8
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23. 2008
Transfer
tax will
help
county
&
JOE CAPOWSKI
ORANGE CITIZENS EOR SCHOOLS AND PARKS
E-MAIL: CAPOWSKI@EMAIL.UNC.EDU
Our community is a
world-renowned center
for education and health
care. Our three crown jewels
UNC, UNC Health Care
and our public school systems
attract and keep an educated
and vibrant population.
We are thus challenged to
continually absorb new people
without destroying our great
quality of life and becoming
another casualty of too-fast
growth that exceeds our infra
structure. with the result of
crowded highways and schools,
inadequate parks and, as we
saw most recently, a lack of
water supply.
Our growth demands that we
build new schools and parks
and schools, by North Carolina
law. are uniquely county func
tions. Therefore, the county
commissioners are asking us to
approve a real estate transfer
tax.
This tax will apply to all real
estate transactions in which
money changes hands, includ
ing residential, commercial
and unimproved properties.
Gifts and inheritances are not
affected.
The county commissioners
will apply the tax revenue to
our county's schools and parks.
Since the county is obligated
to build schools, the question
before us is not if we want addi
tional taxes, but rather how do
we w ant to be taxed?
Nobody, myself included,
likes anew tax. So why do 1
advocate for it?
■ The transfer tax allows
property owners to enjoy
increases in the value of their
homes and businesses as long as
they own them, without paving
additional yearly property tax.
■ The transfer tax payment
is delayed until the property is
sold, when the seller will receive
revenue. Elderly people benefit
here especially.
The N.C. Association of
Realtors is spending a small for
tune of statewide funds to fight
this tax with TV ads and hand
some mailings. Its fear is that if
it passes here, it will spread to
larger fast-growth counties.
This group is strongly
opposed to increases in real
estate taxes, even if these taxes
are needed to pay for schools
and other basic community ser
vices. It argues, “this is not the
time for a new' tax." But what
is its alternative? Don’t build
the next needed school? Keep
raising the property tax to pay
for it?
UNC students have every
thing to gain and nothing to
lose by supporting this tax.
Philosophically, the real
estate transfer tax continues our
community’s emphasis on edu
cation. Practically, this tax will
not increase rents, on-campus
or off.
The alternative, yearly
increases in the property taxes,
will certainly raise off-campus
rental fees as the increase will
be bundled into landlords’ costs.
The Obama-Clinton cam
paign should promote a huge
turnout. Balancing that is the
unfortunate scheduling that
places election day on the last
day of exams; campus popula
tion will be low.
Consequently, I urge you
to head over to the Morehead
Planetarium to vote early, and
while doing so, turn over the
ballot to its flip side, and join
me to vote FOR the real estate
transfer tax.
I chair a local grassroots
group that believes that this tax
is a necessity. We are funded
entirely by local contribu
tions. Please visit our Web site:
www.4schools4parks.com. We
urgently need help to spread the
truth about this measure. Can
you help? Please send a check to:
Orange Citizens for Schools
and Parks
P.O. Box 14, Chapel Hill, NC
27514
(Write your occupation and
employer on the memo line.)
TAXING SALES
Orange County needs revenue, but will it come from a tax on
home sales? Residents will decide May 6; make sure to vote.
VIEWPOINTS CARTOON By Alex Lee, iobin@email.unc.edu
Some people call it a home tax. Other
folks prefer land-transfer tax.
At the end of the day, whichever
way you call it, it’s a 0.4 percent tax on
all real estate sales. And if the county’s
residents approve the move in the May 6
primary election, it’ll be put in place in
Orange County.
Orange County which holds Chapel
Hill and Carrboro got special permis
sion from the General Assembly to levy
anew tax on county residents, so long as
the residents themselves approve it in a
referendum.
The county got to choose between a
slight bump in the sales tax and the land
transfer tax. In fact, if the commission
ers so chose, they could have asked the
people about both and then picked which
to institute.
But they decided that the sales tax
would be regressive that is, it would
take a higher cut of the disposable income
of the poor than it would of the rich.
Regressive taxes are an anathema in
Orange County. More specifically, the
most liberal part of the county, the towns
of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, embrace
“progressive politics," which place an
exceedingly high value on social justice.
So, in short order the idea of a sales tax
was dropped, essentially framing a raise
our-taxes-or-don’t debate.
The electoral struggle that has devel
oped essentially pits many of the coun
ty's realtors against the county commis
sioners.
