the possibility that abatements can respond to strategic goals. And direct homeowners to the county's low-interest home loan program for improvements. Maybe Cleveland City Council could see it as an opportunity to follow Shaker Heights' lead and launch a Go Green program offering energy efficiency home improvement grants?

Roldo takes the Plain Dealer's outright rejection of the Jackson proposal to task, citing a lack of balanced coverage of the stats from the CSU study, including:
"It does not mention that 26 of the abated units are worth more than $1 million each. No taxes for someone who can afford $1-million plus housing in a city where numerous homeowners have and are losing their homes in foreclosures.

And, "In fact, 20 percent of the tax-abated units have been lost to foreclosures, according to the CSU report. That’s a fifth of these abated units."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.