The City of Philadelphia has a half a billion in uncollected and overdue real estate taxes and the amount has been that high for some time. Efforts by reformers to reverse that situation have gone nowhere and a review of published lists of worst offenders includes some well known commercial entities, service providers and politically connected individuals. A system of sheriff’s sales that somehow favors insider buyers and selectively keeps some properties from ever reaching sale is the city’s running joke. Many properties pay no tax as the city often puts little effort into locating owners on seemingly abandoned properties when today’s technology can often do that in minutes.

 
Tax abatements on new construction, and major rehabs of residential property that amount to 10 years of no real estate taxes are the city’s gift to developers and sales agents, and this has been the condition for ten years now.   In a city already generally known for low taxes, commercial speculators reportedly pay only $.50 per square foot in taxes where homeowners average $1.50 per square foot.  If this city can subsidize all those entities by delaying, deferring or deleting their real estate taxes, we certainly should consider long term residents on fixed income and disabled who want to stay in their homes as recommended in House Bill NO. 93.

 
Now I am a strong advocate of public transit, but with SEPTA as one of the worst offenders in delinquent real estate taxes we are only kidding ourselves in helping them produce a false budget by allowing massive delinquency year after year.  Let them produce legitimate budgets, better manage their real estate, and include accurate figures when they go to Harrisburg so they can pay their taxes on time and relieve some of the burden on households who are receiving their increases as we speak.

 
Let the City’s Legal Department and the Courts do the job they are supposed to where the owners of multiple properties stay delinquent year after year because they make collection complicated through legal trickery that shelters them.  Instead of paying outside firms a substantial percentage to collect taxes (as we have in the recent past) how about staffing up with some expertise that will do it in house and won’t take calls from certain political entities to “hold off” on favored sons and daughters.

 
Ten year tax abatements on new construction and major rehabs of older properties made sense in 1997 in a city that chased residents out so fast over the previous twenty-five years that it is estimated we lost 500,000 tax-paying residents, not to mention the commercial real estate taxes on all the industry we chased away during the same period.  The next time you ride the R7 or R8 into center city ask yourself who pays the taxes on all those abandoned factories, warehouses, and empty lots where they stood all along the Germantown and North Philadelphia corridor.  The answer in most cases is no one.

 
Now we jump-started development in some neighborhoods with the 10 year no tax program as it provides a terrific sales tool when a residential property that was worth $50,000 or less a few years back, now sells for $400,000 in what was formerly a blue-collar working class neighborhood and is now on its way to a renaissance.  But when reassessment comes to the adjacent properties still occupied by a couple that bought it in 1957 and are living on retirement income, where is the balance when their taxes go up 35% to  75% in order to help fill the gap created by their no-tax neighbor; possibly a 2-income family making high six figures.  I think we have done more than enough pump-priming and development will continue on its own merit from here on.  I would go further and immediately support a bill to rescind some of those abatements; possibly on a case by case basis.

 
I have only touched on some of the areas where Philadelphia ’s approach to real estate and the income it should generate needs massive reform, but I spoke about it first to challenge any claims that we have to find some new creative way to generate the difference in revenue a Bill like House 93 would require.  All that would be required here is some due diligence in already existing revenue streams.

 
Now, I think some care must be taken to craft this bill so that it provides the relief only for those intended.  Like many variations of legislation providing social services or a safety net, there can be ways found to work the system unless a process of oversight is built in from the outset.  I would think some requirement as to long-term residency in this city should apply for those in poverty, on fixed income and a recheck process as to their continued occupancy be a primary consideration.  In similar manner those who make a disability claim would be verified either directly or through a relative or caretaker.

 
There is a widely-recognized concept in recent years that keeping seniors and the elderly for as long as possible in the home environment they find most familiar makes much more sense than retirement homes and institutions, and actually costs less in the long run when all factors are considered.  Lowering the economic impact of continued home ownership through a Bill like 93 should be seen as a critical first step in that direction.