The county commissioners want the
“UNC students have everything to gain
and nothing to lose by supporting this
tax. ”
JOE CAPOWSKI, ORANGE CITIZENS FOR SCHOOLS AND PARKS
Now is the wrong time for
implementing transfer tax
TO THE EDITOR:
There is one ballot initiative
that deserves more of our atten
tion. It’s the transfer tax that the
Orange County commissioners are
trying to push through.
The county has spent SIOO,OOO
in taxes just to try to get additional
taxes, but yet they are complaining
about not haring enough money.
If they have extra money lying
around for such efforts there is not
a need for anew tax at all.
The economy isn’t doing well,
and the transfer tax would be
charged every time someone sells
their property. That would not only
hurt the low-income and elderly
people of Orange County, but also
students that live off campus.
I strongly encourage my fel
low students to vote “against" the
transfer tax.
Austin Rouse
Junior
Political Science
Viewpoints
tax because it will give them a bigger pool
from which to allocate funding for local
schools, public health regulation and
other expenses.
Realtors make money for selling land
so want as much land as possible to sell.
Generally, the less it costs to buy land (the
realtors' commissions themselves, plus
taxes and fees associated with the pur
chase), the more land people will buy, the
realtors' theory goes.
The county devoted SIOO,OOO to edu
cating the public about the tax so that
an informed decision can be made. The
county also has hosted several forums to
give the public a chance to weigh in on
the matter.
And as the debate has developed, rhe
torical points beyond both sides’ desire for
more money have emerged.
Realtors have argued that relying on
real estate taxes is a bad idea because the
housing market is unstable so revenue
from such a tax would also be unstable.
They also argue that the land transfer
tax is unfair because while it doesn’t target
the poor, it does target people who have
land to sell.
While that means upper-income fam
ilies moving for retirement and fat-cat
developers, it can also mean farm fami
lies.
Many farm families have most of their
family’s capital tied up in land. Instead of
big (or small) cash bequests, farmers often
receive the farm.
If farming is no longer financially pos
sible or if someone's child just decides he
IN THEIR WORDS:
Transfer tax actually helps
poor and elderly residents
TO THE EDITOR:
I’m writing in support of the
land transfer tax. It will enable
property owners to enjoy increases
in property value without paying
additional yearly property’ taxes;
payment of the tax is delayed until
the property is sold, when the
owner will receive revenue.
The Citizens for a Better Orange
County argues that the tax unfairly
targets senior citizens and low
income residents.
But allowing the county to mit
igate necessary increases in the
yearly ad valorem property taxes,
the transfer tax will provide relief
to these residents during these
economically challenging times.
Please join me in approving the
transfer tax and allowing Orange
County to grow while minimizing
the burden of growth on our senior
and low-income residents.
George J. Cianciolo
Chapel Hill
or she would like to be something other
than a farmer, the farm must be sold, and
the transfer tax would be another bite
taken out of the sale.
Realtors also question the tax’s efficacy
in reducing property taxes, pointing to
eastern North Carolina counties that have
implemented the tax and still have rela
tively high taxes.
Proponents of the tax, who include Elbe
Kinnaird. the county’s representative in
the N.C. Senate, argue that it will actually
depress pro pert)’ tax rates.
They also hold that increased funds will
bolster social services and schools.
And the tax would only impact resi
dents a couple of times in their lifetimes,
as opposed to increased property taxes,
which would be collected every’ year, they’
say.
Proponents argue that at the rate the
county is growing, there’s a pressing need
for more funding for new schools, expand
ed infrastructure and other expenses.
And while more residents means more
taxpayers, many people in Orange County
go to Durham or Chatham counties to
shop, cutting our commissioners out of
the loop and out of the loot.
The last time the county had a tax refer
endum, in 2005, it generated lots of out
rage and precious little support.
That proposal, which applied only to
the more rural parts of the county that
send children to Orange County School
District, was for an extra tax to equal
ize school funding with the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City School District.
“This vote isn't about how money will
be spent. Its about whether the transfer
tax is the right way to raise it. It's not.”
MARK ZIMMERMAN, CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ORANGE COUNTY
Burden of tax will raise
cost of living in county
TO THE EDITOR:
I’m writing to encourage my
fellow students to vote ‘against’
the transfer tax also known as
the home tax on May 6.
