Duc d'Escargot

Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.

I keep hearing about this "nine million-dollar rainy day fund", but even if there is a reserve that large, which I doubt, won't it be depleted in the next few fiscal years due to 1) declining property values 2) Water St. dept payments and 3) rising costs already identified in budget projections? Nobody wants to raise taxes (despite what the anti-tax side sometimes claims) but nobody has offered a practical alternative that would keep the city financially solvent.

Stuart Brown

Mon, Apr 16, 2012 : 3:24 a.m.

Ann Arbor has some of the same issues Ypsilanti does, a large state university that pays no local taxes. In Ann Arbor, I have been advocating that the city cut off fire service to UofM unless UofM creates and operates its own fire department. Could Ypsilanti do the same thing to EMU? For Ann Arbor, an income tax would require a 6 mill reduction in property taxes that would benefit landlords. In general, an income tax for Ann Arbor is probably a bad idea--a long term descent into the abyss--but a short term windfall for the city. You can't stop people from moving to the surrounding suburbs.

Really?!

Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.

The current high property taxes deter many from buying and/or beginning ventures in the city. Young families looking to find a city to call home will not be able to afford to make Ypsilanti their choice. When looking at the big picture, I may be able to find a beautiful home at an incredibly low rate, but if I cannot afford the taxes what does it matter? My husband and I looked at the reality of us being able to pay the taxes on a home in the city after we retire, this may be many, many, years from now for us, but this was important. The answer was unfortunately no. There are many other young and creative individuals who are trying to make a change in Ypsi, who are trying hard to invest in its future, but many will not be able to afford these proposed increases. I agree that little has been said about what a no vote will bring, but the same can be said of a yes vote. The bills will be paid at first, but then what? Without creative strategies for reform and growth the city will continue to decline, and once again we will find ourselves in this position. I may not live in the city, but that does not mean I do not care. As a lifelong resident, I want the best for the area, and for the city I grew up in. It makes me sad that I cannot expect to be able to raise my family and retire in the city that gave me so many memories.

Bob Krzewinski

Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.

As an Ypsilati resident, I really appreciate the work Karen Maurer has done to develop properties inside the City, at the same time I can't forget that she also opposed the last measure to fund the Ypsilanti District Library (a millage that voters thankfully passed). But hey, this is not surprising. Just about any developer/landlord would be very much opposed to any type of tax. I just wish opponents of the tax proposals on the Ypsilanti May ballot would tell us what their detailed plan is to help keep the City solvent, other than just saying "No new taxes". That is not a plan!

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.

Something else to consider is that renters don't care one bit what property taxes are, but they will not rent anything where they will not be safe. Ypsi has a great deal of rental properties, the occupying of which will bring more revenue to the city in the form of increased traffic in restaurants, shops, etc. If the modest income tax proposal passes, something that's supported by the majority of city employees even though they will have to pay it and have already taken several pay cuts, renters will help diversify the revenue stream and help take the load off property owners.

YpsiVeteran

Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 11:30 a.m.

Ms. Maurer is as guilty as anyone of using the politics of fear to deliver her largely economic based opinion. She is wrong. As stated by another poster, crime is the issue that drives people from communities, especially younger people with kids and older people on their own. Crime is the reason the city of Detroit has experienced such massive population declines. Crime. Y Ypsi has nothing in common with Detroit, whose citizens have allowed corruption and stealing of tax dollars to become an institutionalized part of doing business. This is not the case in Ypsi. The city must be able to pay its debts and maintain public safety to continue its fledgling revitalization and to keep people from abandoning homes they could otherwise afford. Diversifying the revenue stream, through the establishment of an income tax that will more fairly distribute the load, is the way to do that. Ypsi's public services are as lean as they can possible be. Please don't take anyone's word for it. Visit these offices yourself, and ask your questions. See for yourself. People who refuse to publicly debate, and who offer absolutely nothing, constructive or otherwise, as an alternative, obviously don't want you to be be well informed. See for yourself, and decide for yourself.

Markus

Sun, Apr 15, 2012 : 2:33 a.m.

