If you live in the older part of Peoria like I do (Uplands neighborhood, near Bradley), your total property tax rate is 8.35885%. If you live where fifth-district councilman Patrick Nichting lives (Sleepy Hollow Rd., north of Route 6, near the corner of Knoxville and Mossville Rd.), your total property tax rate is only 7.69782%. And if you live where at-large councilman George Jacob lives (Dana Dr., north of Route 6, off Wilhelm Rd.), your total property tax is 8.02308%. (Note: I picked Nichting and Jacob merely for descriptive purposes and because, as public figures, their addresses are already widely published.)
Why the differences? It’s because different taxing bodies have different borders. Both Nichting and Jacob live outside the Greater Peoria Airport Authority’s taxing district, saving them 0.24087% on their tax bills. They also both live in Dunlap’s school district (4.0644%) instead of District 150 (4.48456%), saving them another 0.42016%.
Jacob’s rate is a little higher than Nichting’s because Jacob lives in Medina Township instead of Peoria Township. Medina assesses 0.13019% for township government expenses plus 0.33166% for road and bridge maintenance. That totals 0.46185% for living in Medina Township versus only 0.13659% for Peoria Township.
So how does that translate into dollars and cents? Well, a $200,000 owner-occupied home in the Uplands will cost you $407.64 a year more in taxes than a $200,000 home in Nichting’s neighborhood, and $207.06 more than a $200,000 home in Jacob’s neighborhood. That’s not chump change.
On May 29, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill 263 which makes the airport authority’s boundaries coterminous with Peoria County. Once the governor signs that into law, those in northern Peoria will have to begin paying their share of the airport’s expenses. Since the levy will stay the same, but be spread among more taxpayers, those currently paying the airport authority’s tax will actually see their rates go down a little.
That will leave the 200-pound gorilla — school taxes — as the biggest difference between living out north or closer to the center of the city, tax-wise. In the older part of the city, you can find a wide range of housing prices, but the farther you go north, the more homogeneous the housing prices become. Pretty soon, you’re in an area where the lowest-priced housing is out of many people’s price range.
Those who can afford $200,000+ houses out north are rewarded with lower taxes and better schools. Meanwhile, those who can only afford a home costing less than $180,000 have few if any options out north. In Peoria, their choices are all within District 150, which means they get relatively poorer schools (based on Illinois Report Card info) and proportionately higher taxes.
I’ve suggested before that school districts 150 and 323 be combined. I still think that’s a good idea. But there’s something else that needs to be done: new neighborhood developments in northern Peoria need to have a broader range of housing prices. Instead of building homogeneous neighborhoods where every house is $280,000, new neighborhoods should include a diversity of housing prices. I’m not talking about low-income housing (that’s a different topic); I’m just talking about a range of, say, $120,000 to $250,000 homes being built within the same neighborhood.
All of these issues intertwine. Tax disparity, school disparity, and housing disparity all converge to make Peoria a tale of two cities. Things need to change, because our current trajectory is unsustainable. Some people actually believe that it’s desirable for the city to consider South Peoria the place for the violent and criminal element to live, the East Bluff to be a buffer, and the northern part of the city to be the “safe” part of Peoria. Folks, this is not healthy thinking. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
We can dream more inspiring dreams for Peoria. Let’s set higher goals for our city. Let’s not abandon our friends and neighbors on the south side out of fear and ignorance. Let’s not build neighborhoods that keep people out, but rather invite people in. Let’s make all of Peoria a great place to live.
And, if you live in the East Bluff, there is an East Bluff Special Services Tax rate of .18 that goes into a fund that makes low interest loans available to those living in the East Bluff to repair their property…or I believe that is where it goes.
$200-$400 IS chump change if you can afford a 200,000 house in the first place. What isn’t fair is that people with bigger houses have to pay more in taxes and receive no better services than the person with a house valued at $10,000 and 6 kids living in it, all who attend public school.
That doesn’t make any sense. Do you really believe that in the neighborhood where the $10,000 home is that the streets are in good repair and maintained? Some of the streets in south Peoria don’t even have sidewalks and the ones that do; some haven’t been repaired in years, nay decades. I have watch in the last 15 years along Forest Hill where homes range around $110,000; the sidewalks and lighting have been replaced twice. Please don’t tell me we here in the southern valley get the same services Jacob’s neighborhood gets. In fact during the last city council meeting they shelved the Griswold extension improvement again. This part of Griswold hasn’t been touched since the 60’s. Wanna bet that the projects the council didn’t want to put behind the Griswold Street project are in north Peoria?
