• Bribing seniors does not help the labor shortage
• The city has lost touch with productive citizens
• Homeowners should take advantage of flexible, political principles

The City of San Antonio (CoSA) wants to change that by offering seniors a break on their property taxes.  While total elimination of this odious tax is the best idea, any reduction of it in the interim is good. 

There are a few problems with this proposal though.

One thing that enables us to volunteer is our prosperity. Despite declarations by some politicos, things are shaky right now.  In addition to the eyewatering price of gas, and other residual effects of the government lockdowns, we’re experiencing continued labor shortages.

This credit would exacerbate that problem.

In a recent interview, councilwoman Melissa Cabello-Havrda (D6) asserted that the program is aimed at those “already” volunteering.  The council consideration request (CCR) implies otherwise. 

It cites a “Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults” study, and how getting them out of the house can stem cognitive decline, among other negative effects associated with aging. 

As a consequence of essentially luring them into public sector work, they’re pulled away from the private sector, where some seniors feel they “still have more to give.” Regardless of the modest size of the credit, seniors could still lose their home!  Over 3,000 are already more than two years late paying the taxman. 

Given that CoSA itself seeks to be an “’employer of choice’ in our community”, it’s distinctly possible they don’t see the link.  This leads to an underlying concern: the degree of disconnectedness that exists at City Hall.

In its “Financial Impact & Conclusion,” the CCR declares that “The City’s General Fund revenues performed well.”  The wording is consistent with the fact that the vast majority of CoSA staff and elected representatives favor a more active government.

Respect for individuals, and independent wealth-creators subconsciously takes a backseat.  The media add to this chorus by characterizing exemption savings to taxpayers as what the “city loses.”

As it is, the property tax system amounts to little more than a social engineering tool.  CoSA can dictate “the maximum number of participants and the maximum … reduction participants can receive,” protecting their own “so as to not adversely impact CoSA operations.”

“If the program works well,” they reserve the power to determine “other populations that may be vulnerable to rising property tax burdens.”    

As Bexar County’s chief appraiser Michael Amezquita points out later in the same KLRN episode, it’s also a mechanism for cronyism given how inequitable is the favoritism shown to commercial property.

The only time politicians extend such favor to homeowners is when the state compels them to.  Ironically, it’s the Texas constitution that permits levying this tax in the first place. 

Cracking that nut is another task altogether.

For the time being, to paraphrase a Chris Rock, just because the city can do it, doesn’t mean they should.  Alas, we keep getting the Will Smith treatment.  There might be a political opening however, that can be used to stop this annual smackdown. 

Councilwoman Havrda said “my vote is based on the needs of my constituents.  And what they’re telling me right now is that they need property tax relief.”

Too often elected officials twist this “belie(f) in representative government” as a way to take from some to give to others.  The paid sick leave ordinance is a recent example. 

Citizens should exploit these flexible principles, and the newfound religion the council seems to have (see D8 councilman Manny Pelaez), and insist on abolishing this antiquated seizure for good.

The post Manipulating Seniors and Holding Us All Hostage from the Commanding Heights of the Dais first appeared on Infuse SA.

• Increased government involvement in the housing sector will drive up input prices
• More homeowners will be taxed to fund the personal preferences of other homeowners
• San Antonio taxpayers will be left with the tax bill when the housing market settles down

A good friend of ours recently quipped about how she wished she had a good product or service idea to go along with her immense analytical and organizational skills.  No doubt if she did, she’d have little trouble finding financial backing.

All government needs though, is a captive tax base.  Politicians like to refer to these taxpayers as “investors.” 

San Antonio mayor Ron Nirenberg used some form of that word five times in laying out his case for proposition F, the $150 million housing bond on the ballot here in San Antonio in a couple weeks. 

When voluntary investors in the private sector put their resources behind a new or improved gadget, they generally get a return if those who buy the gadget get a big(ger) bang for their buck.  That’s the hope of proponents here, to “fill affordability gaps” in the local housing market.

In reality, politically-directed “investment” tends to exacerbate current problems and/or create new ones.

Rather than “spurring … resources” by intervening in the market, the city is more likely to spur prices of inputs by competing with builders already busy trying to bring 20,000-to-30,000 new units online. 

That’s to say nothing of the organizations he cites (some publicly-funded) that are already working to alleviate this problem, such as it is.

A recent report in the San Antonio Express-News cites people “seeking apartments … after returning to the office, finding a new job, breaking up with a partner or simply wanting their own space.”

Additionally, Mayor Nirenberg implies that some homeowners have a right to stay put if they want to. 

Why is it the responsibility of other homeowners to subsidize these varied groups’ personal preferences?  Make no mistake, they will, because all this debt gets billed to them in the form of the property taxes they’re forced to pay.  Recent appraisals are already sending shockwaves across the area.

The mayor also believes that people are living “farther away from job centers … due to a lack of affordable housing options.”  Odds are just as well that they’re moving out of city limits to avoid being conscripted benefactors for the whims of city council. 

The pressure on those who remain will only intensify as more segments become exempted from this coercion.  It’s yet another reason the whole property tax scheme should be uprooted and scrapped (the subject for a forthcoming column).

At the end of the day, this effort, should supporters convince voters to swipe the city’s credit card, will have about as little effect on local housing prices as the oil market will feel from President Biden tapping the Strategic Oil Preserve for 180 million barrels of crude. 

That’s ironic because both problems are (partially) caused by a similar policy choice in Washington D.C.: a weak dollar.  If the mayor is curious at all why “prospective homebuyers” have been “losing to outside investors,” that’s it. 

The housing market will inevitably come back down to earth when the dollar strengthens, whether due to a president finally standing up for it, or investors fleeing other currencies because of a global downturn (see the Great Recession). 

At the end of the day, these ‘affordable’ housing bond projects will require ongoing subsidization to be kept afloat. They are a terrible financial risk for the city, and a looming  drain on every taxpayer with no end in sight.  VOTE NO to this unwise housing bond proposal.

The post ‘Affordable’ Housing: The Easiest Bond to Vote Down first appeared on Infuse SA.