People like the Maurers are in the business of long-term planning. That is what real estate investment is all about. The window is in decades, not years. It is ridiculous to assume that they have not carefully considered the pros and cons of both sides with respect to the long-term effect on property values. If in fact a "no" vote leads to the disastrous results threatened by the "yes" side (e.g. liveability, property values), the Maurers have far more to lose than most of the rest of us. The city needs higher property values for better services, and if anyone knows about improving property values long term, it is the Maurers. If Karen believes that on balance "no" is better than "yes," you might be wise to listen to her. This is her field of expertise.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.

I have given this a lot of thought and have decided that even though I really don't like the idea of an income tax, if I want to stay in Ypsilanti, I am probably going to have to vote for it. Because if I am honest with myself, even though I wont like it, I will pay an income tax. But I will not live some place where I don't feel safe in my own home. I have deeply appreciated the responsiveness of the Ypsilanti Police Department and because of them, I feel safe in my community. If an income tax is what is needed to preserve our police and fire coverage, I have to be for it. I know an income tax will turn people off but wont an unsafe city turn them off more?

Anna Elder

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.

There should be some red faces among the SCIT crowd -- red with shame. The inflated numbers they are quoting are just a fear tactic, designed to scare people into voting no. They have been caught red-handed on facebook and on the blogs making claims they can't back up. If they have to heap on this many red herrings... well, something smells pretty fishy. The voters will give SCIT the red light -- enough is enough. The truth is, a yes vote includes exemptions for low income people, seniors, those on public assistance. The income tax is pro-rated according to how much is earned within the city. These are reasonable approaches and will add a lot of income to our city, which is land-locked, and where EMU takes up a lot of tax-exempt space. It will be a red-letter day for Ypsilanti when these initiatives are voted in. Vote yes!

Deendeens

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.

I know Ms. Maurer -- she is a neighbor and a valuable business person in our city. I adore much of the rehab work her company has done for the city. I absolutely agree that these classy restorations have added a great deal to the revitalization of Ypsilanti. But I cannot agree with her position on these issues. A city without good police and fire protection, without basic city services, without well maintained parks and streets, without good lighting, trash pickup, etc., is no place I'd want to live, no matter how gorgeous the properties. We need these revenues -- all that could be cut HAS been cut. After the pork is gone, new revenue sources are needed. Period. It's not rocket science. The 5 year plan to pay the bond and raise some revenue from the many who work in our city and depend on city services is a good one. I'll support it with my yes vote on May 8.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.

...some above claim that the Municipal Reserve or Rainy Day Fund is a much smaller number.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 9:20 p.m.

@Maier Suchowljansky: A review of the audited financial statements of the City of Ypsilanti for the year ended June 30, 2011 indicates that the size of the "Rainy Day Fund" as of that date was exactly $3,545,913 because the rest of the $9.4 million "fund balance" was restricted (see page 15 balance sheet "Fund Balance, committed for various purposes" & "unassigned amounts", mostly for repayment of the Water Street bond & some other smaller items all detailed in footnote 3-I on page 47 for the details of the items committed for various purposes). The Footnote called "Fund Equity" at the bottom of page 32 is pretty clear that the "unassigned amounts" in the general fund are not committed for any purpose & can be spent in any manner. These are the municipal reserves, or Rainy Day Fund. In discussions I've had with the Michigan Municipal League I've been told that the best practice for the size of the "Rainy Day Fund" of a unit of local government ought to be a target of 15%-25% of annual expenditures, which in the case of the City of Ypsilanti General Fund would be just above $1.8 million to just over $3 million ($12,069,983 x 15% or x25%, the figure for annual expenditures in the General Fund for the year ended June 30, 2011 is on page 20). The annual audit (CAFR) for 2011 is available here: http://michigan.gov/documents/treasury/812040YpsilantiCity20111219_371737_7.pdf A good research paper that discusses Rainy Day Funds & best practices of how large they should be is here: www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/Municipal_Reserves.htm In Ann Arbor, what we find that City Council has voted in various restrictions that are placed on the Municipal Reserves & because of these various buckets, they claim to have much lower reserves each year than what the auditors state. Those restrictions established by vote of City Council can of course be revoked by vote of City Council. This may explain why

r756

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 8:45 p.m.

