Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If paying more means we are able to welcome more new neighbors fleeing Trump and red states then I am fine with this.

We don’t need more neighbors, we’re completely full here. And actually it’s going the other way, there’s net migration to many Southern States.

Nope

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

There’s a lot of daylight between “appropriately balanced” and “shouldn’t have” any. Fight the emotional reflex.

What "balance" would you like?

DP. Since the local budget is driven mostly by the school budget, large commercial apartment complexes don't pay enough in taxes for the school resources they consume. Outdated assessments and tax forgiveness for developers just exacerbates the problem.

okay so you don't like renters. What percentage of renters versus homeowners will you tolerate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

There’s a lot of daylight between “appropriately balanced” and “shouldn’t have” any. Fight the emotional reflex.

What "balance" would you like?

DP. Since the local budget is driven mostly by the school budget, large commercial apartment complexes don't pay enough in taxes for the school resources they consume. Outdated assessments and tax forgiveness for developers just exacerbates the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

There’s a lot of daylight between “appropriately balanced” and “shouldn’t have” any. Fight the emotional reflex.

What "balance" would you like?

DP. Since the local budget is driven mostly by the school budget, large commercial apartment complexes don't pay enough in taxes for the school resources they consume. Outdated assessments and tax forgiveness for developers just exacerbates the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

There’s a lot of daylight between “appropriately balanced” and “shouldn’t have” any. Fight the emotional reflex.

What "balance" would you like?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

There’s a lot of daylight between “appropriately balanced” and “shouldn’t have” any. Fight the emotional reflex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Nobody is claiming that taxes are the only factor affecting rents. Arguing that taxes don’t affect rental prices is nuts.

+1 the article PP cited offers the following finding.related.to housing costs (not specific to rental housing): "We find that average income growth relates strongly to house price growth and that house prices generally keep pace with average income. " It does not find that rent increases are only due to increases in household incomes or that property taxes do not affect rents.

Ask your chat bot if rents are set based on a cost plus reasonable profit model or if rents are set based on what the market will bear. Oh wait. I already have. It offered the following finding: Apartment rents are based almost entirely on what the market will bear, not on a cost-plus-profit model.

Lol this is AI making people dumber in action

lol unless you’re a major landlord or work for AOBA the joke’s on you because your misunderstanding how your rent is priced is causing you to advocate for their interests instead of your own. Even more so when it comes to policies that have a more direct effect on your rent like rent stabilization.

Ok we'll just take you and your "chat bot" at your word over that of published studies with named authors

Hey champ. You won’t see this one in your YIMBY echo chamber but here’s a study with named authors. It even has their pictures.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

The chat bot guy was the one who who put property taxes and rent into google and then pasted long excerpts that he didn’t understand along with chat bot text summarizing this study.

I already saw this when you first posted it. Talks about a relationship between income and housing prices. It does not examine the relationship between rents and property taxes.

DP. Property tax is not the sole expense in renting a property. While a relationship might exist, the landlord can choose to reduce spending in property improvements and repairs. And the landlord might just need to eat the loss in terms of less profit.

A relationship does exist. See up thread for studies showing this relationship.

Yes, markets are complicated and landlords cannot just get whatever price they want for a unit, but property taxes absolutely factor into the equation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rental properties are a huge net negative on the tax base. The actual owners not only deduct property taxes, but also repairs, upgrades, depreciation, operating expenses, qualified business income, etc. On top of that many, many rental properties in Montgomery County are, shall we say, “multi family” and further dilute the tax base.

It makes renters feel good to think they are contributing to the tax base, but that’s not reality. Local governments need to make sure their housing stock is appropriately balanced between owners and renters or else they find themselves in the predicament that MC is in. From a fiscal perspective rental populations only makes sense in vacation areas where tenants are short term, do not require government services, and are subject to an occupancy tax. [/quote
Thanks for sharing that you don't like rental housing and think the people who live in it are a detriment to our community, Marc

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.