Ahhh but therein lies the problem…see you could move to a “smaller, more affordable” place and viola in 5 years it’s not affordable. See 3 of those 5 years those in power come up with ways they NEED more tax dollars and 2 of those 5 years the city or county does “revaluations” on your “smaller more affordable” property and now your tax burden is like MSA’s, it goes from 1,000 to 5,000. That or your rent goes from 1,000 to 1,750 or 2,000 as the raises get passed on. It makes no difference though, because nothing will change. Politicians are going to find “reasons” they “need” a bigger tax base and people are too afraid to show those politicians they’re fed up with it, even when presented an opportunity/opportunities
If someone is 50, 60, or 80 years old and they haven't yet learned about this thing called inflation...they are going to fail in retirement no matter their property tax burden. Property taxes are certainly not a trivial part of owning property...but they pale in comparison to my internet/cable, electric, propane, rural water, rural sanitation, and general maintenance costs of owning a home.
Not directed at you Twitch, but some random observations/thoughts on this topic in general:
I was just telling someone a couple days ago that if I ever lived again in a city that sustained a major flood (Grand Forks, Minot, Fargo, Jamestown, and to a lesser degree Mandan and Bismarck), I would move within a couple of years. I don't think many of the residents of those communities understand just how much the recovery costs and future increased protection costs are going to be for them. One need not look any farther than Minot. I don't proclaim to understand the finer details of Minot's city budget, but Lakefield is bringing it to the forefront with his plan on how to service Minot's debt that stems from the flood of 2011. We are now 14 years post flood in Minot and how many millions have already been and are planned to be spent going forward to try and prevent a repeat of 2011? That money has to come from someone's pocket. Even if your house didn't get wet during the event, you were still affected by the flood in at least some major inconveniences in getting around town, school closures, water and sewer problems, etc.
That whole list of cities up above were somewhat fortunate to have their floods under other administrations. The current administration is probably not as inclined to be as generous with federal cost sharing though FEMA in the coming years. Trump has already told governors they need to be better prepared to shoulder the responsibility of responding to natural disasters, and I have to imagine that would include the recovery phase.
Lastly, there's even more pain to the local communities with major infrastructure challenges. DOGE went and axed a number of federal cost share projects in North Dakota. I'm thinking of drinking water and sewer improvements/expansions. That means the local taxpayers are going to be picking up a larger share of the cost for these services. Which, obviously, means higher property taxes and fees for those services.
Personally, I move to a place I like, not somewhere I want to see "growth". I think all this growth civic leaders love so damn much is exactly what makes me want to leave. Growth leads to development dollars for sure, but it also means higher taxes for the people who already live there.