The people complaining that the Maurer's received tax breaks and now should be oh, so thankful, to pay more taxes obviously have zero comprehension of how much time, energy, personal risk and money goes into re-hab'ing and maintaining a rental property. Tax breaks come into play after you take a risk with your own money and time it's not like some government department just handed them a ton of money to use however they wanted. They and others like them are responsible for making Ypsilanti a place that has begun attracting people who could afford to live elsewhere. Of course they can be expected to be against the taxes, they will have to pay additional taxes on all of their properties (taxes that are already higher than those of most homeowners because there is no homestead exemption) they will have to pay 1% on all of their rental income from those properties. They are the people the city needs and exactly the ones the city will drive away with these taxes. The pro-tax people should think about what attracts them to this city in the first place. I'm sure it's not just the police department (which if you just judge by the newness of their vehicles and the fact that I've seen many occasions where three cars can respond to petty complaints like loud radios maybe can handle some cuts) and garbage pickup. Maybe historic buildings like the Maurer's are playing a part?

Rodney Nanney

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.

Karen Maurer writes from the perspective of a businessperson who has invested much time and treasure in the city of Ypsilanti over many years. She and her husband Eric have done more for the downtown than anyone I know. To have partisan hacks demean their work and their success by suggesting that they received some special privilege or that their success is somehow less than 100% the result of their blood, sweat, and tears is ludicrous. When Ypsilanti business people like the Maurers have spoken up and raised concerns about this massive tax hike (30% or more for many people!), the pro-tax partisans like Gary S. and "City Confidential" go immediately into attack and belittle mode. As for me, I would suggest that there is no one better qualified to analyze and speak out on the disastrous effects that these new taxes would have on our community. Our business community has been told by City Hall for too long that they are to be "seen and not heard." We need to listen to the Maurers and follow their lead in voting down these massive and unsustainable tax proposals on May 8th.

Maier Suchowljansky

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.

After reading the opinion piece and comments, I've learned that opponents believe raising property taxes and implementing an income tax will further harm the city and drive it deeper into the tank, while proponents believe it's the only way to save a city government that has been run into the ground by those elected and hired to operate it. I've learned that a rainy day fund doesn't really exist, extraordinarily bad debt has been incurred, and voters are being asked to cough up more taxes and impose an income tax so that those same government managers can do more of the same. What am I missing? Why is a professional EFM more objectionable than all this?

Ypsilanti City Resident

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.

The Article by Karen Mauer was well thought out and Factual. Before the Mauer's took an interest in the Downtown Renaissance, most of the building were vacant. For example the Kresge Building See: http://www.metromodemedia.com/devnews/oldkresgeypsi0039.aspx. The City have given some tax breaks to investors and it has been successful. I wish the same could be said for Water Street. Eric and Karen have proven how that they have been model Investors and motivators. I agree with the NO More City Taxes for residents.

Mary Ann Barbary

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.

It would be so nice if Ypsi actually did have extra money in a rainy day fund. But that is completely false -- virtually all of that money is already committed to specific projects. It's not like a bank account where you can devote funds where you like. Ms. Maurer knows that all but $160,000 of those funds are already committed. The schools are not funded thru the income tax OR millage. So where's the beef? And I'd love to hear alternative plans from the naysayers -- but they won't go public with a viable, fact-based, alternative plan. All they present is wish lists for our city. I've read the 5 year plan and it seems conservative, smart, and it won't hurt too bad. Thus I'm voting yes. Not because I love taxes or city council or campaigners, but because I love Ypsi and I'm willing to fight to save my home town.

akronymn

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.

And the SCIT campaign continues to avoid the real issue. Ypsilanti has a budget deficit that needs addressing. While it's all fine and good that they have some idea that an EFM will be good for Ypsilanti those of us who still respect our city recognize the need to actually deal with this and not just ignore the problem. The proposals on the May 8 ballot are a realistic responsible plan to deal with the situation at hand. Just because the SCIT campaign doesn't even have enough respect for Ypsilanti voters to engage in a proper debate doesn't mean we should be buying into their emotional manipulation. Vote yes to keep public safety intact. Vote yes to keep state appointed bureaucrats out of Ypsi. Vote yes for the future of Ypsilanti.

