Community Feedback: Comments and Questions from Vacant Property Tax Outreach Comments and Questions Consolidated From:
• Community Workshop #1 – July 6, 2021
• Community Workshop #2 – July 13, 2021
• Community Workshop #3 – January 12, 2022
• Survey of registered voters – Nov 25, 2021 – Jan 6, 2022
# Comment/Question Response
Use of Funds
1 How will the funds be allocated? Will they be used for the general fund or blight and illegal dumping?
Staff Report Table A, Item A. The currently
proposed VPT is a Special Tax, restricting funding
allocation to blight abatement, illegal dumping
response, code enforcement, and development
assistance.
Vacancy & “In-use
2 How do you determine vacant or under-used? What are
the criteria?
A property is considered vacant if it is in use less
than 30 days in a calendar year. Per the proposed
VPT, the following functions or operations are
considered use:
- Physical occupancy of a residential parcel
or condominium by a lawful inhabitant.
- Commercial, industrial, agricultural, or
institutional activity as legally allowed
3 Are community gardens considered in use?
A property serving as a community garden and
permitted as such by the City would be considered
in use.
4 Can you clarify item #14 (side yard properties) on the survey?
A significant number of homeowners also own a
parcel contiguous to their home that is typically
used as a “side yard”. The proposed VPT would
exempt these undeveloped parcels if they are
maintained and contiguous to an occupied
residential parcel owned by the same owner.
5 I'm unclear on the argument against including unused
buildings.Can duplexes fall under exemption?
The proposed VPT includes unused buildings as
potentially subject to tax if the property was
considered a nuisance during or proceeding the
relevant calendar year under RMC 9.22.
6 How will property owners be notified about the tax and their options?
Owners of property likely subject to the tax would
be notified by mail with an explanation of the VPT
and their options to apply for an exemption.
Blight and VPT status
7 Why are landowners being penalized for blight and
illegal dumping if they are not the perpetrators?
The proposed tax would charge vacant lots in use
less than 30 days regardless of the property’s
nuisance status. Vacant developed properties
would be charged the VPT if the property is in use
for less than 30 days AND the property is
considered a nuisance under RMC 9.22. The
proposed Vacant property tax on un-used and
under-used properties is separate from any code-
enforcement penalties and fees.
# Comment/Question Response
8 To tax a vacant storefront in an otherwise non-blighted building is adding insult to injury to an owner who
cannot find a tenant for the property.
The currently proposed VPT would not tax a
developed but vacant commercial storefront unless
the property was considered blight and/or a
nuisance.
9 Will taxpayers be given the option to meet Code
Compliance or pay the tax? Is it one or the other?
The proposed VPT would levy the tax on developed
properties if the property was considered a
nuisance per RMC 9.22 during or proceeding the
relevant calendar year. There is currently no
provision for mitigation of the tax due to corrective
action. However, the proposed VPT would not be
initiated until calendar year 2023, and not levied
until fiscal year 2024-25, allowing time for owners
of blighted properties to meet code compliance
issues before the first VPT calendar year of 2023.
Exemptions
10 What is considered low income? Very low income exemption applies if the owner’s combined household income is equal to or less
than 75% of the HUD "Very Low Income Limit" for
the Contra Costa County, CA HUD Metro FMR Area.
For 2021, this figure is $35,963 for a single person,
and $46,238 for a 3-person household.
11 We recently went through a difficult economic situation affecting our community, will there be discounts offered for people who experienced economic difficulties during the pandemic?
Staff Report Table A, Item C. The proposed VPT
includes the following exemptions based on income
or financial hardship:
- Very low income
- Low income local senior
- Hardship: bankruptcy; medical event;
involuntary termination of employment
12 My property serves as a drainage parcel for the
surrounding parcels, is there an exemption for this type of situation?
Staff Report Table A, Item C. An exemption for
exceptional circumstances is included in the
proposed VPT. This exemption applies to
properties that cannot be developed due to
physical conditions of the property.
13 Residential and commercial owners who have not
received 100% of all back-owed rent should be
exempted, as well as properties subject to owner move
in relocation fees.
Exemptions for these examples are not included in
the proposed VPT.
14 Non-profit organizations should not be an allowable
exemption, many of these organizations hold unused
properties with no intention of use or development.
Non-profit ownership exemption is not currently
included in the proposed VPT.
15 If a property is more costly to develop than its market value as a developed property, the City should offer
some kind of incentive or assistance.
Properties determined to be undevelopable due to
physical circumstances are eligible for exemption.
A development assistance program allows for taxed
properties to receive development assistance in the
amount equal to the VPT charge paid. No other
incentivized development component is proposed.
16 Are my lots contiguous/exempt? Am I eligible for a
certain exemption?
Only undeveloped lots contiguous to an occupied
residential parcel owned by the same owner are
exempt from the proposed VPT.
# Comment/Question Response
17 Would vacant properties owned by the City of
Richmond be subject to the tax?
No, properties considered as tax exempt are
excluded from the proposed VPT. City-owned
properties are tax exempt.
Purpose of the VPT
18 Derelict owners will not pay the tax, and it will
accumulate as delinquent taxes until purchased by a
new owner. Foundations that purchase these types of
properties for the purpose of renovation and sale to first time home-buyers will be negatively affected by this
tax.
An exemption for 501c3 organizations that
purchase a property previously charged the tax,
with the intent to rehabilitate and sell the property
is included for consideration.
19 Aren’t there existing laws in place for blight and illegal dumping? Are they working?
Survey responses indicate the negative effects of
blight and illegal dumping continue to be a very
high priority within the community.
20 Is this a Code enforcement issue rather than a tax issue? Is the primary goal to reduce blight, or generate
revenue?
Property owners are already responsible for blight on
their property. Because the City of Richmond already
has a program for following up on blight and taking
action if the property owner does not. In my experience the City’s actions for this are slow. Why not better fund this program? If property owners with blight on their
property are already not paying to maintain their
property, how likely are they to pay additional taxes?
The imposition of the VPT emphasizes the nexus
between the funding purposes of the tax and the
underlying issues surrounding vacant properties
such as blight, illegal dumping, and code
compliance, etc. Imposition of a VPT creates a link
between the VPT’s purpose of encouraging the
optimal use and development of vacant properties,
and the societal effects of vacant properties within
the community, while providing the resources to
better address the challenges associated with blight
and illegal dumping.
Generalized Other Comments
21 Funds should only be used for blight and illegal
dumping, not general revenue funding.
Staff Report Table A, Item A
22 If the City will tax vacant properties, the City should provide assistance for development of those vacant
properties.
Staff Report Table A, Items D and E
23 If property owners find it unprofitable to develop their property, the City government needs to ask itself what
conditions are causing this.
24 The City should make it easier for property owners to rent their properties.
25 I appreciate that the contiguous exemption requires the property be “maintained” because blight is blight
regardless of the location of the parcel.
26 I do not support a tax that targets vacant but well- maintained homes and parcels. There are many reasons
why vacancies occur, and we should not penalize people
for these.
27 Code compliance as a condition for exemption from the tax is a good idea.
# Comment/Question Response
28 Unused and empty property, whether an empty lot or a home or business, is a visual blight and does absolutely nothing for Richmond. I would go even further than the
vacant property tax: if a property is not in use, being renovated or actively looking to rent or sell for one year, the property should be transferred to the city as owner.
29 Income-based exemptions should not be allowed
without significant barriers to developing the property beyond the owner’s control.
30 I am worried about affecting certain neighborhoods and communities because this tax should be more about
helping owners improve their properties and not just
punishing offenders.
31 I am worried that poor communities and individuals
would be the target of this tax.
32 This would not be good for passing properties through generations.
33 Commercial and residential property owners will be
negatively impacted by this tax and it will harm their
ability to do business in the City.
34 Consider making garbage pickups more affordable and
this would help to reduce illegal dumping and blight in Richmond.
