Lawsuit: Mpls. inflates housing values

  • Article by: STEVE BRANDT , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 18, 2010 - 11:00 PM

Plaintiffs say Minneapolis ignored foreclosure woes to keep values, and property taxes, high in certain neighborhoods.

  • 99
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mh1234Nov. 18, 1010:43 PM

I have a commercial property in NE Minneapolis that was previously valued at almost $400,000. When the assessor visited this year (at my request), the value was reduced to $180,000 - which is about right. The annual taxes went from over $10,000.00 to $4,600.00 - a 54% reduction!!! Take a guess as to whether I'll ever get the taxes I had been obviously overpaying refunded...

staredNov. 18, 1010:47 PM

How do you think the City of Minneapolis feeds its one party bloated bureaucracy?

jillie64Nov. 18, 1010:54 PM

Do you think you could even buy an empty residential city lot for $22,000?Because of the economy and the changes going on in my area,my property has probably dropped in value by about 40 or 50 thousand dollars my property taxes have not dropped but have gone up.Do I qualify for this lawsuit?

dgmcpNov. 18, 1011:26 PM

Wow, I've said before I purchased my home in 2005, got an appraisal at 180K brought it at that price for what I thought was a deal as the house had been listed at 199K. The rate went to 10.99% on my 1st and they wouldn't work with me. I let them have it back in 2010 in pretty much the same condition I purchased. It is in North Mpls and has not yet sold, you can get it for less than 30K.. What gives? I would love some information on the attorney's driving this lawsuit and I've got my original loan papers. I don't want anything I just want those to follow me to be treated fairly,not as cash machines for the rich AND the state!

johnsopinionNov. 19, 10 5:03 AM

This is happening all over the place, not just in Mpls. Cities and counties need to look outside their enclosed little world and see what's happening. These entities think that they should be immune from drastic cuts in revenue and keep people 'employed', while homeowners and businesses make the kinds of cuts needed just to survive. Many of the inner ring suburbs are in the same situation.

mspgunshopNov. 19, 10 5:09 AM

I was told some years ago by a city official, that some of the assessments are base on crime. So if you live in a part of the city that needs more Police, Fire, Regulatory Services and EMS. You will need to be tax more on your property. Take a look at the property map and over lay it with the Mpls crime map and I think you will see that they are about the same.

guernzNov. 19, 10 5:47 AM

Unfortunately the city's costs do not go down because property values are. Property taxes based on value can be very regressive. All taxes should be based on the taxpayer's ability to pay them. Cutting city services due to the result of this lawsuit will cause will not help anyone's property values!

swmnguyNov. 19, 10 6:17 AM

Wow, is this site malfunctioning the past couple of days.

We'll be seeing a lot of stories like this. The cost of running the city isn't going down. Property sale prices are going down. Sales tax revenues are down. Income tax revenues are down. The State is keeping more and more of its revenue and forcing cities to raise their own.

So we're going to see tax rates go up, or valuations for tax purposes go up. My Hennepin County tax bill went up $500, or about 11%, for next year, as my property value for tax purposes declined about 4%. My estimate is that if I tried to sell, my actual property value has declined closer to 10% from last year.

On the other hand, my State income tax has gone down over the past few years as I've made more money. It all evens out.

crbernNov. 19, 10 6:30 AM

guernz, unless you are disabled, you have the ability to pay.

janders50Nov. 19, 10 6:50 AM

this paper seriously needs to do an in depth report on what is generating these huge revenue demands. someone was not looking out for joe taxpayer when negotiating traditional pension benefits that were obviously not actuarially sound or at the very least did not have an actuarial annual or biennial review with adjustments made. these problems could be averted by the use of a defined pension benefit so why aren't we?


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters