Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe City-County Council on Monday night approved the framework for a new tax to be imposed on certain downtown property owners to generate revenue to improve cleanliness, public safety and homelessness.
The proposal calls for the creation of a downtown area, formerly called the economic enhancement district, that would raise about $4.65 million a year in taxes for downtown-focused efforts in Indianapolis, along with funding the operating costs of the low-barrier homeless shelter planned on the southeast side of downtown.
Councilors voted 18-6, with Republicans in opposition, to pass the district.
Properties within the taxing district would pay 0.17% of their gross assessed value, while apartments and single-family residences would be exempt from the fee.
Office space owners and hoteliers would pay the largest chunks of the $4.65 million. Offices would contribute $1.92 million, while hotels would pay $1.68 million, according to analysis from Policy Analytics LLC.
The next steps in finalizing the district tax involve the creation of a city-state board to govern the district’s funds and submit a budget to the City-County Council. Four board members will be appointed by the governor, two by the City-County Council, and one each by the Indiana House speaker, the Senate president pro tempore and the Indianapolis mayor. A majority of the board members must own property within the district.
Taylor Schaffer, CEO of Downtown Indy Inc. and one of the main architects of the taxing district, said that the board would need to be in place by November in order to submit a budget to the City-County Council and the tax to be imposed on April property tax bills.
The council’s approval Monday of the taxing district appears to bring to an end a years-long battle between certain downtown advocates and the Indiana Apartment Association, which has long opposed such a downtown fee. Last year, the association upended the council’s approval of a similar district by persuading the state Legislature to halt the tax and carve out an exception for property owners.
According to a news release from Downtown Indy Inc., the Indy Chamber and the Indianapolis City-County Council, the new fee could fund:
- Seven-day-a-week cleaning crews to perform tasks such as power washing, graffiti removal, litter abatement, etc.
- Beautification initiatives including plantings, painting, and mulching
- Off-duty foot and bike patrols to supplement police presence and provide direct outreach resources to property owners
- Safety ambassadors for additional street-level presence
- Homeless Street Outreach team members, dedicated to connecting individuals to services, addressing issues, and coordinating with public safety agencies
- Investments in downtown crime-fighting public safety technology
- Some funding for a low-barrier shelter.
State law removed “activating and promoting public events,” “creating innovative approaches to attracting new businesses,” and “planning improvement activities” from the list of permitted uses of downtown tax district dollars.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
The Indiana Apartment Association: proving how cheaply our legislators came be bought for years.
What is White Lodging going to do, Joe? Pick up their multi-million dollar hotels and move them?
No, they are going to eat this tax, like a little kid eating their veggies.
These big businesses have received *billions* in tax breaks and other public subsidies over the years. We all paid for them. They make money hand over foot. Now, they can afford to pay what to them is a small amount extra to fund the additional services *they demand.*
I have no major issue with the tax.
I have several issues with the carve out the Apartment Association bought and the meddling at the Statehouse level on behalf of not Indianapolis residents, but donors to our legislators.
I was trying to respond to the other Joe, and I reposted my comment under his.
I agree the carve outs are problem, but they just demonstrate the power of the landlord lobby in Indiana and how easily (and relatively cheaply) the Indiana General Assembly members can be bought.
Something tells me this is going to backfire on the city… Property taxes are already high enough and then they go and do this.
What is White Lodging going to do, Joe? Pick up their multi-million dollar hotels and move them?
No, they are going to eat this tax, like a little kid eating their veggies.
These big businesses have received *billions* in tax breaks and other public subsidies over the years. We all paid for them. They make money hand over foot. Now, they can afford to pay what to them is a small amount extra to fund the additional services *they demand.*
Property taxes are high enough compare to what or where. The statement is unjustified without data. And should property taxes be lower — if so, what might be an alternative revenue source for the infrastructure and safety aspects that all citizens and property owners desire.
Property taxes are higher in Texas and New Jersey for instance. However, without a comprehensive comparative study of property taxes generated and applied uses and needs, by area and preferably for peer cities such as Columbus and Nashville, one cannot readily assess whether taxes indeed or too high, lacking, or insufficient.
A reasonable plan to create special taxes, or use the masquerading term “fees,” for specific purposes and in specific areas such as downtown or other activity centers. These taxes or fees can therefore be targeted for used in those areas where the property owners or their customers benefit.
Derek, it is a laugh that you and your cronies simply repeat that property taxes are too high *without* any data to support your assertion, and then ask others for “justifying” data.
And, if you want to see the *billions* of dollars in tax breaks that have been given out over the years to big businesses in Marion County, you can either either comb through the City’s website or file a FOI request with the Marion County Auditor’s Office, though I doubt you would do so because you don’t want anything to challenge your narrative of property taxes being too high.