35 I am opposed to this tax for several reasons:
1. It punishes the very people least able to pay the tax and to use their properties: those who cannot afford to develop vacant properties, those whose development
attempts face significant opposition, those with difficult to use or develop properties, those with undesirable
properties, and those properties zoned for currently
undesirable uses.
2. Ironically, this tax would impact more people during a recession than when the economy is good, making it
the ultimate regressive tax.
3. The City of Richmond has an active code
enforcement program with strong ordinances that
permit substantial fines of blighted properties. Those fines exceed the amount of tax by orders of magnitude.
The City can garner much more revenue through
vigorous code enforcement than through this tax.
#1 and 2: Staff Report Table A, Item C
# Comment/Question Response
36 You continue to move boldly to putting the Vacant
Property Tax on the ballot again, spending a lot of
money in the process, including the costs of sending and analyzing surveys, setting up webpages, holding and
analyzing workshops, and paying consultants. I hope
you are considering experiences in other cities who have done this, for example, those outlined by the Pew Trust in this article. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research- and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/03/07/can-extra-
taxes-on-vacant-land-cure-city-blight
37 If the tax is aimed at all vacant properties, even those that are not blighted, then the definition of “vacant”
and the exceptions established will have to be drafted
carefully. For example, my backyard is a separate lot
and should not be taxed. Property that cannot be
developed, such as property zoned as open space or
agricultural, should not be taxed. Certainly, if there is a pending development application there should not be a
tax, but it should be an application at any stage, not
just a complete application; it can take years to get an application to the stage where the City Planning Dept
considers it complete. Properties that are not blighted and are being actively marketed for sale or lease should not be taxed. Vacation or second homes should not be
taxed. Vacant commercial or industrial land that is
used as lay-down areas, storage or parking should not
be taxed.
Staff Report Table A, Item C
38 I am strongly in favor of this tax. It will encourage land- owners who are sitting on property to make a move—
for example building low-income housing. The unused
buildings appear to doubly damage the city, as they
serve as a magnet for crime and squatting issues, deny
the city taxes from productive use. This city (among
many others) is struggling from the burgeoning
unhoused population. I suggest choosing the method of
bringing it to the city council in which ever way it is likely to pass.
39 This measure would seem to help with home values in
Richmond.
40 I support the measure if it does not penalize low-income seniors or senior citizens and brings in revenue for the City, I would also favor auctioning some of the lots and buildings if the owner fails to cooperate.
Staff Report Table A, Item C
41 The City of Richmond should use the money it already has rather than requesting more for these services.
42 Create and hire jobs for the homeless since the entire city is understaffed & unable to perform tasks promptly.
43 The downtown of Richmond could be a fabulous place
to live if the blight was gone - it's a great location.
# Comment/Question Response
44 Accountability and transparency of fund use are very important to me.
45 This made me wonder about "adopting" vacant lots. For someone like me (although I'm too busy
at the moment), it could be a place to offer outdoor,
urban programming, while taking care of a spot that
wouldn't get as much love otherwise. (I did this in
Berkeley, at a spot rented by the preschool I worked for at the time.) Also, it could be fantastic for offering a temporary spot for a lot caregiver from Daniel Barth's
SOS Richmond concept.
46 What is the experience in Oakland? I have not seen a reduction in blight as I drive through that city. A
balanced summary of Oakland’s experience should be
included on your website.
47 I hope you will make available an analysis of costs of administering the new property tax system. I note
Oakland has 13 additional tax forms and the thus the
processing thereof.
48 Why is this a flat tax instead of being based on accessed value? That is the structure in Washington DC.
49 Is the goal of this to encourage development? Or to get vacant properties back into the rental market? If the
former, is there evidence that it will do so? If the latter, has an analysis been done of the impact of rent control on the likelihood of property owners during their vacant properties into rentals? Further, for example, is the
question asked by a gentleman in the first VPT
workshop: what are we doing to make making
Richmond more attractive to renters? This might
include solving the problems with the RPD and
improving the timeliness of City actions.