C.J. – Interesting take on the property taxes- were all things equal. But a comparably sized house in the older neighborhood will be assessed at much less than a similar house in the newer section of town and the property taxes are paid upon the assessed value – not the appraised value (a distinction with a difference that I’m sure you are aware of).
Perhaps you’ve also noted a reason why some move out of town — or at least North — who wouldn’t like to live in a school district that is not only better but Cheaper!
mdd – have to disagree with you a little. A family earning $54,000 annually with average credit and little debt can easily qualify for a mortgage that would cover a $200,000 home. Whether they should or not is a different story, but clearly they could be financed by the bank. I couldn’t consider anyone earning in this area as rich and $400 would be a significant amount to them I think.
I think Dunlap makes up for the difference with a higher assessed value. I sold a house near Forest Hill and was taxed 1.846%/yr based on the home sale price.
In Dunlap, my taxes are 2.142%/yr, based on purchase price. For me, my tax rate when up over 16%. So I see Dunlap residents are paying more than their fair share.
So are you all saying that lower assessed values are a good thing for the older part of the city?
Not saying it’s a good thing…but it’s a reality. Two comparable houses with one located in older Peoria and one in newer Peoria will have different assessed values (in part due to location). It’s just a fact of life unfortunately.
Declining assessed values and market values are a terrible thing for older Peoria – because for many individuals, their home is their primary asset.
For me, it was. It meant that I had a lower tax rate for 7+ years, compared to Dunlap. And when I sold it, it had increased in value more than the city’s assessment. Holistically, there may be other implications, but individually it saved money.
CJ, don’t kid yourself. Your taxes to the airport won’t go down for but a milisecond. They will simply spend more and raise the rate for everyone. Let’s hope the Gov. vetoes that bill. After decades of being subsidized by homeowners, it’s time the airport get off the local taxpayers’ dole. It already has a tax exemption, and it can sink or swim on its own revenues and the millions it gets from the feds.
Mouse — Whether the airport tax should be abolished is a separate question. My point is, if they’re going to have a tax, it should be applied to the whole county. You’re right, though, that the tax will undoubtedly go up very quickly once they start rebuilding the terminal and doing other “improvements.”
Ah yes the difference between assessed values versus appraised value. So basically the folks in the ‘troubled’ neighborhoods get assessed more than their property is actually worth and the folks up north get assessed less than what their properties are actually worth. Equitable?
$120,000 homes won’t be built out by Jacobs and Nichting when the lot costs $40,000-60,000 to start with. It isn’t even like the lot is huge and could be downsized to make it possible.
I think most everyone is missing the point. The problem is not the North vs. the South end of Peoria. The fact is that the entire state of Illinois needs property tax relief. I have sold real estate all over the state, and this is a common issue and complaint everywhere. Wether the tax rate is 7.5 or 8.5% is mute in my opinion, because either is absurd. Homeowners in Illinois need to revolt. We need to let our legislators know that they must find alternative sources of funding for necessary programs, and eliminate the funding for unnessary programs. Are you listening Governor preschoolhealthcareandeverythingelseforallovich? If our elected officials do not show a propensity to support the aforementioned platforms, they should either not be elected or thrown out after their first term. Only when legislators realize that homeowners are sick and tired and not going to take it anymore will they get serious about a solution to the outrageous property taxation in Illinois. Until that time, our businesses, our homeowners, and our schools will continue to be at a significant disadvantage when comparing the quality of life in Illinois to that of other states.
Given the crowd in Springfield at this time, I say we’re better off with them doing nothing because any action they take is sure to make it worse…much worse!
Property taxes are based upon the desires of the local citizens for public services…if you want lots of services, you have to pay lots of property taxes (or alternative local taxes – such as sales tax, HRA tax, garbage tax, etc, etc.). The only real influence the State has on property taxes is indirect….the less they fund schools the more local schools must tax to support their operations. The local schools aren’t worth what anyone pays in taxes (whether they live in the South or North of Peoria).
Peoria Anti Pundit, You can’t compare street conditions and lack of sidewalks. When the older houses were built, there was no requirement for the sidewalks and the developers are paying to put in the sidewalks. That lot price of the new house reflects new streets, sidewalks and park space (land) paid for by the developer who passes the cost on to the buyer. Of course the streets in Mr. Jacobs neighborhood are in better condition! They are almost brand new.
mdd,
In the older neighborhoods, who pays for the ‘new’ sidewalks? If we ask the city to do it, it gets put directly onto our tax bill. It is billed directly to the homeowner who benefits from it. This explains a lot as to why sidewalks are crap in the older neighborhoods. The city is very unlikely to foot 100% of that bill unless it is part of some special project with outside funding.