Victor P

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.

I am voting NO NO on these tax proposals. Again! For the second time we have to waste hard earned money to vote again because Paul Schreiber's gang cannot take NO for an answer. And Carol, Erika and Glen can keep posting on FB all day about how they will vote yes - because Paul told them too. What a fraud and waste of Ypsi's money. VOTE NO.

Tex Treeder

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.

An excellent analysis by Ms. Maurer. As a resident of Ann Arbor, where some misguided folks raise the option of a city income tax every once in a while, I wonder where Ann Arbor ranks in terms of homestead property taxes.

rousso

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.

Mrs. Karen Maurer is right on with this article. Nice job. The higher taxes will only result in a death spiral. Ypsilanti has been teetering on the edge of rebirth or death spiral for decades. This will decide it one way or another. Of course, business owners can afford to get out if this happens. Many residents will be stuck holding the bag with no way out - and higher taxes. It is a nice life-long lesson.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.

Unfortunately I don't get a vote in this election. As you can see above, I do have some advice for the citizens of Ypsilanti, however. Here is one final comment on this topic. I have the "privilege" of personally paying about $15,500 a year in property taxes in Ypsilanti because I foolishly believed that Ypsilanti was a great place to live and would continue to prosper. In the current situation, I'd happily sell my property for about HALF it's current assessment. Let me know and it's yours. If you tax something, you get less of it. Do you want more jobs? If you put an income tax in place, fewer jobs will be created in your town. Some jobs will move out, lowering the value of your existing commercial buildings. If you raise property taxes even further, that will lower the value of your homes and commercial buildings. In the long run, having the highest municipal property taxes in the state of Michigan *and* an income tax is a recipe for economic disaster. As CEO of a local community bank that manages $10.7 billion in customer funds, and having run a very successful economic development fund earlier in my career that made possible $275 million of investments and turned around some very depressed cities in northern Michigan (for example, we took Cheboygan from a 20% unemployment rate to a 7% unemployment rate and increased the tax base of Menominee 40% with another investment), I can tell you that this is not the way to turn your city around, but the way to drive it into the ground.

Brendan T

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.

I think higher taxes only result in slums. Just like Detroit. I would not buy anything property in Ypsi - the water street sale is a joke. The only turn around is to promote the City in a positive way. Higher taxes does the opposite. Ypsi already has the highest taxes around and also the highest crime rate.

Anna Elder

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.

The schools have nothing to do with this debate. (Ooops, did I say "debate?" SCIT is deathly afraid of that word -- open and public debate means fact checking. And their points can't stand up to public view.) The anti position is full of complaints, red herrings, and distrations. Thats why I don't trust it. It's all very well to shout NO NO NO, and it's quite another thing to back up your words with a different workable plan. They don't have one. We need to plan for the future now and that's why I'll be voting yes on May 8.

Donna S.

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.

"City Confidential" = Erika Nelson - a member of the Pro More Taxes "Save Ypsi" Group. This will result in a death spiral - business will move out - and so will citizens. Houses will sit vacant with prices in the $100 range. Just as in Detroit. Of course, the 'Save Ypsi' folks don't care about Ypsi at all, anyway.

Carol L

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.

Because of drastic declines in property tax and state revenues, which Ms. Maurer fails to mention, we have already lost 1/3 of our city employees and will lose half of the remaining staff if these proposals don't pass. This means we will not have the police and fire protection we need for a safe community. That will surely drive away residents and businesses more than these new taxes. I want my money to go toward the Ypsilanti police and fire departments and maintaining a safe community, rather than expensive private security and increased homeowner's insurance. I am voting YES on both proposals on May 8th.

George

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.

So ... did you see the "Save Ypsi" lies online? Basically, all they want is a way to give themselves a fat pension and retirement when the current City Council retires. The current City Council is terrified they won't get the huge raise in Pension that the former City Manager received when he left. It is nothing short of stealing. The current $5M set aside for 'bond payment' will do nicely to pay for all of these pensions. All we need now is simply a way to pay the bond!

