PHILADELPHIA | Highrise Development Thread X

[ScreamShatter]

^ In phillys case, yes. But I wonder if the long ramp down period through 2042 makes it where benefits can’t really be felt. Programs like the tax abatement delivered a sizable benefit to encourage developers and buyers to change their habits. 20 years of small decreases is a long time for people to feel an impact.

[iamrobk]

Originally Posted by The Best Forumer

Tax cuts are good, no?

Don't get everyone here started...

I'll just add that, like cardeza noted, that article is just about Domb's proposals, and there's no indication that they're going to actually go anywhere. So I'd just wait and see what the Mayor's proposed budget says, and go from there.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Other thing that may be worth working on is cutting down on the number of people getting shot- as Stephen Starr learned it even spills into Center city from time to time so it's probably not good for our business environment.

You know what keeps people from getting shot?

Jobs.

Not more money thrown at a police department (or other programs) with no evidence of working.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

You know what keeps people from getting shot?

Jobs.

Not more money thrown at a police department (or other programs) with no evidence of working.

It's both of those things. And many more.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Redddog

It's both of those things. And many more.

Well our leadership focuses only on spending more money on unproven programs and not at all on improving economic outcomes.

I read an inky piece recently that included interviews with 9 different people on how to improve the gun violence situation in Philadelphia.

Not one of them mentioned more jobs.

It's as if in Philadelphia the idea that the economy could be more dynamic in a way that lifted all boats is so impossible that people do not even dare dream it.

When in reality it's the easiest thing to fix.

[eixample]

Originally Posted by ScreamShatter

^ In phillys case, yes. But I wonder if the long ramp down period through 2042 makes it where benefits can’t really be felt. Programs like the tax abatement delivered a sizable benefit to encourage developers and buyers to change their habits. 20 years of small decreases is a long time for people to feel an impact.

This seems like the question of when is the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. Since there is no other proposal to reduce taxes in the city, 20 years of small step downs in tax rates seems like the best option out there at this point to have lower taxes in 20 year's time.

[ScreamShatter]

Originally Posted by eixample

This seems like the question of when is the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. Since there is no other proposal to reduce taxes in the city, 20 years of small step downs in tax rates seems like the best option out there at this point to have lower taxes in 20 year's time.

It’s better than nothing, but what I want to know is the vision. Where do we want Philly to be in 20 years? And what policies and taxes will get us there? If the answer is we want better schools and social services, then our tax policy and housing policies needs to attract a broader base of middle class people to provide a broader tax base.

I just don’t know where Philly is trying to head. Small steps mean they just want small growth and no real adjustments to current state.

[mcgrath618]

What’s clear is that while some people running Philly may want to make the city somewhat better, looking at recent legislation it’s becoming increasingly more lucid that they don’t want it to grow or change all that much.

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

What’s clear is that while some people running Philly may want to make the city somewhat better, looking at recent legislation it’s becoming increasingly more lucid that they don’t want it to grow or change all that much.

I think it's more that they are unwilling or unable to see the benefit of long-term investment in the city unless there are immediate returns.

Yes, you will experience a short-term down-tick in taxes if you restructure to a more business friendly structure and reduce the growth-killing city tax. But the almost near-term benefit of large businesses finally seeing a road to a very aattractive urban center (given the less business-crushing tax structure) and setting up house within city limits will far outweigh the lower tax receipts in a few short years.

Domb wisely saw that the near-term shortfall will be blunted with federal dollars and that we may not get this opportunity again. He's smart. He's a business man. That's EXACTLY what we need right now in this pivital time in the history of the city.

We could hit the re-opening phase of this crazy stretch with incredible momentum if the city and state governments would get their heads out of their a$$es.

Good god, this isn't that hard!!

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

You know what keeps people from getting shot?

Jobs.

Not more money thrown at a police department (or other programs) with no evidence of working.

well that settles it. Because we all know people who go around shooting and killing people are really one tech job away from putting down that weapon. Makes perfect sense to me. You are 100% correct there are no issues in this city beyond high taxes. In fact we should jump on anyone who suggests anything else because thats the only issue other than development any government official should ever focus on.

I see the light.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Well our leadership focuses only on spending more money on unproven programs and not at all on improving economic outcomes.

I read an inky piece recently that included interviews with 9 different people on how to improve the gun violence situation in Philadelphia.

Not one of them mentioned more jobs.

It's as if in Philadelphia the idea that the economy could be more dynamic in a way that lifted all boats is so impossible that people do not even dare dream it.

When in reality it's the easiest thing to fix.

Kenney's plan mentions jobs and opportunity as part of the spending in his budget.......

Id like to see more about locking up criminals and stopping the flow of illegal guns. BTW there are plenty of programs that ARE proven but the City has a tendency not to stick with stuff that works and to offer money to too many unproven programs. Other cities have done this- Philly has done this- but these initiatives have to last more than one mayoral administration to have long term impact. I dont know where the increase police budget stuff came from since I nor anyone else never mentioned that. I just said public safety is a factor in the perception of a city- but then I was immediately pounced on and corrected- the only issue is taxes which will lead to jobs and then the criminals will trade in their guns for keyboards.

[cardeza]

Originally Posted by mcgrath618

What’s clear is that while some people running Philly may want to make the city somewhat better, looking at recent legislation it’s becoming increasingly more lucid that they don’t want it to grow or change all that much.

can you be more specific?

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by cardeza

well that settles it. Because we all know people who go around shooting and killing people are really one tech job away from putting down that weapon. Makes perfect sense to me. You are 100% correct there are no issues in this city beyond high taxes. In fact we should jump on anyone who suggests anything else because thats the only issue other than development any government official should ever focus on.

I see the light.

You like to stir the pot. Clearly he was simplifying the issues.

