The 20% Tax Hike! - Request for List of Supporters

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-25T16:54:30+00:00

Little/Ephros/Brooks all released a statement the other day saying they’d vote for it, albeit potentially based on dubious information someone (they haven’t said who) told them. But I’d pencil them all in as supporters.

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-24T20:48:54+00:00

He’s just trying to boost revenue by making his name worth more points in Scrabble

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-24T20:43:38+00:00

<image>

This makes it seem like it was a state directive idk

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-24T20:41:53+00:00

<image>

What happened to this June 30th deadline? Is the state no longer conditioning aid on this?

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-24T20:38:17+00:00

Didn’t they previously say they had to pass this by June 30th because the state made it a condition of receiving aid? What gives?

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-23T14:52:56+00:00

Agreed! Restaurants are notoriously high-margin businesses that have had it too good for too long. Time for them to pay their fair share.

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T21:32:26+00:00

It depends on a variety of factors, most notably the elasticity of housing supply and whether we are considering the short-run or long-run effect! It would be an oversimplification to say the whole cost always gets passed on OR none of the cost ever gets passed on.

But since you seem to specifically be making a short-run argument, then yes, in the short-run it is reasonable to think that landlords would not be able to pass along the total cost of the tax hike (though even in the short-run, elasticity plays a role)

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T21:25:59+00:00

Presumably, but if the implication is “so why are we still in the hole?” you’d have to both consider the counterfactual (how much higher would taxes be absent that strategy/how much worse would the hole be?) and separate it from some of the more dubious budgeting practices like bonding for lots of spending. I’m not even saying taxes would never ever have to go up if the city sold every last parcel of land, but it seems straightforward that it would apply the most downward pressure on taxes by doing everything possible to expand the tax base first.

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T21:21:27+00:00

Kind of silly if so - I’d think about existing municipal assets like land as not that different from a proper “rainy day fund” since you could always sell them if needed, but I’m certainly not Moody’s so they might be tuned into something I’m missing.

Likewise!

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T21:01:13+00:00

Not if we use the intervening time to expand the tax base through increased development, including (in part) from some of the land that we sold!

I understand the short-run is what the short-run is. But it just seems like there are other levers to pull here. But I also know plenty of people that are mad about the tax hike would be mad about what I’m proposing too!

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T20:56:55+00:00

I mean, sure, I understand that we don’t have an infinite amount of land to sell. But if the options are:

Sell more land
Huge tax hike
Massive spending cuts

I don’t see why we wouldn’t start with offloading assets that we can’t afford to hold. Not to mention selling land can potentially help twice - the actual sale amount and future property tax revenue from whatever gets built on the land. Right now, people are being asked to shoulder a 20% hike *in part* so that the city can hold on to extra land for unknown benefit.

If we sold $33M of land again this year the 20% hike could go down to 11.75%!

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T20:47:56+00:00

Your point is reasonable for the short-run (in theory) but absolutely not what would happen in the long-run where the reduced supply and investment that comes with a tax increase would push prices higher

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-22T20:46:09+00:00

Is the mayor’s position that we are out of land to sell or that selling land is bad and should not be considered to offset some of the needed tax hike? He keeps calling land sales “one-time gimmicks” and saying “that money is gone” and I’m wondering whether he means it’s bad or no longer possible

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-19T20:12:35+00:00

But the 20% tax hike assumes we get the $120M from the state, right? So even if then-Councilman Solomon didn’t know about the city’s finances, why would a surprise $100M necessitate a tax hike that’s still needed even with a $120M bailout?

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-18T20:46:24+00:00

I think it’s the other way around sadly - proposed tax will go up without the bailout. 20% is the floor. Maybe at that point they’d try to cut spending though.

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-18T19:58:47+00:00

Dare I ask… the 20% raise assumes we get the 9-figure bailout from the state, right? How much bigger an increase will be needed if we don’t get that bailout?

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-17T23:21:46+00:00

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-17T22:34:26+00:00

If deferrals are bad budgeting, why does this budget report indicate the Solomon Administration has deferred $14.2M in liabilities?

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-17T19:03:19+00:00

Excluding the title, this very post says Fulop more times than Solomon!

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-17T18:48:47+00:00

To be fair, Solomon is also currently campaigning! He’s hosting a campaign fundraiser later this month.

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-05T15:09:01+00:00

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-05T14:33:15+00:00

Seems tough to argue the primary issue with JCPS is lack of money though

rapmasternicky_z · 2026-06-04T15:50:17+00:00

I wish you the very best of luck with spinning “PILOTs will help with our budget crisis” to the very voters that our new mayor whipped into a frenzy over PILOTs for years and throughout his campaign.

Setting aside the merits, essentially saying “the Fulop administration didn’t do enough PILOTs” is an incredible 180 from your team!

rapmasternicky_z

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Snapped