Other cities tax rents? Who knew?

by David Safier

First, I really dislike the thought of a tax on rents. Not because we don't need more money in the city coffers. We do. I dislike it because there have to be ways to direct a new tax/revenue source at those who can best afford it, not at renters who don't tend to be wealthy. I don't know enough about the types of taxes the city can impose to make an intelligent suggestion, but there have to be better ways to bring in some much needed cash.

That being said, the coverage I've read in the Star until today has dealt with the proposed tax on Tucson rents in isolation, as if this is some wild new idea the City Council dreamed up. Imagine my surprise when I read this in today's Star:

Rent taxes are not uncommon; most major Arizona cities and about three-quarters of the state's cities and towns impose them.

Oh, really. So Tucson is the exception for not imposing the tax, not some anti-renter monster for proposing the idea.

I had to scour the Star article to get more information. Way further down, after lots and lots of information about how hard the tax would hit the poor, comes this:

. . . 70 of Arizona's 90 cities and towns impose a tax on residential rents, in most cases at their regular sales-tax rates, said Ken Strobeck, executive director of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns.

"Their regular sales-tax rates." What does that mean? With all the facts and figures in the article, can't we get some figures, like "The sales-tax rates in other cities range from — to —"?

And this:

All but a few Arizona communities already impose taxes on commercial property rentals.

Hmm. I'm a bit confused by that sentence. Does this mean that Tucson doesn't impose a commercial property rental tax? If that's true, could that be one of the reasons so much dust is being raised about this issue?

And this:

Cities and towns without rent taxes include Marana and Oro Valley in Pima County, as well as Flagstaff, Payson, Safford, Sedona and Willcox, the league says.

What a weirdly negative phrasing. How about naming the cities and towns in our general area that have rent taxes, and what that rate is? The article has a few sidebars. One showing other cities' rent tax rates would have cleared things up a bit.

I read the article seriously and carefully. It was very easy to learn how many people are against a rent tax and why it is potentially harmful. It was much harder to pull out information about how rent tax is a revenue source used by the majority of Arizona cities and towns.

Color me suspicious, but developers and other business interests seem to have a whole lot of influence on local coverage in the Star, and the way the Star's coverage of the rent tax issue has avoided mentioning that we're the exception in not having a rent tax sounds to me like someone at the Star has an agenda other than giving the readers a comprehensive view of the topic.