Home Antioch Rental Property Tax Doesn’t Solve Antioch’s Crime Problems

Rental Property Tax Doesn’t Solve Antioch’s Crime Problems

by ECT

Picture 077

Walter Ruehlig put out an interesting piece in the Antioch Herald yesterday claiming he is working with a group that calls themselves the “Friday Breakfast Club” and that they are nearly ready to present a proposal to the Antioch City Council to address city crime—tax rental property owners!

This proposal comes as the Antioch City Council is trying to figure out how to best pass some sort of tax to bring police staffing and service levels back up after they went from 126 officers down to 90—ideally, the Police Chief would prefer 144 officers.

The proposal this Breakfast Club is proposing is a ballot measure proposing a business tax levied on owners renting property in Antioch. The group states there are 11,000 rental units, including 1971 Section 8 homes mixed in with out of town investors.

Let’s go through the meat and portions portion of his article shall we? Yes we shall as you will see there are some major flaws as well as information left out.

For starters, the article fails to mention how much their proposal would actually generate for the city—does it raise $1 million, $5 million… what is the number? When you proposal something, an estimated final number is somewhat important don’t you think?

More importantly, will this proposal even get the police force up to 126-officers? I doubt it. Using simple math, going from 90 officers to the minimum of 126, they are still roughly $4 million short.

This proposal actually offers some false hope as “the solution” to reduce Antioch crime, instead, it should be thought of as a small piece of the pie in an overall long-term solution because the city should have been collecting a rental property business license tax all along.

The portion of Mr. Ruehligs article in in bold, my comments immediately follow.

The Friday Breakfast Club, a group of concerned citizens, has been working with an attorney on a ballot measure proposing a business tax levied on owners renting property in Antioch. The fees would be designated specifically for augmenting police services. Specific policy details, such as whether the first parcel is waived and/or what the precise fees should be, can be worked out by City Council and Staff. There is a growing general consensus, though, that renting property should be treated as a business and that any monies collected from licenses/fees should be police manpower targeted, with citizen oversight.

They claim to have been working with an attorney but he fails to state who this attorney is and what qualifications they have in tax measures and Antioch code. Nothing against the attorney, but what makes this attorney qualified in Antioch policy?

Second, if a group is going to propose something, they should not be doing it half-way and then putting it back on the council to figure out the other half—in this case, policy details. It should be laid out for the council to accept, tweak, or reject.

Finally, statement of growing support for a rental property tax is not entirely true. There is not a growing consensus that rental property should be treated as a business, people whom we have heard from during public meetings simply have stated in favor of taxing rental property. The reality is it’s a stretch at this point because there has been no official public polling performed.

These so called fees even collected in a “best case” scenario would still create a deficit to getting police officer staffing to the 126-officers.

This proposal generates tangible hope and seems the most pragmatic and least painful way of raising needed resources. Consider Antioch’s numbers; some 11,000 rental units, including 1,971 Section 8 homes and some out of town investment consortiums controlling literally scores of properties.

This is very misleading as the group is claiming 11,000 rental units. It’s not clear if they are referring to rental units or parcels.  For example, you are not going to tax a triplex property three times; it would only be taxed once.  These numbers may be somewhat inflated.

Also, it would be nice if Mr. Ruehlig used a number instead of the word “some” when it comes to out-of-town investors. Until you are working with “real” numbers, one cannot estimate how much revenue their proposal would generate.

Shouldn’t we likewise charge for the right of putting an investment shingle up in our town and using our public services? At, say $20 a month, we could potentially raise two to three million dollars annually for more sworn officers and/or in hiring for support less costly community service officers.

The number they strategically used was $20, but what they should have wrote was the annual fee of $240 on all rental properties. Some rental owners will agree to pay it, while others will throw a fit. The point is the rental property owner won’t pay a dime as in most cases, whatever the final fee is, it will simply mean an increase of rent. End result, this doesn’t hurt the property owner, it hurts the renters.

According to the city staff during a council meeting, it was estimated this type of proposal would generate (rounding upwards) just under $3 million in a best case scenario.

Now the fun part using Antioch Police Chief Allan Cantando’s figures, to get from 90-officers to 126-officers, the staff cost are estimated at an increase of $6.8 million while going to 144-officers would be just under $11 million.

This means the Breakfast Clubbers just created an proposal that is nearly $4 million and $7 million (depending on officer increase) deficit. Ultimately, additional revenue will have to be created elsewhere—say a sales tax measure or parcel tax which the council is against.

Complicating matters this week, you had the “unbiased” City Clerk Arne Simonsen state that any sales tax ballot will not get their vote and that he will oppose it. To go a step further, this group also consist of Don Freitas and Walter Ruehlig who both lost their respective races for Mayor and City Council.

While this group get kudos for providing a real proposal, they are now further complicating the debate before due diligence is performed or any polling is completed. It’s dangerous politics while it puts the council in an education mode of trying to educate the community on an idea that may sound great on paper, but doesn’t create enough revenue or provide a comprehensive solution.

The truth is, Antioch should implement this tax, but only as hybrid that consists of a business tax and a sales tax to get to the $7 million base to bring on 126-officers. If the council wants 144-officers, obviously the amount needed will be higher.