As to the sidewalks out by Jacob’s place. Give it time, the concrete does not last forever. Then the real cost burden of the sprawl will come back with a vengeance. There won’t be the density to support all that roadwork and sidewalk work without higher taxes.
Mahkno, actually newer neighborhoods are assessed more than their property is actually worth, when compared to older neighborhoods. At least that’s what I saw, for instance:
I ran the numbers based on my 2005 real estate tax bill (due in 2006) for a Dunlap home (that I bought) and an “older” area Peoria home (that I sold). Even though the Peoria home had a higher tax rate (8.33652% vs 7.54360%), the “net taxable value” was much higher (28% vs 22%) for the Dunlap home based on home worth.
Multiple those numbers, and Dunlap’s taxes are 2.112% of home worth vs Peoria’s 1.862%. So in my case, Dunlap is assessed more than their property is actually worth.
C.J.
I think you are off base on this one. Someone who lives in Weaveridge may well pay over $15,000 in property taxes. However, they tend to send their kids to private schools because District 150 is so troubled. Add to it that they have substantially less police protection (on average there are two patrol cars in the fifth, usually circling the Shoppes at Grand Prairie). There aren’t a lot of $200,000 houses in the first or second (and parts of the third) districts. Housing costs per square foot are far less in those areas of town and therefore the property taxes are far less. Imagine how much your mortgage payment would be if you could move your house to Weaver Ridge – not that you’d want to. Yet, as another commenter pointed out, if you did, you would enjoy fewer city services.
Pez — I’m not following you. You’re going to have to break down your equations on that one. Whatever the equation, it would seem to me that if you get your house appraised and it’s lower than your home’s assessed value, you should contest your assessment. Problem solved. I did that when I bought my first house — it was way over-assessed.
Polly — Plenty of people in the older parts of town also send their kids to private schools or home school; that’s not exclusive to those in Weaver-Ridge-type neighborhoods. Those in Weaver Ridge benefit from the police fighting crime wherever it occurs. I haven’t heard anyone complain of slow response times by the police in north Peoria. You can’t convince me that those poor dears in north Peoria aren’t getting at least their fair share of city services.
I think Pez is muddling the difference between assessed value and what he is being taxed. I am just addressing what the County is saying my house or anyones property is worth.
Pez is looking at the his tax bill and trying to distinguish between the Tax Rate and the Taxable Value. So if the county says your home has an assessed valuation of $100,000. In Peoria your taxes are charged against $22,000 of that assessed value. In Dunlap he is saying your taxes are charged against $28,000 of that assessed value. He is then saying that in the end, the Dunlap persons bill is actually higher than the Peoria persons.
I am saying that the $100,000 assessed valuation is wrong and or inequitably determined. On the south side the real market value of that home might be $50,000. North of Pioneer park the real market value might be $150,000. Then you are applying the 22% or 28% along with the tax rates.
The assessed valuation should more accurately reflect the real market value of the property.
Now that above is what I think Pez is saying. Pulling out my tax bill… Pez is off base. My tax bill says my home has Fair Property Value (assessed valuation) of $117,540. The taxable portion is 1/3rd, $39,180, NOT 22% or 28%. I have no idea where Pez is getting those percentages.
Now.. I am confident my home is worth significantly more than what the County is calling my Fair Property Value. Indeed when we bought our home, that FPV was lower than what we paid for it. Did our tax bill jump to the value that we paid? No. Why not? What we paid is an absolutely accurate valuation of the property. This happens a LOT. It cuts both ways, between ‘good’ areas and ‘bad’ areas. Indeed some properties jump a great deal in real value with the taxes slow to never catching up. Properties also decline in value and are slow to never reflecting that decline. Yes there is a process to challenge the valuation but I think the practice of over assessing property in the poorer areas is so widespread that it would be burdensome to pursue it. The valuation should be accurate to begin with.
In the wealthier areas, no is in going to formally complain that their FPV is too low. Indeed many people think that it is the fair and right thing to do to have an inaccurate FPV.
Is it any surprise that the city budget is so consistently a mess? The very process of collecting revenue is overly arbitrary and inequitable. How much money is being left on the table in the wealthier areas? To what degree are the poorer areas subsidizing everyone else with their over assessments. There is a perception that the north is bankrolling the south, I am challenging that notion.