Idiocracy

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3:13 p.m.

The biggest problem with a city income tax is that nobody is going to move into the city when they can move a couple blocks away and live in the township. This will just cause property values to drop even more! As for the millage, unfortunately we are going to have to pay for the water street debacle because the city would rather let this hidden gem sit and let us pay for it then do anything with it. It would be a great addition to the Huron River Border-to-Border trail and a great place for some river front stores to bring in tax revenue.

City Confidential

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 3 p.m.

http://www.moodys.com/research/MOODYS-DOWNGRADES-TO-A2-FROM-A1-THE-CITY-OF-YPSILANTIS--PR_226688 "Outook The assignment of a negative outlook reflects the ongoing financial challenges from stressed revenue streams including declining property tax and state shared revenues; declining liquidity to meet debt service obligations on its limited tax debt mostly related to the Series 2006 bonds; and significant chargebacks and tax appeals that may further pressure General Fund operations WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING UP (REMOVE NEGATIVE OUTLOOK): - Material increases in the district's tax base - Additional revenues leading to structural balance WHAT COULD CHANGE THE RATING DOWN: - Declines in General Fund reserves and liquidity - Further material declines in the district's tax base - Significant increases to the district's debt burden and inability to meet debt service payments on limited tax debt

Dirtgrain

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.

"Simply put, successful communities have low property taxes, stable or increasing population, and better performing schools. . . . They [high municipal taxes] can cause a death spiral like that seen in Detroit, where houses can sell for mere hundreds of dollars, and fiscal insolvency is close at hand." Correlation does not imply causation.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.

All the projections of financial doom and talk about Emergency Financial Managers are scare tactics based on "facts" that come from the same people who frequently revise the city's five year financial projections up and down to such a degree that you ought to question their competence. Do you actually trust their figuring and five year projections? Paper takes ink, but that doesn't make it true! See: www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti-officials-frequently-change-5-year-budget-projections-as-vote-on-tax-proposals-near/ I suggest you ask the following question of your political leaders: if the city is in such "bad" financial shape, how come your outstanding debt is rated so highly by the bond rating agencies? An "A2" rating is an excellent investment grade rating! Sure the rating agencies aren't perfect but they are a lot more careful these days than before. This is a manufactured "crisis" in my opinion and in my opinion you are being hoodwinked. I'd like to see the financial projections that were provided to the rating agencies!!

Bilbo

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.

I'm reading between the lines: Karen Maurer wants Ypsi to have an Emergency Financial Manager, whom she thinks can magically erase our debts with the stroke of a pen. How has that worked for other cities? Crime rates go sky high, city assets sold at fire sale prices, mass exodus. Debts remain. That's what she wants for Ypsilanti. No thanks, Karen. I'll vote YES to keep this city intact.

Lifelong A2

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.

I respect Ms. Mauer's work in Ypsilanti, but her opinion is missing a key piece: What's the alternative? She implies that the City doesn't need these new taxes because the City can rely on its $9 million fund balance. Most of those funds are earmarked for specific commitments or are not available for operations spending (day-to-day expenses for police, fire, etc.) because all governments must set aside some "rainy day" money. Other than this vague reference to the fund balance, Ms. Mauer does not propose a solution for the City's economic crisis. The people who oppose these tax proposals owe the residents more than just screaming "NO!" They owe the residents an alternative proposal. We're still waiting....

akronymn

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.

The reason Karen's comparisons to other communities with income taxes isn't valid is because 40% of our land is taken up by non-tax payers, EMU being the bulk of that. Also Stephen has a point about Karen and her red herrings. Mentioning school performance in an article about local income tax is ridiculous. No one in support of these important measures suggested that they would affect school performance in any way. The reality is Ypsilanti has lost a huge portion of its revenue. Over the last several years the city council and mayor have done a great job of reducing staff and costs. The tough reality now is that any further cuts will be detrimental to the safety of our city. Much more so than a local income tax. Right now we have a lean and efficient police force. Cuts to our budget will cut that force even further. We have a Fire Department that is barely staffed at sufficient levels for our city. If these proposals fail that staff will shrink. The measures on the May 8 ballot are important to our city and our future. I will be voting yes twice and hope you will do the same for your city. -Adam

Deendeens

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:54 p.m.

