Suburban millage for Detroit Institute of Arts

[cramerro]

OK, the wording is confusing. I can post a link. I have read it both ways. I think it is continuing but the amount might be new. It never mentions DIA at all. Do they TRY to confuse us?

This is for Oakland County:

https://www.cityofsouthfield.com/Por...0Proposals.pdf

I think where you're getting thrown off is the wording pursuant to the Art Authority. The authority was set up in all three counties in 2010 to run the DIA. At that time, it was to run it, and not formed for the express purpose of collecting tax [[but the option to do so). So, while it sounds like the millage was first established in 2010, it was the authority.

I can say for sure that this is the first time they are seeking a millage in any of the counties; this is NOT a renewal.

[gazhekwe]

OK, thank you for the clarification. We DID vote in a millage for our parks and library, might have been thinking of that.

[Detroitej72]

I can't think of any reason not to vote for this measure.

[gazhekwe]

I can't either, Detroitej72

[Bham1982]

I can't think of any reason not to vote for this measure.

How about someone wants to keep more of their paycheck? Sounds like a probable reason for many.

[Shollin]

How about someone wants to keep more of their paycheck? Sounds like a probable reason for many.

The 38 cents per paycheck I save will go a long way for me.

[poobert]

How about someone wants to keep more of their paycheck? Sounds like a probable reason for many.

It isn't a payroll tax. Nothing comes out of anyone's paycheck. It is based on property taxes. Big difference.

Based on the taxable value of my house, I will pay FIVE DOLLARS PER YEAR. I know all of you in the inner-ring are basically in the same boat, unless you haven't had your value assessed recently. Most houses in this region are not worth anywhere near the $150k = $15 per year presented.

I'm sure a lot of you hotshots bitching about this are renters, in which case you don't pay property taxes but will reap the benefits anyway.

$5 is what it costs to drive to the mall and back. No one is going to miss a payment on their mortgage.

[bailey]

It isn't a payroll tax. Nothing comes out of anyone's paycheck. It is based on property taxes. Big difference.

Based on the taxable value of my house, I will pay FIVE DOLLARS PER YEAR. I know all of you in the inner-ring are basically in the same boat, unless you haven't had your value assessed recently. Most houses in this region are not worth anywhere near the $150k = $15 per year presented.

I'm sure a lot of you hotshots bitching about this are renters, in which case you don't pay property taxes but will reap the benefits anyway.

$5 is what it costs to drive to the mall and back. No one is going to miss a payment on their mortgage.

Look people can be against this and not be ignorant mouth breathing slobs. [[I'm voting yes, by the way, because I like and use the DIA and I'll be paying more than 15 bucks if it passes. Which pales in comparison to the several HUNDRED we pay to WCCCD which not one resident of our community attends.)

They can be against it because they simply feel like it's a bad precedent... I guarantee that this tax will NOT go away in 10- years as it's claimed.

They can be against it because they think that regional taxes should go for truly regional assets...and many think a Museum an hour from where they live, where they rarely if ever go, is not "regional" enough an asset.

They can be against it because they think museums are fundamentally something that should be supported privately and at the fare box.

They can be against it because they don't believe the museums problems are as "dire" as they claim.

Or they can think it's frivolous to support a regional museum through tax dollars when, due to the lack of local funding control, their kid has to pay a fee to play sports and only get's bused one way to away games, or has fewer options for classes and programs in their public schools and would prefer that 15 bucks to go to more important things...from their perspective.

Just sneering with derision and saying "shut up and pay the 15 bucks you cheap ass exurban dirtbag" isn't a winning argument.

[Det_ard]

Nice post Bailey.

It's funny how some of the biggest supporters of the DIA tax on this thread are also the most narrow-minded, condescending and antagonistic. Proudly so, in fact. Perhaps they need the culture more than most.

I'm on the fence on this, good reasons on both sides. But I kinda don't want to be in the same camp as the poobert-types.

BTW, some folks will be paying far more than $15. I know a landlord with a bunch of barely profitable, underwater rentals that will be paying a lot more than I will. That expense comes out of his profit, or his maintenance budget, or his tenant's increased rent. I also know a business-owner who unfortunately is not profitable but will be paying over $1000/yr more if this passes.

I realize this falls on deaf ears of some supporters, but its not as simple as everyone just pays $15. I would hope the most ardent supporters have been digging deep and donating a lot more than $15/year already.

[Shollin]

Nice post Bailey.

It's funny how some of the biggest supporters of the DIA tax on this thread are also the most narrow-minded, condescending and antagonistic. Proudly so, in fact. Perhaps they need the culture more than most.

I'm on the fence on this, good reasons on both sides. But I kinda don't want to be in the same camp as the poobert-types.

