IBJNews

Indiana voters OK property tax cap amendment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana voters have approved a constitutional amendment that will make property tax limits more permanent.

The caps limit property tax bills to 1 percent of homes' assessed values, with 2-percent caps on farmland and rental property and 3-percent limits on business property.

With more than half of state's precincts reporting, more than 70 percent of voters had voted in favor of the caps.

The caps are already in state law and saved taxpayers $478 million this year, but that's meant less cash available for local governments and schools.

The caps could mean big changes for local governments. Supporters say constitutional caps will give taxpayers more protection and stability. Opponents warn that constitutional tax limits will be more difficult to amend should changes be desired in the future.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Assessment Caps
    I totally agree, Z. I've noticed that while the 1% cap certainly helps, the value of my property seems to contiually rise, when every parcel for sale in my township is only getting about 75% of the asking price, if it sells, and most asking prices are at or below the assessment. I think market value is being ignored in favor of the 3% every year increase. And also..school levies. A 20% increase in one year alone? Ridiculous.
  • Indiana voters OK property tax cap
    Caps on assessments should be put in Indiana's constitution next.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. what Steve is doing and if he is on another radio station. That is the station I will listen to.

    2. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

    3. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

    4. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

    5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

    ADVERTISEMENT