It's pretty cynical to choose to locate a business in our city, accept tax breaks to further that business, make a tidy profit, and then work to discourage the maintenance of city services. Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face? A business locates to serve people who want to live in a city environment, with city services, but then fights the funding that will keep them in place? What I don't like is that the anti-income-tax people won't present their ideas to the community in a public debate. Just saying "no" is not a plan for the future. If this isn't the way, then what is? They aren't saying. It seems like the anti side just continues to complain about their taxes -- while they put out four-color postcards, point fingers, and shell out the bucks for huge downtown billboards. They clearly are doing well enough to afford these tactics -- I learned to share and share alike. Guess they missed that basic life lesson.

Stephen

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.

The anti Save Ypsi campaign has been doing an excellent job of running a campaign of emotion and failing to address the facts and the real issue at hand. Karen's article while it's the closest thing to fact we've seen from them fails to mention that the so called "rainy day" fund, is really the general fund. And of the $9M in that fund there is only about $160K available to the city right now. So even mentioning that in this article is just another red herring. The vote on May 8th is about a real solution to the financial distress Ypsilanti faces. While in the grand scheme of things it's never great to have to ask for an income tax is the fact is that this is the only real solution we have. Not to mention the fact that it's a bold solution which will stabilize Ypsilanti and provide plenty of opportunity for the city to remain strong into the future. Much like all of SCIT's arguments Karen fails to provide even a hint of what should actually be done. The reason? She and her cronies don't want the public to know it but they actually want Ypsi to go broke, to be dissolved by an EM. Vote Yes twice on May 8 to ensure Ypsilanti's future is vital and secure and doesn't fall into the hands of bankers and state appointed politicians.

Lisa Bashert

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.

As a homeowner and mother, I take a position diametrically opposed to Ms. Maurer. My property taxes have fallen dramatically due to lowered home values. I am willing to pay a little of that back in income tax to preserve city services. I will be voting YES to both the debt millage and the city income tax. Our city staff has already been reduced drastically in the 20 years since I've moved here. I wanted to live in the city in order to take advantage of urban city services -- like recycling, street sweeping, police, fire/rescue, lovely parks, walkable businesses. If I wanted to maintain a septic tank, plow my own road, and haul my own recycling, I'd have chosen the township -- and I believe many younger people also value the community & sustainability of in-town life. The income tax will help preserve these valuable services -- and the community will have to continue to strategize together to come up with further tools to enhance our city. I think Ms. Maurer and other SCIT proponents don't want to pay to provide city services for all residents (they can easily afford to provide their own) no matter what. I think we have to join together to provide for all -- so I'll be voting YES to both proposals on May 8.

quitoslady

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.

The property taxes were enough to keep us from buying a house in Ypsilanti.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 1:03 p.m.

I love how three anonymous people who don't have the courage to put their real name next to their opinions get to attack Ms. Mauer for expressing her opinion and get away with saying things like "Shame on you" or that she is an ungrateful "complainer". FYI, any good debate coach will tell you that if you have to resort to personal attacks, you've admitted that you've lost the debate.

City Confidential

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.

The problem with this guest column is that the author fails to mention what will happen as a result of a no vote. The proposals are the only plan in place that addresses the fact that without additional revenue, Ypsilanti will suffer significant cuts to basic public safety services and quality of life services. That hurts property values as much or more than these tax proposals. Many people can cope with taxes, but no one wants to live in cities where they don't feel safe and where the city is not kept up. I moved to Ypsilanti knowing that it had a higher millage rate - but it has beautiful homes, lovely neighborhoods, friendly neighbors - all in walking distance to downtown and EMU. And the price was right! The amount that I saved on the cost of my home, over Ann Arbor prices, means that a higher millage rate doesn't even bring my dollar amount of taxes up to Ann Arbor dollar costs. Living in a city may cost more than living in a township, but that's because it has benefits that townships don't have: students/EMU staff who want to be close to campus, folks who want a walkable downtown, lovers of historic homes and gardens, close-nit neighborhoods. Those of us who want those things are willing to pay for them. Mrs. Maurer wants to have her cake and eat it too. Shame on her.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.

