Tuesday, February 14, 2012Cloudy -1°C
City

Councillor Walker Sticks Up For City Homeowners

Posted by Brady Yauch / January 27, 2009

toronto houseAs the City Council begins goes into its second day of meetings tomorrow, Councillor Michael Walker is introducing a motion to alter the city's 2009 property assessments.

He's calling on the city to do three things:

1) Delete 2009 property assessments that are based on January 1st, 2008 values

2)Reissue 2009 property assessments based on 2005 values, factoring in the current rate of inflation.

3) Review the Current Value Assessment system administered by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), with attention to fairness, transparency, accountability and predictability for property owners in Ontario as compared to other property assessment systems employed by domestic and international governments.

In Toronto (and Ontario as a whole), the government recently instituted a new system where property assessments are taken every four years, rather than every year. Typically, the greater the present value of your home, the more you pay in property taxes. But an increase in the value of a home doesn't necessarily mean the you will be forced to pay higher taxes. That happens when the market value of the property increased more than the average rate of increase in the municipality.

Now, the current assessments are based on the January 1st 2008 property values, coincidentally, right when the Toronto housing market was at its peak. Since then, the looming economic crisis has pushed home values down - pretty much across the board. But that won't matter for a number of homeowners, as their property taxes will continue to be based on peak home prices, meaning they'll be facing higher taxes over the next four years.

This predicament creates a double blow for homeowners: if they try and sell their home to avoid the property tax increase, they're not going to get the amount of money that the city says its worth. So, Walker thinks the city should scrap the last assessment and just factor in inflation, thereby, taking into account the sudden rise and pullback in home values.

As you can imagine, the new tax system doesn't sit well with everybody, The Coalition After Property Tax Reform (CAPTR) is calling on the government to place a limit on individual property value increases resulting from each new assessment. This limit or ceiling should be set in relation to historic increases in Ontario real estate value, which the group says are about double the rate of inflation (currently sitting at 1.2%).

Other critics argue that homeowners living in the city's more desirable neighbourhoods (most of which are in the downtown core) are being forced to shoulder more of Toronto's tax burden. Meanwhile, homeowners in neighbourhoods where prices are stagnant will actually be contributing less to the city's coffers.

Even if Walker's motion comes to nothing, it seems to me that the city's (and the province's) assessment system will continue to draw criticism. More importantly, I think this is a particularly relevant issue now that both the Canadian and international economy are in disarray. The government should be looking for ways to help homeowners out, not punish them for real estate bubble, especially if they've been living in the same home for a more than a couple of years.

Discussion

15 Comments

o_O / January 28, 2009 at 12:53 am
user-pic
Hey Brady, you just got played like a fiddle. Michael Walker has made a career out of ridiculous grandstanding. His ideas for property tax reform are just another example of said grandstanding.

The reality is that no municipality has any control over property tax assessment. The most it can do is ask MPAC to do something about it, including scrapping a property tax assessment or doing a new assessment.

But, frankly, this assessment issue isn't a big deal. A few people are disproportionately affected by it but by and large, properties have kept their relative value (ie, popular neighbourhoods are still proportionately more valuable than places like northwest Etobicoke). So even if you reassess the values, people are still going to be paying the same amount since the assessment system is a zero sum game.

What matters here is what I'll call relative value. MPAC might say your home is worth $500,000. You might never get $500,000 for your house on the open market but as long as MPAC equally over values most or all properties, the system remains fair.

Anyways, point being: Brady got played for a fool by Michael Walker. The reality is, any time taxes are involved people are going to cry about it and say they should pay less than they do. There's no perfect system, certainly not this one (it rewards living in sprawl), but to claim it's more unfair now is dumb.
Dan / January 28, 2009 at 07:57 am
user-pic
Why not chop all assessments in half (your property was worth $400,000? Now its assessed at $200,000!) and just double the tax rate? (Just because property values are down, doesn't mean the city doesn't still need the same amount for fire, police, roads, and everything else they do.)
James / January 28, 2009 at 08:08 am
user-pic
Both the above comments are absolutely correct. All that matters is the the relative value of the assessments is fair: when the assessments are valued doesn't matter much.

It's amazing how lack of basic math understanding continues to confuse people on property taxes. Michael Walker should know better and is just playing politics.
Brady / January 28, 2009 at 08:27 am
user-pic
For the record, Councillor Walker is hardly the only person to raise concerns over the new tax system, and Toronto is far from the only area being affected by it. You claim that "What matters here is what I'll call relative value. MPAC might say your home is worth $500,000. You might never get $500,000 for your house on the open market but as long as MPAC equally over values most or all properties, the system remains fair." The problem is that they don't over value all homes, they tend to target certain areas in the city. Hence, what Walker (who may very well have ulterior motives here, I don't know)is saying: Bring back a yearly assessment that's better able to deal with the swings in the real estate market. Oh yeah, and he is motion is already being supported by another councillor.

I'm not defending Walker, but I don't think he's alone on this issue.
jack / January 28, 2009 at 11:40 am
user-pic
they should make interest on mortgage tax deductible.. just like the US
o_O / January 28, 2009 at 12:29 pm
user-pic
Brady, your article -- and defence of the article -- reads as though you're Walker's PR lackie or disturbingly naive. Of course a second councillor is supporting the Walker motion. It couldn't be put on the council agenda without a seconder. But that seconder is Michael Thompson, the same Michael Thompson who is so desperate for attention he's gone to the media with ideas like proactively profiling young black men.

