Ludington Welcomes New Owners of Longfellow Towers by Tripling City Taxes for Them

[XLFD]

On Saturday, the LDN reported that the new owners of Longfellow Towers — which may experience a name change to Arbors of Ludington — may pay about $20,000 a year more for city services soon.

 

Since opening its doors in Ludington during the 1970s, the apartment building’s owner has made payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to local governments based on rents collected instead of paying on the building’s value, said City Manager John Shay.

 

“We provide the whole range of municipal services and that (PILT) has not really gone up in several years, and the cost of providing services has gone up,” he said.

 

The owner of Longfellow Towers is currently United Church Homes of Ludington, which Shay said pays 4 percent of its rents to the city as PILT. 

 

The city council, Shay said, will consider extending the 4-percent PILT payments — which brings about $10,300 a year to the city — while adding a $20,750-a-year municipal services fee.

 

 

Who will bear the burden of this tax increase?  The new company?  Guess again.  The fixed-income elderly women and men who live in this structure will likely find their rents and fees increasing and/or their services reduced to regain the money lost to our inefficient local government. 

 

Our local property values and wages continue to go down, our local taxes and fees continue to go up. Is this rational?

 

[AQUAMAN]

Hard work is right Mary, look at how our investments, those lucky enough to have any, in the stock market/401K's dwindled to nothing over the last 10 years or less. While the big boys devoured them, then got stimulus $$$ to keep them in bus. so they can continue to rob us in the future. What a joke! I just got some assessments on farm property in Victory, values went down somewhat, not alot though. The same should be happening everywhere else in the city, county, state, and nationwide right now. Oh yeah, the SS system told us babyboomers some years ago, we can't get full retirement benefits at age 65 now, most have to work to 66 or 67, and the newer gen X's may have to work to age 68-70, IF we live that long. But, since they are broke anyhow, who cares, right? Btw, I think if TT or anyone else wanting to borrow my links to the city balance sheet for a thread on this over yonder want to try it, go ahead, I'd be interested in the responses to it being publicly exposed. And see if anyone cares about that cash cow taxpayers are not getting any advantage from, as it was so created for.

[masonco]

Investments? I thought I did the right thing, spread them around, and now have less than 10% left. Not even enough for 1 year.

By raising retirement age, taking away medical care (except the great "end of life" counseling), waiting eons to see specials...if you can afford it, that will guarantee few if any will collect the multi millions invested into the system.

[XLFD]

Masonco, many of the people at the Towers have done their share of investments just like you, and now most can't afford to live anywhere near the way they used to, and many are living on their monthly stipend.

Just for this fee/tax increase, each of the 150 residents will have to pay $140 more per year, if the new owners expect the same profit from rents as before. That's $140 less they can spend on things that make them happy-- all because the city saw this perverse opportunity to make a quick buck.

[masonco]

Don't for get no COLA, more money taken out of stipend for Medicare, plus higher co-pays for medical and prescription needs.

Oh and Medicare only covers about 40 days a years for nursing home care.

[XLFD]

Unfortunately, your points are grim reality. Is there a member of the city council, let alone four members, who see that when you raise the taxes/fees on a landlord, you see them regularly pass that added expense on to their tenants?
I hope some members of the Towers and their families can bring this up this coming Monday at the city council meeting and encourage the dismissal of this tax increase.

[Tom Torquema]

It sounds like the City wants to not only run the sex offenders out of town, but the people who own property there. I haven't heard this problem occurring to the people I know who live or own property east of Ludington in Mason County.

[Tom Torquema]

Another good thread, X, on an obscene practice-- tripling the taxes of those on fixed incomes in the middle of a deep recession. These guys at Longfellow Towers (yet another LT) won't see any visible return on their increase, and as Aquaman notes, the city ain't destitute. It is incredible how your local paper totally overlooks this and your Police Chief's fraud you mentioned in your other thread, now proudly displayed on Lud Talks by yours very truly.

[XLFD]

In today's LDN, there's another announcement for this threefold tax increase. Again, there is no rationale for the increase. Why can't these bandits decide that any Ludington resident needs to have a $20,000 municipal services fee added on to their taxes? Be sure to check and see whether your ward's councilor actually votes for this travesty conducted against the elderly tenants.

[snide]

So since the city will collect more , all of our property taxes will go down , right......? I'll be holding my breath for that............ I'm not sure I like the name change. How many folks played ball on the cinder field on the east side of Longfellow School or basketball on the court on the west side .....?

[Mary A.]

Actually, Snide, I just received my 2010 Ludington tax assessment today. My property taxes did go down. I was very pleasantly surprised.

[XLFD]

Most peoples taxes should go down this year, as property values decline. Did your tax rate change at all Mary?

I think "Arbors" is a goofy name in the first place, since it implies an area with a lot of trees/gardens, which Longfellow Towers does not have.

[XLFD]

The city council went and passed this threefold tax increase. Now instead of paying 4% of the rents for Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) it will be over 12%. The articles in the LDN always quote the City Manager and his vapid rationale for raising these fees. It's too bad the people that we actually elect (i.e. the councilors and mayor) are neglected by the LDN for their comments on this. I think they would think twice about doing such an unethical raising of taxes on our senior citizens during a recession if they weren't ducking for cover under Mr. Shay's apron.