1306 W Millman: Sold for $1000 in 2007. FPV $12,240
2001 W. Starr: Sold for $13,220 in 2006. FPV $31,650
Explore: http://66.99.203.101/assessor/research.asp
Note: the link does not work well from Firefox. You must use MS Explorer.
If you want to take a look at some complicated property tax laws, take a gander at California – http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/index.pdf – you’ll be glad of the system we use.
Part of me says, we are a civilized nation of compassionate people, or at least claim to be. Hence, paying taxes is our civic duty and we should not be complaining about .2 percent differences in our rates. I, for one, am willing as a relatively fortunate person, to help pay for public services that I may not benefit from – if overall, the quality of life in my town is raised.
But District 150 is reportedly not raising the quality of life in Peoria. It’s driving people out, or at least those who can afford it.
Is equitable property taxes the way to deal with this? I’m honestly asking. It would seem to me, from a big picture view, a good way. Property tax is generally something lumped into mortgages nowadays, so most people don’t notice moderate fluxuations (sp?).
That said, I live in one of the tiny pieces of North Peoria that got handed over to the IVC school district – I like them more and more every day! It’s a solid district that isn’t over crowded and has a pretty good athletics program too!
CJ – Just a hypothetical question: If “north” Peoria suddenly included lots of $120K new construction homes, what would the effect be? Wouldn’t, to some degree, many of us who can only afford homes in the older sections of town be enticed to move north instead? Doesn’t that just contribute to the problem when all the middle class lives north of War and “lower class” lives South? An alternate solution would be to build $200K+ houses in the older sections of town, but that likely would require some gentrification.
Progressive…
I will answer for myself the question you ask CJ as we live close by each other. No I would not move. I DO NOT like the style of homes or the layout the subdivisions take with their arterial roadways. I DO NOT like the oversized garages with attached bedrooms. I do not like the overall quality of the craftsmanship that goes into them. The craftsmanship is inferior to many of these older homes. Now some of those ‘fine’ homes up north have a lot of top notch amenities packed into them but they are packed into cardboard boxes.
Now… if a developer (city and county too) were to actually embrace New Urbanism and develop a broad genuine New Urbanist tapestry of homes that are attractive in a ‘retro’ style. (no main floor bedrooms, no attached garages, alleys are good, big front porches, etc…) And if builders would start looking at home building as a craft meant to last for decades rather than an industrial exercise in disposable housing. I would seriously consider it. A newer home with fewer maintenance headaches would be a huge plus. It is no different than say buying an antique car versus a newer ‘retro’ style car.
I can say this confidently because I could move out north anytime I want. The houses that are out there now are not attractive to me. The neighborhoods are not laid out to be neighborhoods.
Now you raise the issue of gentrification. Gentrification is already taking place. The Gentry as it were, live out towards Dunlap. It is gentrification by exodus. But there is a genuine issue here in that newer homes and neighborhoods are generally built to attract one particular income group. We are a city increasingly segregated by income, which has direct parallels to race as well. Ideally neighborhoods should have a variable tapestry to them. A mixture of apartments, homes, large and small, some live-works where appropriate.
I agree that there are some (you, CJ, me, others) who live where we do for certain reasons that don’t have to do with housing cost. But many live south of War because they can’t afford to live North of it. I’m just saying that creating more affordable housing in Dunlap doesn’t necessarily solve the problem of imbalance in older Peoria, and if fact may exacerbate it.
mdd: My house was built in 1950. Sidewalks were required and the lot was marked off for them. Most of the same houses that were built on other streets have sidwealks and curbs. I don’t care if some homes are older, they should have decent streets with sidwalks like everywhere else. They have been ignored in the southend for years. I am not asking for the city to pay for them, just keep the streets up is all. I’ll take the hit for my frontage on my tax bill if need be. I’m just asking for the same treatment other neighborhoods seem to get north of War Memorial like the example I posted before. It doesn’t make any difference if most of the homes are rentals aor worth 10 grand, they are owned by someone who pays taxes on them.
Progressive, yes, if all we did was start building more affordable homes in north Peoria but did nothing to improve south Peoria, then it would solve some problems (more choice for middle to lower class) and create others (more flight from the older parts of the city). There needs to be a holistic approach to improving Peoria.
Peo Anti Pundit – My parents home was built in 1966 and had sidewalks, paid for by the developer (part of their lot price) and now when people in that area (Northgate) need the sidewalk replaced, the city pays 1/2. The homeowner pays the rest. How is this neglect by the city? The neglect is the cheap homeowner that refuses to pony up his share.
I surely would not want a home with an unattached garage. What is the joy in that? Running to the car in the rain or snow? Sounds like something I would like to do…
And alleys? What an attractive nuisance. Just because new urbanism is the “in” thing right now does not mean it is good. I like the idea of a front porch a person can sit on and chat with walkers if they like. I probably would be inside where there is airconditioning and no bugs.
Mdd,
I think there is a widespread sentiment that sidewalks and alleyways are basic infrastructure that the city should be maintaining at 100% cost. People feel they already pay a LOT in taxes and that the budget priorities are simply wrong.
Should the city be building parking garages for doctors, handing out subsidies to ‘welfare’ businesses or should they be assuming the 100% cost in maintaining sidewalks and alleyways?
Mahkno, while the City paying 100% of sidewalk and alley costs sounds nice, I’d like you to find even one municipality in America that doesn’t have some sort of cost-sharing program with property owners. I think a split is pretty standard. The reasoning, I believe is that a new sidewalk (or any sidewalk) disproportianately benefits the property owner directly behind it. Therefore, the City (which is really just all of us paying through our taxes) pays a portion and the property owner pays a portion. That sounds fair to me. The problem is that the city budget is constrained to the point that there isn’t enough money to fund the city half for all the projects the private sector would like to do.
Progressive, then I would assume that the people who live on cul-de-sacs pay half of their road maintenance, since such work disproportionately benefits the property owners who live on them. I see little to no functional difference between a cul-de-sac and an alley.
Generally I think that would be fair. I don’t know if that happens, though, here or anywhere. Other than snow removal, I can’t remember the last time I heard of a city project to maintain a cul-de-sac. Most cul-de-sacs are the result of new subdivisions (new at some point). I believe that in these cases, putting in the roads is sole financial responsibility of the developer/builder. I’d be happy to be proved wrong and here of an example where the city paid to create a cul-de-sac. I’d be interested if they ever even have repaved one.
CJ – what is your solution? You seem to be implying that either those that live on cul-de-sacs should pay a portion of their roads maintenance (I agree) or no one should have to pay any share of any public infrastructure (sidewalks, alleys, etc.)
I also cannot figure out someone would want an unattached garage? Also, by having alleys as well as streets, isn’t that causing even more maintenance costs for the city since they maintain both?
Oh for crying out loud, give the unattached garage thing a rest. What are you people, ombrophobic? Sheesh. I wonder what you poor souls do when you get to work or the store and have to (gasp!) walk across the parking lot to get into the building! Egads! That must create horrible cognitive dissonance for you.
Just for the record, I can’t understand why anyone would want to live in a garage with a house connected to it.
mdd — the older parts of town have *through* streets. Hence, they are useful to the general public as thoroughfares, and anyone can use them. Cul-de-sacs, on the other hand, are not thoroughfares and take you absolutely nowhere except the property owner’s house. They’re two different animals.
Progressive — I wasn’t implying anything. I was just pointing out what would happen if we applied your standard for special assessments to all homeowners.
It isn’t “my” standard; I believe it is “the” standard. I’m curious what you’d do, how you’d change “the” standard. Would you make cul-de-sac property owners pay for their street maintenance? I’d support that. But I think you’ll find that there is no maintenance costs except street sweeping and snow removal (see earlier post). Or would you have the city pay for all infrastructure improvements with no contribution from the property owners?
MDD – I live in an older neighborhood on the West Bluff. I might be interested in an attached garage, but it is way down on my list. There are likely only a few days of the year (12/1/06 being one) that I really wish I have one. But there is a real advantage to having to walk to your garage or even a parking spot on the street, apart from the exercise: You see your neighbors more. Cars in the rear also improve the neighborhood. Backing out of your garage onto the street is likely more dangerous to pedestrians, bicyclists and other cars. There is also something to be said for the general unattractiveness of huge garages and small front doors.
To each his own, but I’ve never understood the two or three car attached garage that stands out more than the actual house.
I have an older un-attached garage that a Honda Civic could barely fit into, so it’s basically a large shed to us. Would I like a nice big garage? Sure I would, but that means moving out of the old neighborhood.
I grew up in what was considered the north end at the time. No alleys, large attached garages, big yards, nice new sidewalks, and streets with minimal traffic. Even with no front porch to speak of, we knew all of our neighbors, blocked the streets for yearly neighborhood bashes and walked/biked to school.