Good jobs = stable households
Bad jobs =Unstable households.

Yes, more adds into it but if you take the foundation from a building it falls right?

Same for a family.

[700 Level]

I'm with 3rd & Brown on this. Strong opportunity can help push back against many of our problems. Will it solve everything? Of course not. But the more people who have the opportunity to move over into the productively employed category, the more focused the remaining resources can be directed towards those still left behind.

[Nova08]

Originally Posted by cardeza

that is dombs proposal, not Kenneys which mean it has little chance of advancing although they are saying kenney will propose some reforms of his own, likely smaller in scope and more focused on the BIRT than wage tax.

Other thing that may be worth working on is cutting down on the number of people getting shot- as Stephen Starr learned it even spills into Center city from time to time so it's probably not good for our business environment.

5 things to know about Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney's proposed FY22 budget
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...22-budget.html

Under Kenney's plan, the wage tax for residents would decline slightly from 3.8712% to 3.8398% in fiscal year 2022 and the non-resident wage tax would decrease from 3.5019% to 3.4201%. BIRT would decrease from a rate of 6.1% to 6%.

By fiscal year 2026, the resident wage tax would be at 3.8425%, the non-resident wage tax would be 3.4065% and BIRT would be at 5.25%.

...A .03% decrease for residents (actually goes up by a few hundredths by 2026) and a .1% decrease for non residents in a 5 year period. A decrease is a decrease but this is barely felt by the tax payer and certainly not a revolutionary change

[Redddog]

Originally Posted by Nova08

5 things to know about Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney's proposed FY22 budget
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...22-budget.html

...A .03% decrease for residents (actually goes up by a few hundredths by 2026) and a .1% decrease for non residents in a 5 year period. A decrease is a decrease but this is barely felt by the tax payer and certainly not a revolutionary change

Domb for Mayor.

This guy can't see for sh$t.

[Skintreesnail]

I think the business and wage tax decreases should be a bit more aggressive. There are other opportunities for raising the $$ the city needs, and I would think post-pandemic we would want to make it much more attractive to live in the city, especially if remote working becomes a thing. Having absolutely no background in finance and city planning, I would think they'd want to look at:

- revisiting AVI/real estate tax to make sure all properties are evenly taxed (i.e., make it less desirable to own vacant lots/letting buildings deteriorate through taxes). Obviously some structures are worth more than others and some neighborhoods are more desirable than others, so maybe the taxes should reflect that, but there are still large swaths of the city where the structures are the same but the taxes differ hugely block to block.

- Do the business and wage taxes take in account the neighborhood? If not, maybe it should. I would think it would be better to have a distributed workforce anyway, with several working nodes throughout the city (not just one big one) and it seems like taxes could be used in a way to encourage this

- The cost of owning a car in the city is way too low. Parking permit cost should be increased and there should be a penalty for owning more than one car in the city. Also, parking spaces/garages should be taxed or at a higher rate if they already are.

- I know lots of people are against the sugar tax, but I think vice taxes are completely reasonable. In fact, I would expand the focus and include entertainment or anything that benefits from being in an urban setting. Maybe looking at it that way would keep the revenue stream high without having too much of an impact of the cost of any one thing?

I think there should still be some sort of wage and business tax, just if the city could be more creative in how it taxes to generate revenue so that it is more evenly distributed it wouldn't be as noticeable or act as a detriment for any one thing (specifically living and doing business in the city). Making it attractive to live in the city and open business in the city is kind of synergistic, so I would think as more people move in, keeping various tax rates low and distributed across many sources would kind of even out in the long run.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by cardeza

Because we all know people who go around shooting and killing people are really one tech job away from putting down that weapon.

Hey status quo.

I'm not talking about tech jobs. I'm talking about any job. Even most of this region's workforce jobs are in the suburbs, where the biggest population of people who can fill them is in the city. There is a complete misalignment due to the city's tax structure.

You have no clue. On top of that, many of these neighborhoods are sh*tholes because the city can't even muster up the energy or ingenuity to sweep empty streets and clear empty lots.

Imagine walking out of your house every day, being surrounded by complete desperation, seeing a city that doesn't give a sh*t about you (as demonstrated by it's complete neglect of your surroundings) and then realizing the closest job that pays a sustaining wage is 25 miles away in an area that has no access to public transportation. Even worse, imagine the desperation that would occur in a situation where you don't even realize *those* jobs exist because you can't see them in your environment and literally nobody you know has one.

That's what you call acceptable.

Let's throw more money at a program to ask somebody not to shoot a gun when literally you can't show them what a future without guns and gangs looks like.

[TonyTone]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Hey status quo.

I'm not talking about tech jobs. I'm talking about any job. Even most of this region's workforce jobs are in the suburbs, where the biggest population of people who can fill them is in the city. There is a complete misalignment due to the city's tax structure.

You have no clue. On top of that, many of these neighborhoods are sh*tholes because the city can't even muster up the energy or ingenuity to sweep empty streets and clear empty lots.

Imagine walking out of your house every day, being surrounded by complete desperation, seeing a city that doesn't give a sh*t about you (as demonstrated by it's complete neglect of your surroundings) and then realizing the closest job that pays a sustaining wage is 25 miles away in an area that has no access to public transportation. Even worse, imagine the desperation that would occur in a situation where you don't even realize *those* jobs exist because you can't see them in your environment and literally nobody you know has one.

That's what you call acceptable.

Let's throw more money at a program to ask somebody not to shoot a gun when literally you can't show them what a future without guns and gangs looks like.

+1

As A Person of color myself a lot of people looking in from out seem to misjudge the situation at hand, its almost so simple of a fix its complex now because the issues keep compounding on top of one another.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Redddog

Domb for Mayor.

This guy can't see for sh$t.

I'd be happy with Domb or Reinhart.