BTW, some folks will be paying far more than $15. I know a landlord with a bunch of barely profitable, underwater rentals that will be paying a lot more than I will. That expense comes out of his profit, or his maintenance budget, or his tenant's increased rent. I also know a business-owner who unfortunately is not profitable but will be paying over $1000/yr more if this passes.

I realize this falls on deaf ears of some supporters, but its not as simple as everyone just pays $15. I would hope the most ardent supporters have been digging deep and donating a lot more than $15/year already.

So your business owner friend owns a 10 million dollar property?

[Det_ard]

So your business owner friend owns a 10 million dollar property?

Apparently. Several sites, buildings, equipment, tooling, vehicles, offices, etc. Not every one on this site is surrounded by unemployed hipster dbags. There are some business people around here too.

[Shollin]

So someone who can afford 10 million dollars in properties is going to truggle with paying $1000 a year?

[bailey]

So someone who can afford 10 million dollars in properties is going to truggle with paying $1000 a year?

You're missing the point. it's not about "struggling" it's about having a say in allocation of resources. Some are just saying they disagree this is something EVERY home owner in three counties needs to chip in for.

[Detroitnerd]

Why support a good museum? It's a fair question. And, heck, I'll keep an open mind. Maybe we, in this region, do not need or deserve a good museum. I'll keep that mind open and figger maybe we can sell off the art collection to other, worthier cities that value art, although I would personally be sad to see the Detroit Industry murals go to, say, New York, or some other city where they don't have the power they do here in town.

But let's just put all that aside and say I'm keeping an open mind. After all, we have lots of things working in our favor. We have wonderful, wonderful freeways, regional malls, to say nothing of the majesty of Hall Road. Our seven-lane intersections in the counties would fill any American with pride, surrounded with miles and miles of beautiful subdivisions. Really, there's nothing like this anywhere else, and I can understand why visitors would come here and want to see that, and be satisfied with that. It is truly awesome.

But let's say that the person visiting town is a close-minded sort, and can't crack his imagination back open enough to appreciate the wonders we have come to embrace and love. Let's say we have one of those "culture lovers" -- a person who can't appreciate a Ram with a hemi or a 2,300-square-foot McMansion with gorgeous vinyl siding. How can we get him to appreciate Detroit?

Well, I could be one of them. I do find it hard to appreciate the wonders of freeway interchanges and hurtling along at 90 mph while drinking from a go-cup. Instead, I tend to be more impressed by art ... close-minded, I know. I apologize. We can't all be perfect.

Now, several years ago, I went to Toledo to visit it for the first time. I had a friend take me through some of the nicer neighborhoods around the art museum, and then take me into the art museum. I was super impressed. I thought it would be something I could do in an afternoon, but it was much larger, much better endowed than I could have dreamed. This museum is more of a two- or three-day visit, even if the amenities of Toledo are otherwise limited, and you have to stay in a hotel out by the freeway. But it really changed my opinion of Toledo. Now when I meet people from Toledo, I talk about that wonderful art museum, and you can see they're proud of it too. It's the kind of publicity you can't get from tourism brochures or TV commercials trying to draw visitors. Having a successful, world-class art museum is important to how a city, and a region, is perceived. And those perceptions do matter.

Besides, when people come to see the DIA, where do you think they're going to stay? Chances are they'll stay at a hotel in Dearborn or Troy, buoying the regional economy as well as the city's. It really is an asset, and worth preserving in a dollars-and-cents kind of way. Goodwill seldom appears on a balance sheet, but it does have real value and pays off in the long run.

So, for that reason, I'd say don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Supporting the region's anchor art museum is a good investment for us all.

[Bham1982]

It isn't a payroll tax. Nothing comes out of anyone's paycheck. It is based on property taxes. Big difference.

There's no difference. It comes out of my paycheck, whether a direct deduction or the twice-annual property taxes.

Based on the taxable value of my house, I will pay FIVE DOLLARS PER YEAR.

That's because you're in Detroit. City taxable values are super-low, so the museum subsidy is essentially covered by the suburbs.

So excepting a few Richie-Rich zip codes in Bloomfield, Franklin or GP Shores [[places from which the DIA already receives millions annually), the people paying the most have the least to benefit.

And the issue isn't the amount. I can afford to give $10 to every guy who asks me on the street, so should I just do so?

Obviously most people aren't going to declare bankruptcy based on this tax. The issue is paying more for a nonessential expense, when essential expenses aren't being funded.

Most folks will see their cars being torn up by the mess that is Orchard Lake Road [[for example) and then wonder why they're now forced to pay for some richly endowed museum that has, until now, thrived for over a century from donations by the very wealthy.

