Choose Your Poison.
By Jim Conley • May 22nd, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
At their meeting this evening, the Brookline Selectmen will receive a report from their Housing Advisory Board (HAB) that deals with lodging houses and, principally, the way in which they are assessed for tax purposes.
What’s remarkable in the report is a scheme to “voluntarily” trade a lower assessment on the property for a “menu” of deed restrictions designed to ensure that a lodging house stays as such upon sale.
According to HAB Chairman Roger Blood, the idea is to offer:
“A menu of voluntary (not coercive) deed restrictions that would achieve two things: (1) provide a variable time frame during which the property would be committed to remain in its current use as a lodging house (the Town’s objective and the owner’s stated intent); and (2) provide the assessor with a consistent rationale for valuing a property at less than its full (unrestricted) market value.”
Well, I suppose having the choice of ingesting Cyanide or Strychnine makes a poisoning more voluntary.
It’s in Blood’s (and the HAB’s) view that the trade involved will allow a more consistent rationale for valuing lodging houses (at less than full market value) where a rather insidious coercion occurs. As I understand it, there has been a consistent method for assessing these properties - the valuation has been based on the income they produce. And in a lot of cases, that’s not much.
The Brookline Assessor’s Department has begun assessing these properties using a “comparable value” method that has had the effect of significantly increasing the tax load on lodging houses. Now, in order to provide a “rationale” for returning to the previous method, the HAB recommends imposing a variety of deed restrictions favoring the Town in exchange.
That’s some affordable housing strategy.
Often in strategy, the best move is to do nothing at all. But that won’t happen in cash-starved Brookline. And as a measure of how screwed we are as a community, the Town’s about to put the arm on people who charge $700 per month for a room.
Because, apparently, lodging houses are getting a good deal on their taxes.
Update: Apparently the lodging house owners who showed up at the Selectman’s meeting of May 22 to plead their case never got the chance to utter a word on the subject. Ah, Brookline.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
I wonder if Town Counsel’s office has looked at the legal effectiveness of the proposed deed restrictions. Generally restrictions upon real estate must have a connection to other property of a grantor offering some perceived benefit or protection, such as in a subdivision; or an easement (preservation) that may benefit the community; or using property for farming purposes (Allandale Farm).
From the standpoint of the lodging house owner, the income and expense method of valuation may provide greater tax relief than commiting to the proposed restriction. Of course, the owner may have to seek an abatement for this purpose.
Perhaps some of the many attorneys in our Town might also take a look at this. Maybe there are other forms of restrictions (voluntary) that might benefit homeowners. Let’s look for loopholes!
I go into the RAILROAD JOB done at the last selectpersons meeting. The HAB report vote of acceptance was postponed because I charged that faulty information was used and sited as fact. The Selectman in their wisdom postpone action pending investigation. I wanted to know the fruit of that investigation. When and who conducted the investigation and what effect did it have on the HABS final recommendation. And the domino effect on the Board of Assessors? Since the question was raised by 3 HAB members as to why a return to INCOME could not be made part of the recommendation to the selectmen. As . . . the wrong information was used to BLESS the Assessors decision. A faulty interpretation of my Appellate Tax Board decision by individuals paid to know better!
All this avoids the real issue. TAX SHIFTING! The Toni B&B’s who charge at least $99 pp/do x 20 day month = $2000 a month
(allowing a 33% vacancy rate but NOT allowing double occupancy!)
Vs. $700 for a like room in a Lodging House that rents long term.
And more B&B’s then long term renters.
So, The BROOKLINE which claims to be for affordable housing just reduced the TAXES of accommodations for vacationers or visitors to the Longwood Medical Area and increased the TAXES some 300% in my case who rents to real people, citizens of Brookline. TAX SHIFTING. One has to understand proposition 2.5 the town can only increase revenue by that amount. This scheme provides great financial relief to B&B’s, financial ruin to long term renters and a marginal relief to all the other property owners.