Glen S.: "Modest additional tax"? There is nothing *modest* about Ypsilanti's current or proposed taxes. The combination of an income tax and the highest real estate property taxes in the state will be toxic for the city's long term economic future. "With the Water Street millage, Ypsilanti would have the highest taxes of all, at 69.975 mills in 2017. Worse, this excludes an expected 86 percent increase in the property taxes levied to pay for police and fire pension and retiree health care (not subject to a vote)."

pseudo

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.

We have an opportunity to preserve our most crucial city services. These proposals will do that. Stable Police and fire protection are crucial to keeping our community as a comfortable, walkable, safe-to-live in place. Voting them down will continue Ypsilanti's property value slide and continue the spiral into something considerable less valuable and less safe. I too have a problem with someone who has received so much corporate welfare through tax breaks to be working so hard to break down those very city services - sometimes you should say "THANK YOU" instead of complaining. Ypsilanti needs its services at the current level not less. There isn't more to cut. VOTE YES, on Both.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.

The poor graduation rates of the Ypsilanti Public have everything to do with the long term decline of the city of Ypsilanti. "In Ypsilanti, proficiency rates were much lower, with math proficiency rates dipping as low as 9.6 percent for third-graders. Fourth-graders did the best, with 23.7 percent scoring proficient... Sixth-graders in Ypsilanti had the highest proficiency rate for the district in reading at 52 percent, and seventh-graders the lowest, 39.6 percent.". See: www.annarbor.com/news/school-official-were-committed-to-raising-meap-scores/

Glen S.

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.

Ms. Maurer and her husband have been very successful here in Ypsilanti, in large measure by asking for, and receiving, special tax breaks (funded by you and me -- the taxpayers) that helped make many of their investment properties possible. Now, when Ypsilanti is facing a financial crisis that threatens deep cuts to Police and Fire protection (that protect you and me), Ms. Maurer says she doesn't support a modest additional tax that will keep the City financially solvent and protect these essential services. Even more disappointing, Ms. Maurer is a leader in the campaign to defeat these taxes -- yet seems not to understand some basic facts about the City's fiscal crisis, or about the May 8 ballot proposals. Just two examples: * The tax proposals have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Ypsilanti Public Schools. * The $ 9 million "rainy day fund" that she refers to is mostly money that is already *committed* to pay for things like pension benefits, etc. -- and even if it were available to pay for services -- would only delay the fiscal crisis for 2-3 more years. For more actual *facts* about these proposals, please visit: www.saveypsiyes.com

Craig Lounsbury

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 11:35 a.m.

"Don't raise my taxes bro" "(1)Success depends on reasonable tax rates, (2)encouraging people to move to the community, and (3) improving our schools" your solution to #1 is obvious. #2 is a flawed concept. Encouraging people to move does nothing. Only if the actually do move does it measure. #3 is a nice slogan, who doesn't want better schools? Short of offering a solution to improving schools all your really saying is....Don't raise my taxes bro.

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 11:24 a.m.

If you want the value of your homes and properties to decline, vote for increased taxes.

Richard Wickboldt

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 11:10 a.m.

Taxing based upon land ownership is not fair. Value of real estate is not an exact science and the market setting the value surely doesn't work. Look at the real estate bubbles in the past. Income and sales tax is a fair way to insure we all pay taxes. Higher real estate taxes will directly decrease the value of the property your taxing. Setting taxes based upon votingof milages in a system with such low voter turn out doesn't seem very fair either. Voting in May on taxing yourself... gosh this sounds like madness.

Mark Hergott

Sat, Apr 14, 2012 : 11:03 a.m.

While I find the income tax to be indefensible, I see no choice but to support the water street millage. The debt is not going away. Police and Fire pensions can be negotiated, (well, before cops or firefighters retire), and services and infrastructure can be cut back. The water street debt will not be ignored. So, I will vote for the millage and not for the income tax.