And this happens to bethe same museum that just borrowed a ton of money to build a massive $160 million expansion in the midst of the great recession. Now they can't pay back the money, so Bill in Roseville has to pay.

[Shollin]

You're missing the point. it's not about "struggling" it's about having a say in allocation of resources. Some are just saying they disagree this is something EVERY home owner in three counties needs to chip in for.

No i'm not missing the point. I was specifically quoting the post of the person who said the amounts would be higher

[Detroitnerd]

... so Bill in Roseville has to pay.

Bham, I served with Bill in Roseville.

I knew Bill in Roseville.

Bill in Roseville was a friend of mine.

Bham, you're no Bill in Roseville ...

[Det_ard]

So someone who can afford 10 million dollars in properties is going to truggle with paying $1000 a year?

Do you have any understanding of business? $10 million is not cash sitting around. It's what the physical assets are considered to be worth by the municipalities in which they reside. They're over-assessed, as are many of our houses but that's another issue. The assets are offset by liabillities, loans used to purchase PP&E and capitalize the business. Loans which exceed the value of the property [[like many of our homes), and have been extended but are in danger of being called by the bank at any time because the covenants are obviously violated. He and his partners don't have $10 million. They have a business that's eating cash to survive, and they're upside down on the balance sheet.

So as they cut back where they can to try to keep the business open long enough to get back in the black, a little $1000 bump in their taxes doesn't help.

[Shollin]

Do you have any understanding of business? $10 million is not cash sitting around. It's what the physical assets are considered to be worth by the municipalities in which they reside. They're over-assessed, as are many of our houses but that's another issue. The assets are offset by liabillities, loans used to purchase PP&E and capitalize the business. Loans which exceed the value of the property [[like many of our homes), and have been extended but are in danger of being called by the bank at any time because the covenants are obviously violated. He and his partners don't have $10 million. They have a business that's eating cash to survive, and they're upside down on the balance sheet.

So as they cut back where they can to try to keep the business open long enough to get back in the black, a little $1000 bump in their taxes doesn't help.

Yes I do understand. I would assume that someone who owned 10 million in properties would have more than 0.1% of their assets in cash and that it wouldn't cripple them.

[poobert]

There's no difference. It comes out of my paycheck, whether a direct deduction or the twice-annual property taxes.

Okay, well, we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. You believe a pay stub and a tax bill are the same thing. I do not. I don't know how else to get past that one.

That's because you're in Detroit. City taxable values are super-low, so the museum subsidy is essentially covered by the suburbs.

And you say that because you're in Birmingham. Values accross the region are still super low. Bill from Roseville's house is probably valued the same as mine. Places like Roseville, Lincoln Park, Oak Park, and Warren make up the vast majority of the population of this region, along with Detroit. You pretend it's all either Birmingham or Brightmoor.

And the issue isn't the amount. I can afford to give $10 to every guy who asks me on the street, so should I just do so?

Yes. The DIA is like a bum hustling you for money. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one too.

Call me cynical, but the OP did start this whole thread on the basis of contempt about the suburbs giving money to Detroit[[and the title had to thus be changed because it was inaccurate) and I'm pretty sure that's what most of the dissenting votes are going to be based on, whatever lofty ideological, albeit legitimate, concerns about taxation and the government's role in museums can be argued. I've lived here too long to expect otherwise.

[antongast]

It's funny how some of the biggest supporters of the DIA tax on this thread are also the most narrow-minded, condescending and antagonistic. Proudly so, in fact. Perhaps they need the culture more than most.

Not every one on this site is surrounded by unemployed hipster dbags. There are some business people around here too.

Sounds like you could do with some culture yourself, Det_ard. I'll think of you as I'm casting my yes vote.

[French777]

I have seen more and more of the "Vote Yes for D.I.A." yard signs. Anyone know where I can get one?

[poobert]

Frenchie,
Go to any one of these locations:
http://www.artisforeveryone.org/volunteer/
$5.00 donation. Great, easy way to support the effort. I went to the Detroit office yesterday to get mine. Friendly folks working hard.

[JBMcB]

Yes I do understand. I would assume that someone who owned 10 million in properties would have more than 0.1% of their assets in cash and that it wouldn't cripple them.

No, you don't understand. He owns property valued at $10 million. That doesn't mean he paid that much for it. That doesn't mean it's useful as leverage in loans or anything. He could have bought it for $2 million, owe $1.9 million in loans, and is now paying property taxes as though it were worth $10 million.

[Detroitnerd]

No, you don't understand. He owns property valued at $10 million. That doesn't mean he paid that much for it. That doesn't mean it's useful as leverage in loans or anything. He could have bought it for $2 million, owe $1.9 million in loans, and is now paying property taxes as though it were worth $10 million.

If so, sounds like somebody is living beyond their means...