I live in the Uplands now and love it. I’m no fan of cookie cutter houses or flight, and I’ll hold my ground here in the west bluff, but I hold no grudge against anyone who prefers suburbia to more urban living.
I’m just trying to say, lets not make this personal and lets not knock those who don’t want to live in the middle of the city. It’s not for everyone. Nor is the far Dunlap of Germantown Hills for everyone. If you like attached or unattached garages, that’s fine. If you like skinny yards with alleys or if you like big back yards and privacy fences, that’s fine and that’s your choice.
How is backing out of an attached garage any different than backing out into an alley? Cars, bicycles and people walk in both areas.
How does one “see their neighbor” in the middle of most Peoria neighborhoods with all of the high privacy fences being erected? I think those fences are not privacy fences, but SECURITY fences!
Cookie-cutter house? PLEASE! Look at all of the near identical bungalows scattered all over the areas you claim are so quaint.
Your jealousy over not being able to move into one of the new, bigger homes is showing, big time with the lame excuses.
Fences… there is some interesting research out there one those. It has been a few years since reading up that. The general conclusion/consensus is that when neighborhoods start erecting fences, crime goes up. Fences encourage crime. That is in stark contrast to what conventional wisdom would say.
MDD – No need to be a dick. I’m certainly not jealous. I chose my neighborhood and my house for specific reasons. I could have afforded most of what is available in Dunlap.
To your specific points: I’m not trying to draw some sort of statistical inference about the safety of alleys vs. driveways, and don’t know if reasearch exists. Yes, people walk, riders ride and cars drive in alleys, but to a much more limited degree.
Also, in my neighborhood there aren’t many privacy fences. I won’t say they don’t exist or aren’t growing in number, but I’d bet there are less of them here than where you live. I have a wrought iron fence between me and my neighbor, and going to and from my car means I usually run into my neighbor at least once a day.
Even if privacy fences were the norm in an older neighborhoods, the smaller garages means most families are going to have one car on the street. So they get to interact with their neighbors that way.
My whole point was not to necessarily combat your desire to have an attached garage, but to explain some of the advantages of not having one. It’s why I don’t care. You make us sound like a bunch of crazy people for not wanting what you want.
As for cookie-cutter bungalows, that is BS. Many of the houses are similar in size and style, but we hardly see the vast sea of sameness you seem to so appreciate.
Progressive: Did you watch the council meeting last night? Lori David from Cat presented the results of the Six Sigma project on the Dec 1, 2006, snowfall. It was interesting that she stated clearing cul-de-sacs of snow takes eight times the effort of clearing snow from our grid streets. Plus, lots on our grid streets are generally about 40 feet wide, whereas lots in the north end are significantly wider. So, because of the density and ease of clearing the streets, the older neighborhoods put much less demand on city services.
To answer your question, though, I think the city should simply deal fairly with the residents. Ideally, the city should pay for 100% of street and alley repair/maintenance. Sidewalks could be handled with the 50/50 special assessment. If the city is going to do a 50/50 assessment for alley repair, however, then they should also do 50/50 for cul-de-sac repair, since there’s functionally no difference.
I happen to live at the end of a cul-de-sac. 8x is a little hard to believe. They come down once, throw it in reverse and come down again. I usually get a big pile to shovel at the end of the drive, but I knew that when I bought the house.
My friend on Forrest Hill got her sidewalk replaced last year. She paid 20%. Is that normal? One odd thing is that very few crews wanted to do this work since the city was involved. With a new paint job and the sidewalk cleaned up, it really makes a difference.
CJ – I didn’t see the council meeting. The PJS story didn’t mention that fact, but I don’t doubt that cul-de-sacs take longer than a similar length of through-road. Clayton, you have to think of the time involved in plowing straight for 100 yards (20 seconds?) or plowing a 100 yard cul-de-sac. 8x doesn’t seem that big.
As for who should pay, I’d like to see a policy where cul-de-sac property owners are charged for their street maintenance in the same fashion as alley property owners. And contrary to your position, if the city were only going to 100% fund one thing, it would be the sidewalks. Alleys are really a glorified shared driveway and serve less of a public purpose than do sidewalks. (Yes, folks sometimes walk in alleys, but it is more an act of convenience rather than necessity.)
While I too could afford some of homes “north” of 150, I don’t. A lot of the houses do not have appeal to me..and I looked at dozens of houses before I bought mine. It is a matter of preference and style and I seriously doubt the style and what I prefer in a home exists in Dunlap. And if it does, it would be a replica as they don’t build houses today like this house is built. And I don’t mind the un-attached garage.