The other side of this is should the council decide to put up a business tax and a rental business tax, you are now paying for two measures on the ballot and increase the city’s cost during an election.

Ultimately this incomplete proposal is actually somewhat irresponsible as it does nothing but add to the confusion and create more headaches for the police chief, the city council and city staff.

The reality is simple, folks want to complain about Antioch Police service, but most people refuse to want to pay more to address the problem and want something for next to nothing.  You don’t get to complain if you are not going to pay for it.

The big picture here is that by passing the tax onto “landlords”, it doesn’t mean you are fixing the crime problems because they are still renting out the property to folks who may create problems for the city.

This rental business tax plan should be a small piece of the pie in a comprehensive solution that includes adding more police officers, code enforcement, recreation programs at all levels, and education programs with the schools.

By investing in a comprehensive solution now, it will save a lot of pain later and over time crime will be reduced and economic development takes off. Only then, will Antioch’s hidden potential turn itself back into the gem of East County once again.

Burk Byline

By Michael Burkholder

You may also like

7 comments

JimSimmons42 Apr 5, 2013 - 10:24 am

This is why the Friday Morning Breakfast Club does not have much respect outside their little group, they put out stuff like this. Sure, go ahead and tax rental property but you still will not fix anything.

Erick Apr 5, 2013 - 10:28 am

All business should be treated equal and favorites should not be played with rental property owners. Tax them! But I hear you, this will not solve anything and the proposal has holes. Its a nice start but $240 seems low, I say double it.

Jill Thompson 55 Apr 5, 2013 - 10:32 am

Burke, you ask some interesting questions. Before I pass judgement one way or the other, I too would like to know how much this $3 million will provide and what its going to be used for? How many officers will it hire or what programs can be created from it? Its a conversation starter at the very least.

Barbara DuMont Apr 5, 2013 - 11:11 am

The reality is simple, folks want to complain about Antioch Police service, but most people refuse to want to pay more to address the problem and want something for next to nothing. You don’t get to complain if you are not going to pay for it.

These two sentences are spot on. People are demanding services and don’t want to pay for it. They don’t want to get involved but can damn sure complain and not take any responsibility for themselves, their kids or their neighborhoods. All those community and feel good programs don’t work. And lets not forget that we are expecting a hell of lot more from our police officers that we should.

Martin Fernandez Apr 5, 2013 - 5:42 pm

The City of Antioch has always had a rental business ordinance. “Under the Antioch Municipal Code residential landlords were assessed an annual business license fee in an amount based on their gross annual income. Subject to cost of living adjustments, the highest amount a residential landlord is required to pay is $1,250 per year (plus 20 cents per thousand dollars of annual income over $1,000,000.” This ordinance is being clarified and adjusted to update it.

Contra Costa County Tax Assessors Office states 11,000 rental UNITS are in Antioch and 1,971 Section 8 rental units.

The Attorney working with the Friday Morning Breakfast Club is Dave Larsen an Antioch resident and former City Attorney well versed in city laws.

The group Friday Morning Breakfast Club is not “doing it halfway and putting it back on the council to figure out”. Mr. Larsen has been introduced to the council during a council meeting. Our document is a complete document and the members of the club signed off on the document this morning.

Out of town investors are people who only care about their income not what their renters are doing to destroy a city. They are very real and according to the Contra Costa Times are from Russia, China and India and make up 35% of the rental property owners in Antioch. One company alone owns 300 homes in Antioch.

The funds raised are not intended to fully fund the police department any more than a 3/4% sales tax will. Neither one is DEDICATED to the police. They are General Fund income the council says they will use to fund the police department. The sales tax will have a sunset date the rental property item will be permanent.

Chief Cantando is well aware of the clubs intention and is more than pleased to have money coming into his department.

The Business License Ordinance Regarding Landlord Rental Fees is a document for the November 2013 ballot along with the sales tax item. As Burke said it is a “small piece of the pie in the comprehensive solution”.

FMBC is like minded people who look for solutions and do something about it. We have been active for 5 years and my wife and I have enjoyed every minute of our membership

Julio-Antioch Apr 6, 2013 - 11:27 am

I support the business license and don’t expect it to solve the crime problem. There has been crime since the beginning of time and it is still here. I just want our officers to be proactive instead of reactive as they are now. This is what Chief Cantando wants also.

Walter Ruehlig Apr 7, 2013 - 3:09 pm

Mike, glad the piece achieved my goal of kick starting some discussion. Obvious, early stages here, though Martin Fernandez very articulately spelled out some further details.

#1. I work Fridays so have only attended one FMBC meeting in my life. I do not pretend to be a spokesman. I do, though, applaud their involved citizenry.

#2. I don’t know what relevance it has of Don Freitas and I having been in or run for office; the rental tax idea will sink or swim on its’ own merits or demerits.

#3. Whatever sentiment Arne expressed about a sales tax came from him.
I did not tackle that realm in this first foray.

#4. I agree with you that this is a complex picture with many parts, including cso’s, code enforcement, youth engagement. It’ll be along and costly road but one we need to start down..

#5. Let’s put a number of ideas out there and see which get traction.

Comments are closed.