02/24/06  DMN's Claim that Texans are Responsive to School Spending

A portion of our living comes from rental properties, and we try our best to be good landlords, maintain our properties and find good tenants.  I sure don't want to stir up problems with any municipalities.

David Tuthill writes The sad fact is that despite more money the level of education of today's children will not improve. Only parental involvement by example and by their oversight of their children will improve education.  This is the truth of the matter. In large part, educators are only incidental to the process of educating children. If the parents aren't involved, there is only so much educators can do to help the process.

David Tuthill further writes If money will solve the education problem, how about the educators (trustees and administrators) give taxpayers a guarantee they will return their salaries, retirement funds accumulated during their entire tenure in office and perks to the taxpayers and remove themselves permanently from any and all school districts if the results are not forthcoming? I like this idea. It will never happen, but I like it. Talk about accountability!

And more Texas taxpayers need a school property tax relief, a property tax cut, a cap on the value the Appraisal District can increase the value of our homes to less than 5 percent and a guaranteed homestead exemption. It is for the good of hard working taxpayers.

This is where I have a real comment. As I said, I own some rental properties and spend a lot of time and money keeping up my properties.  I take care in selecting tenants, asking only two simple things:  a tenant who will keep up the property and who will keep the rent paid.  

Homestead exemptions are fine for owner occupied properties, but how about all single family properties?  As the rules are currently, rental properties have no exemptions of any kind.  The Appraisal District can (and I've seen them do it) raise the appraisals of rental properties in outrageous ways.  I know one property that was raised from the $80,000 range to over $130,000 in one year despite that number being all out of proportion for the property and the neighborhood.  When disputed, they lowered it to the upper $90's, which is still more than the property would command on the open market.  Once the appraiser and the three member board make up their minds, a mere property owner is at their mercy.

It occurs to me that this kind of appraisal might be used to incrementally raise the valuation of all properties in an area.  Rentals are not subject to homestead exemptions.  If rentals in an area can have their appraisals raised over a number of years, as other properties are sold in that same area, the appraisals of those rental properties can be used as justification to raise the valuation of the owner occupied houses in that same area to an amount that is higher than market valuation.

My last experience before the three member appraisal district board was less than satisfactory.  I disputed not only the valuation of the house in which we live, but one of our rentals as well. They did lower both, but by less than they should given the information I presented.  It seemed to be more a social time for the board and less about fairness. Their decisions mean nothing in any real way to the board members, yet mean real cutbacks for me and my family as each dollar paid to them is a dollar less we can use. Our uses are very limited as our disposable income is just about at zero, and our belts are about as tight as they can get.

In short, as property taxes to school districts increase, and those increases are linked to a whole host of other issues, renters are asked and required to pay higher rents to cover those costs just as are owner occupants.  Why should these people be excluded?

The whole host of other linked issues?  You are familiar with them.  HUD decisions that resulted in more children in areas that weren't designed for them resulting in the need for more classrooms (by way of portable buildings more often than not.)  Overcrowding and turning single family houses into de facto apartment houses. Lack of proper code enforcement to prevent these things.  You know the litany of problems and their causes and their solutions.

This whole property tax issue is a sore spot for us.  Paying inflated salaries to school superintendents and inflated contracts to copy firms and a whole host of other scandals you've helped illuminate just add to my cynicism.  These kinds of problems aren't exclusive to Dallas.  We have property in Dallas, Garland and now Mesquite. They all suffer similarly.

The answer lies in the discussions you've posted about Vickery Meadows. Higher density population centers means higher costs of living for all of us. Putting all those people and families in VM means more kids to educate while the tax base stays flat. That means a higher assessment is required to cover those costs.

The people living in areas like VM (and those kinds of areas a scattered all over the metroplex, apartment ghettos are ubiquitous) must be dispersed into more appropriate housing.  Housing that will help support the services these people and families use and require.  To not do so, will eventually mean a tax revolt as there is only so much the middle class can be asked to sacrifice before we say enough.

We are not rich.  Far from it.  We've bought a house or two along the way with a mind to keep them in good shape and keep them rented out for a little extra money. A very little. Most folks, when they think of landlords, think of the rich. We live modestly. We drive old, used cars that are paid for, as we can't afford car payments.  When we come into a little extra money, instead of buying a big screen TV and some furniture and a new car, we buy another property, fix it up and rent it out. I put a great deal of emphasis on the fixing part. as I pride myself on the quality of my work.

I just feel it's important for you to see a bit of this side of the story from self-employed people just trying to get by.