And, the assessment for the new taxing district downtown is not “masquerading” as anything. It is a tax for additional services that benefit the properties in the new taxing district. State law requires it to be used for clearly stated purposes that are well-disclosed.
Property taxes in Indianapolis are pretty low compared to most cities. People have gotten used to low taxes, low service round these parts and it’s time for a change.
Swell. Another board is being created that will never disappear. How about our murder rate and potholed streets?
How do you combine homeless families with Low barrier homeless and accomplish some hypothetical solution except to move the low barriers to taint another downtown neighborhood. The mayor was proud to accomplish this initiative but didnt have the courtesy of getting our input. Fo you think our property still have its value? Rhetorical question.
Does any reader have a a solution for the murder rate? If so, cities throughout the United States would like to know. Changing administrations has proved to have little effect on murder rates given that murderers seem to act independently of city council and mayoral ideals. And think of Boards dictated by the Statehouse that are unnecessary,, but approved based on the thought that they provide valuable oversight. A post study could ascertain if that is true.
A good way to make businesses move out of the heart of the city! Exempt the establishments that are responsible for creating the crime (ie Wheeler missions) and throw the cost of clean-up on the businesses we want to stay in downtown! If the missions don’t want to pay, move out of the district! Way to go Indy throw another burden on the good guys!
Agreed. problem is,,, those business are money makers for the owners
Ie, Wheeler mission and Low Barrer Homeless Shelter
Oh, Patty, enough with the drama. What is White Lodging going to do? Close its highly profitable multi-million dollar hotels and move out of the city? Throw away all that because they have to now pay a somewhat fairer share of tax?
If they we that poor of business people they would make that decision. Let them, and tell them not to let the door slam on their behinds on the way out.
Enough with corporate *welfare* apologists like you. These businesses received *billions* in tax breaks and other public subsidies over the years. Ordinary folks paid for these big businesses to make millions a year.
You people whine about “socialism” but you sure seem to love it when it is corporate socialism. Let them pay this small extra tax and deal with it!
San Francisco spends 1 billion dollars of tax payer money on homelessness per year and have more homeless than ever.
Can our Council site one city that a tax like this has been successful?
How about parking the empty RedLine busses and making them into shelters? What a joke these council clowns are.
And California is resorting to arrest and jailing them as incentives.
Lots of cities have taxes to cleanup downtown areas.
The public policy since the GWB era has been to get people off the streets, then worry about getting them on the right path. Requiring people to give up the booze or find Jesus first has worked rather poorly, as has using the prison system. And that’s not to mention the role in not funding mental health care which is certainly an aspect to solving the problem.
Myself, I’d rather pay more in taxes and not have people living in public. California has also put $24 billion towards the problem. We are complaining here about a much smaller number.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2356643-we-can-reduce-homelessness-if-we-follow-the-science-on-what-works/
1-2-3 Que the already begun office exodus to the north side suburbs. Detroit thought they could tax the “wealthy” businesses in their city also. (AKA Auto Industry) How did that work out? They left.
Yeah, I doubt White Lodginb will close its hugely profitable hotels downtown and move to suburbs over a small tax. If they are that stupid to do it, then goodbye to them and some wiser investors will happily by their properties and make money.
You people are such corporate shills. You claim to hate “socialism” unless of course it is social welfare for big business that leave the ordinary people to foot the bill. Just say you love corporate welfare queens who get billions in public subsidies but whine when they have to pay any taxes. Say you love them, then log off and go home for the day—it will save time.
That’s…not even close to what happened in Detroit. Are you historically illiterate?
I have a video of two homeless having full on sex on the sidewalk under their blanket..
Do you normally film yourself in the act of coitus?
John bought property (what turned out to be) next-door to where the city bought land for the shelter. Over the last few months, he’s not articulated any opposition to the shelter other than he doesn’t want it next to his property, as I don’t believe it fits with his vision of what he could do with the land.
I understand what I believe he sees as misfortune, but I do think other uses will open up for that land given the location. And to be frank, when you buy land somewhere and hope it appreciates in value, you’re also taking on the risk that it might do the opposite.
Excellent! I’m annoyed by the State’s over-bearing nonsense and how they are constantly bought out by the IAA, but I’m glad that this is implemented nonetheless.
People can’t complain about the state of downtown and choose to do nothing about it.
What is a low barrier shelter? What is a safety ambassador? Why is it that the policies which give rise to the problem get to be solved by people who implemented those policies in the first place?
Are you familiar with how an internet search engine works?
For the six who voted against the measure, what is their vision for the city. And, how might they provide a sound planning and financial structure to maintain business, attract investment, improve infrastructure, and compete against peer cities. Do some city council members seek to work against aspects that help the city and its citizens.