With the economy in a down
turn, new taxes will only hurt,
not help. In fact, the burden of
the tax could raise the cost of liv
ing for students.
Basically, it’s a tax on anyone
who sells their property.
That’s not right, because it
strips homeowners of their hard
earned equity.
Plus, the tax is regressive,
affecting lower-income buyers
and sellers more than anyone
else.
Vote “against" the transfer tax
on May 6, or before, if you take
advantage of early voting. The
transfer tax is a bad idea.
Michael Winters
Senior
Public Policy
Let's be first N.C county to
defeat real estate lobby
TO THE EDITOR:
The ones who would be most
impacted by the transfer tax are
developers, land speculators and
realtors the same folks who are
spending thousands of dollars to
kill this proposal.
We are not being taxed unnec
essarily: If the transfer tax is voted
down, we will be faced with an
equivalent increase in property
taxes, sales taxes or both. It is these
other options that would truly
make things worse for fixed- or
low-income folks, creating imme
diate hardship every month.
I believe Orange County citi
zens value our schools and parks
enough to support them. If I’m
right, we will be the first of 17
counties to stand up to the real
estate lobbyists and approve the
transfer tax as a compassionate
way to generate essential revenue.
Steve Henry Herman
Chapel Hill
£hr Bailii ear Hrrl
Vote
against
home
sales tax
ml •'Tw
ILjJ
MARK ZIMMERMAN
CITIZENS EOR A BETTER ORANGE COUNTY
E-MAIL: MARKZIMMERMANOREMAX.NET
The N.C. primary is upon
us, and there is an excit
ing national presidential
race at the top of the ballot.
There’s also a less exciting, but
still important, local referen
dum on the bottom of the bal
lot.
It’s about whether Orange
County should be able to tax
people when they sell their
homes. It’s called a transfer tax.
It’s not a good idea.
Last summer the N.C.
General Assembly said county
commissioners could only add
this new tax if their constituents
agreed. In the fall 16 counties
put the measure on the ballot to
ask permission. All 16 said this
wasn’t a good new way to tax,
with an unprecedented 79 per
cent voting against the measure.
Why?
First, homeowners bear the
brunt of local taxes already.
Each year, families already pay
their property taxes. In Orange
County, they pay a lot for all the
services they get. To pay another
tax when they sell their home
is like paying twice, just when
they are moving.
Second, this new home sales
tax is a big tax. Every year, a
minority of people home sell
ers would bear the tax bur
den for everyone.
Last year the average Orange
County home seller would have
paid $1,371 for this tax. That
money comes from the savings
in their home equity money
to buy the next house, pay for
retirement or help pay for a
child’s college tuition.
Third, this is a regressive tax
that hurts low-income hom
eowners most. That’s because
wealthier families have many
more ways to save.
First-time homeowners,
affordable homeowners and
fixed-income homeowners
spend a higher percent of their
income on their home and are
more likely to have more of
their family net worth tied up
in their home. The transfer tax
hurts them more.
Fourth, this tax hits prop
erty owners who shouldn't be
taxed. All sales are subject to
the transfer tax, even if the sell
ers are churches, nonprofits
or affordable housing owners.
When people sell land conserva
tion rights, they will be taxed.
People who will lose money
when they sell their home will
have to borrow to pay this tax.
Fifth, the timing for this
Orange County tax is poor.
The real estate market is
under a lot of stress right now.
Homeowners face real chal
lenges with their sales. This is
the worst time to add more cost
to selling a home. Importantly,
when sales decline, transfer
tax revenues will decline too.
This tax is not a stable source
of income on which the county
should depend.
Last, but perhaps most
important to University stu
dents, the transfer tax will
increase the cost of housing. For
most homeowners, paying the
tax will just mean less money
for them. But for more sophis
ticated owmers, the costs will be
passed on.
Developers will add it to the
cost of new housing. Investors,
who buy and sell rental houses,
wall simply increase rents to
cover this transfer tax cost. That
will directly affect many stu
dents’ cost of living.
Orange County will need
more money as it grows in the
future. But this vote isn’t about
how money will be spent. It’s
about whether the transfer tax
is the right way to raise it. It’s
not.
That’s why so many counties
across the state rejected it last
fall. Our county needs to con
sider other options and work
harder to grow the tax base.
It doesn't need to add costs to
home ownership, which will add
costs to attending school here.
When you vote, please vote
against the transfer tax.