Apartment dwellers need to carry the load

So, voters (property owners) rejected another hike in property taxes. Duh.

And why shouldn’t they? Why should property owners have to pay for everything in the city of Kent?

The election results probably reflect property owners versus apartment dwellers. When will apartment dwellers start paying their “fair share?”

Apartment dwellers tend to have more kids than property owners and thus, without a yard of their own, tend to use parks and ball fields more than property owners who have their own yards for their kids to play in.

They use schools and streets and bridges at least as much as property owners and yet they pay next to nothing for these facilities. OK, a few bucks of sales tax maybe, but nothing compared to the thousands of dollars property owners pay in property taxes for those facilities.

Let’s try a new tax structure. How about we drop schools, streets, parks, ball fields, etc., from the property tax roles and start a “residence” tax? This tax would be billed/paid quarterly by every man, woman and child living in the city of Kent.

Compute the total cost of all these facilities for a year; divide that cost by the number of residents living in Kent; and bill each family for their per capita “fair share.” Or, alternatively, see that apartment dwellers receive a property tax bill of their own each quarter, based on the assessed value of the apartment they occupy.

Maybe then we will get away from apartment dwellers voting for every property tax hike that comes along, on the basis that it will not cost them a dime but they will benefit from it.

Instead, let’s get everyone to think whether the tax hike will benefit them enough to vote a tax increase on themselves, instead of sticking it to someone else every time.

Hah. Good luck.

I can already hear the outcries of “bigotry, racism, selfishness,” etc. We have got to get to a situation where all people carry at least a part of the load.

– Brent Benson