Dan, you can value a property any way you like. The municipal tax (mill) rate will just be adjusted (as is the practice now) to draw the set amount of money Toronto's ciy council says it wants when it passes its budget. The only question settled by the assessment system is "who pays what?" among property owners.
o_O / January 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm
user-pic
*proactively racially profiling young black men
Brady / January 28, 2009 at 02:53 pm
user-pic
Again, the number of groups that oppose the current tax system are numerous -- Walker is just bringing the issue up to the City Council. He may have another motive and he may not be the best Councillor, that's not the issue. The issue is a property tax system that--even you admit--needs to be reworked.

As one group put it: "the four-year phase-in is nothing more than an instalment plan for paying higher taxes. By assessing every four years the government is increasing the exposure of property owners to volatile real estate markets and inexact assessment methodology."

Those homeowners who have lived in the same house for several years may end up paying more in taxes, simply because other buyers (possibly speculators) caused a run-up in home prices in their municipality. I know you don't like Walker ( I don't have an opinion about him either way), but he does have a point raising concerns over the current system.
mrcnb / January 28, 2009 at 04:01 pm
user-pic
First of all, re-assessing properties every four years with phase-ins every year is the exact same thing as having re-assessments every year. The only reason it's done every four years is because provincial MPPs don't want to have to deal with it around election time.

How is it fair for assessments to be higher in the core, where it is far cheaper to provide services like water, sewage, garbage collection, snow ploughing, etc versus the boroughs where it is far more expensive to provide the same services? And what provisions are in place for large families living in a home and paying the same rate as a single occupant in an equally sized home who consumes a fraction of the services available to residents?

The current system is broken. Move to the California model where re-assessment only takes place at points of sale. Seniors on fixed incomes are being pushed out of the city - they cannot afford the tax increases when they paid $30,000 for a house in the heart of Toronto 40 years ago!

Thank God the residents of St. Paul's have an elected official that looks after their interests - it's no wonder he keeps getting re-elected with MASSIVE support!
o_O / January 28, 2009 at 04:20 pm
user-pic
Brady, it needs to be reworked but not because of how often assessments are done. It needs to be reworked because, as mrcnb says, it rewards/penalizes the wrong things. None of the people who are active in property tax reform talk about that. They just want to pay less.

My problem with Walker is that the guy is way past his best before date. He used to be a useful gadfly. Now he just whines and throws dozens of motions on the council agenda that do nothing. He doesn't build support around his motions, he doesn't work with people, he just puts ideas on paper and gets loud when no one listens to him. It's lazy.
Glen / January 28, 2009 at 05:18 pm
user-pic
Do you think Micheal would be suggesting this if his ward (22) did not have a higher than average assessment increase (19% higher than the city average)? It appears Michael only supports being socially progressive when other are paying for it.

http://files.newswire.ca/757/AssmntChange.pdf
Jack / January 28, 2009 at 09:57 pm
user-pic
Strange to find myself defending the suburbs, but I'd question mrcnb's assertion that providing services is necessarily cheaper in the core. Bringing out the snow plows and garbage trucks is much easier in the 'burbs considering their wide open streets - compare that to my front lawn full of everyone's multiple garbage bins. Just a thought...

And I agree with o_O, Dan, and James. And (s)he did sayeth: Let logic reign.

Chris replying to a comment from Jack / January 28, 2009 at 11:58 pm
user-pic
The idea is that total cost of services provided to the core are cheaper when calculated per capita. A snow plow might be able to drive easier in the suburbs, but think about how many people are served by 100m of sewer line in the suburbs vs the core. Once the total cost of services is divided by the number of people using them, the core comes out to be cheaper.
Glen / January 29, 2009 at 11:37 am
user-pic
Chris,

It is ture, but misleading, to say that it is cheaper to provide services to the core as opposed to the suburbs. It is true, but only for some services, and things like site services, are paid for by developers at the time of installation. Other than maintenance, they have little impact on property tax.

The truth of the matter is that density only effects small portions of the budget.

Here are Toronto's top 10 expenses, in order.

Police 24.4%
Debt Service charges 12.2%
Fire Services 10.4%
Social Services 7.9%
Shelter Support & Housing 8%
TTC 7.4%
Parks, Forest & Recreation 7%
Transportation Services 5.7%
Solid Waste Management 5.7%
Toronto Public Library 4.6%

That is 93% of the total operating budget.

Compare Toronto's expense to that of Mississauga as a lower tier municipality combined with Peel as the upper tier.

Toronto
Misssissauga
Peel

2006 budgets: Toronto Mississauga

examples,

Admin hours per resident: Toronto 3.208 Mississauga/Peel 3.23
Fire Dept. hours per resident: Toronto 2.59 Mississauga/Peel 2.08
Fire Dept. cost per res: Toronto $120 Mississauga $122
Police : Toronto 1 per 355 residents Mississauga/Peel 1 per 490 residents
Transportation : Toronto $108 per resident Mississauga $303 per resident

The two areas that will be affected most by density are transportation and solid waste management. Both of which are not very large expenses. I will concede that it is difficult to make like for like comparisons, the point I am making is that within reason, suburban areas can be as cost effective as large urban centres. Of course the need for public transportation increases with density and this is also with cost. Which for the TTC is $394 per resident, which omits fare recovery and capital expenditures.
Richard Silver | Torontoism / January 31, 2009 at 02:10 pm
user-pic
The real problem is that property values have been artificially set without entering the subject property so upgrades or deficiencies are not taken into account.

The amount of taxes actually charged depends on the mill rate that the City sets which needs to be lower to reflect the higher assessments. Mr. Walker might want to champion a lower mill rate for 2009.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal