The state Senate iജs pranking Mayor de Blasio with pressure𝕴 to include the city in the cap on property-tax growth that applies to the rest of New York. But a real issue lurks beneath the game-playing.
Frankly, city property taxes ♈could badly stand a complete re-do — soup-to-nuts. But no rational, fair reform has any chance of emerging from the current cast of elected leaders. Nor will the Democrati🐻c-run Assembly ever pass a tax cap for Gotham.
But the city could take a step forward on its own — by rolling back property-tax rates to where they were before Mike Bloo🐷mberg hiked them in 2002.
Unꦏder Rudy Giuliani, the property-tax take rose slowly, from $7.8 billion to $8.8 billion, or 13 percent, notes fiscal expert E.J. McMahon of the Empire Center. That’s largely because it took time for assessments to recover after property values dropped in the early ’90s.
But under Bloomberg, revenues took off, soaring to $20.2 billion by 2014, a jump of 1🅠30 percent — thanks both to rising values 𝓡and to Mike’s 18.5 percent hike in 2002.
Since Mayor de Blasio took office, collections have surged yet anot♕her 12 percentℱ, to $22.6 billion. City Hall estimates they’re on track to hit $27.7 billion by 2020.
But wait — Bloomberg’s hike was supposedly justified by a 9/ಞ11-triggered cash crunch. City revenues long since recovered from that level — so why do the higher rates remain?
Yes, de Blasio and the City Council love spending taxpayer money. Heck, Hizzoner told the Senate he opposes any cap because he needs the cash to “ღbuild” the city econ꧅omy and to avoid downturns.
And, OK, returning to pre-Mike levels would cost the city a hefty chunk of change — nearly $3.6 billion a year, 🐠McMahon says.
But that’s $3.6 billion a year the city shouldn’t be collecting — again, thౠe “❀emergency” is long over. The city’s coffers are plenty full.
Plus, you know that when the economy turns south, de Blasio & Co. will soon be eyeing more hikes: The property tax is one of the few they don’t need Albany’s OK ℱto increase.
They could space a rollback of Mike’s hikes over a few years, so the hit woul෴d be manageable.
In truth, Bloomberg’s hike wasn’t even justified in 2002. Then-Mayor Mike could’ve trimmed more budget fat i𝕴nstead. Today, with city finances strong, it’s well past time to end his surcharge — once and for all.