Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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 Outdated assessments and tax forgiveness for developers just exacerbates the problem.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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

The assessments for apartment buildings are all over the map. They are based on how much revenue the owners report, but the fines for not reporting revenue are often less than the cost what the tax increase would be, so sometimes the landlords don’t report.

An apartment building at Pike and Rose that sold earlier this year went for 30 percent more than its assessed value. An apartment building a little further south went for twice its assessed value a few years before that. These were nine-figure deals so the tax loss is significant. On a smaller scale, a lot in downtown Bethesda that has an approved high-rise plan sold for ten times its assessed value. Even after the sale, the assessed value of the property didn’t increase during the property’s regular assessment cycle, because there’s currently a small commercial property on the land that doesn’t generate much rent.

The system is totally broken. The county’s high proportion of SFH and condos used to hide the problems in assessments, but revenue has lagged as MFH has become a higher share of the housing stock. That and the lack of business growth has made budgets tough.

The assessments for SFH and townhomes are also horrible. Look at the assessments for each home in a single townhome community. It is insane. This is a state issue as the county does not conduct assessments.

Agree but those assessments are not off by seven to nine figures. The implications for each individual assessment are not as big.

What an interesting discussion. The Council has zero control over assessments. They control the tax rates. The County does appeal assessments they believe are incorrect but it is an uphill battle

Assessments are one of the variables that affects revenue. I know the state assesses property. The county doesn’t have standing to appeal assessments. The county could, however, lobby the legislature to fix the clearly flawed system for assessing commercial property.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Property taxes may factor into what a landlord wants to receive in rent but they have no bearing on the price the market sets for the unit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

The assessments for apartment buildings are all over the map. They are based on how much revenue the owners report, but the fines for not reporting revenue are often less than the cost what the tax increase would be, so sometimes the landlords don’t report.

An apartment building at Pike and Rose that sold earlier this year went for 30 percent more than its assessed value. An apartment building a little further south went for twice its assessed value a few years before that. These were nine-figure deals so the tax loss is significant. On a smaller scale, a lot in downtown Bethesda that has an approved high-rise plan sold for ten times its assessed value. Even after the sale, the assessed value of the property didn’t increase during the property’s regular assessment cycle, because there’s currently a small commercial property on the land that doesn’t generate much rent.

The system is totally broken. The county’s high proportion of SFH and condos used to hide the problems in assessments, but revenue has lagged as MFH has become a higher share of the housing stock. That and the lack of business growth has made budgets tough.

The assessments for SFH and townhomes are also horrible. Look at the assessments for each home in a single townhome community. It is insane. This is a state issue as the county does not conduct assessments.

Agree but those assessments are not off by seven to nine figures. The implications for each individual assessment are not as big.

What an interesting discussion. The Council has zero control over assessments. They control the tax rates. The County does appeal assessments they believe are incorrect but it is an uphill battle

Anonymous wrote:

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 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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

The assessments for apartment buildings are all over the map. They are based on how much revenue the owners report, but the fines for not reporting revenue are often less than the cost what the tax increase would be, so sometimes the landlords don’t report.

An apartment building at Pike and Rose that sold earlier this year went for 30 percent more than its assessed value. An apartment building a little further south went for twice its assessed value a few years before that. These were nine-figure deals so the tax loss is significant. On a smaller scale, a lot in downtown Bethesda that has an approved high-rise plan sold for ten times its assessed value. Even after the sale, the assessed value of the property didn’t increase during the property’s regular assessment cycle, because there’s currently a small commercial property on the land that doesn’t generate much rent.

The system is totally broken. The county’s high proportion of SFH and condos used to hide the problems in assessments, but revenue has lagged as MFH has become a higher share of the housing stock. That and the lack of business growth has made budgets tough.

The assessments for SFH and townhomes are also horrible. Look at the assessments for each home in a single townhome community. It is insane. This is a state issue as the county does not conduct assessments.

Agree but those assessments are not off by seven to nine figures. The implications for each individual assessment are not as big.

Anonymous wrote:Council is MCPS' wh**e just like Congress is Trump's. Unbelievable.

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 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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

The assessments for apartment buildings are all over the map. They are based on how much revenue the owners report, but the fines for not reporting revenue are often less than the cost what the tax increase would be, so sometimes the landlords don’t report.

An apartment building at Pike and Rose that sold earlier this year went for 30 percent more than its assessed value. An apartment building a little further south went for twice its assessed value a few years before that. These were nine-figure deals so the tax loss is significant. On a smaller scale, a lot in downtown Bethesda that has an approved high-rise plan sold for ten times its assessed value. Even after the sale, the assessed value of the property didn’t increase during the property’s regular assessment cycle, because there’s currently a small commercial property on the land that doesn’t generate much rent.

The system is totally broken. The county’s high proportion of SFH and condos used to hide the problems in assessments, but revenue has lagged as MFH has become a higher share of the housing stock. That and the lack of business growth has made budgets tough.

The assessments for SFH and townhomes are also horrible. Look at the assessments for each home in a single townhome community. It is insane. This is a state issue as the county does not conduct assessments.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yup.

https://foxbaltimore.com/spotlight-on-maryland/marylands-high-costs-push-families-to-florida-the-careys-are-next

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

The assessments for apartment buildings are all over the map. They are based on how much revenue the owners report, but the fines for not reporting revenue are often less than the cost what the tax increase would be, so sometimes the landlords don’t report.

An apartment building at Pike and Rose that sold earlier this year went for 30 percent more than its assessed value. An apartment building a little further south went for twice its assessed value a few years before that. These were nine-figure deals so the tax loss is significant. On a smaller scale, a lot in downtown Bethesda that has an approved high-rise plan sold for ten times its assessed value. Even after the sale, the assessed value of the property didn’t increase during the property’s regular assessment cycle, because there’s currently a small commercial property on the land that doesn’t generate much rent.

The system is totally broken. The county’s high proportion of SFH and condos used to hide the problems in assessments, but revenue has lagged as MFH has become a higher share of the housing stock. That and the lack of business growth has made budgets tough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

Anonymous wrote:This is what the council approved through several straw votes yesterday. Yesterday they added about $36 million to MCPS's funding request. So they approved (by straw vote) 6 of the 10 tranches of $18 million each. As of yesterday, they approved $108 million of the $189 million MCPS ask for over the FY2026 budget.

https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=16869&meta_id=223215

We shall see if this changes tomorrow.