Today, I listened as three City Council members discussed Omaha City issues as well as heard a Douglas County Commissioner express concerns of a decline in commercial property values nationwide.
One Council member talked about population density and the need for more development. This was basically echoing the Omaha Planning Department instead of addressing the need for economic tax reform. This Council member expects population density to increase revenues, but realistically, it merely generates more costs for the City, in part, because much of Omaha is exempt from the property tax system, including 8-story buildings owned by for-profit hospitals. The Douglas County Assessor has no information on how much of Omaha property is exempt from the property tax system.
I asked if the Council had considered doing a tax restructuring study or study of the implementation of a consumption tax or other reforms. There has been no such study. One Council member responded and was not open to the idea of a City-funded tax study until the Nebraska Unicameral acted. This person mentioned the controversy over the Omaha restaurant tax as an example of conflict on tax issues. The same Council member said the Council had lowered the mill levy which was merely an obstruction or denial of all inherent problems with property taxes.
Basically, these elected officials were merely trying to address the political side of the issues or echo the thoughts of other elected officials, particularly Mayor Jean Stothert. With such comments, you end up on a hamster wheel of opinions and proposals without getting anywhere. At best, hearing their takes on taxes is a lot like playing a game of Wrong Answers Only.
However, Omaha really needs a tax economy study done to determine what taxation is best and which is worse as far as economics. Such a study should look to reduce the City's dependency on property taxes and reveal the impact or advantages of consumption taxes. Such a study should reveal all the parts of Omaha’s economy and what has changed and is likely to change.
Right now, Omaha is in no position to defend the current tax situation and is in no position to advocate for any changes. Omaha’s position on these issues is muzzled due to a lack of any study which is sad, because Omaha’s population is about 25 percent of Nebraska’s population. Omaha is merely allowing it to become a victim of the State and saying "Yes, master".
I firmly wish other credible reform options were being offered but none are being presented. One simple reform would be to have a separate land tax on residential properties and only tax the land, not the development on it. Yet, no other serious offers are on the table.
My thoughts on taxation and economics are well known and perhaps could be dismissed as partisan politics, but studies are not easy to dismiss. The EPIC Option people put out a study on consumption taxes (https://epicconsumptiontax.org/bhi-study). If people are going to oppose EPIC or ignore it, they most certainly are not doing so from a position of strength with their own study of the issue.
If you reside in Omaha or even in Nebraska, I encourage you to contact your City Council member and call for a study of Omaha's economy and taxation systems. Without such a study, Omaha has no guidepost, not just on taxation, but as to all other decisions the Council routinely makes.
You may share this post on Facebook and Nextdoor by copying this link:
https://andrewlsullivan.substack.com/p/omaha-needs-tax-study
In contacting the City Council, you can copy me in email at andrewlsullivan@substack.com
Find contact information for your Omaha City Council representative at link below:
https://citycouncil.cityofomaha.org/council-members
If they're worried about commercial values wait until residential values crater. Government is always fighting the last war. They'll give up property tax when we have to pry their colds dead hands away
Andrew, I'd like to see you run for Omaha City Council. It sounds like they could really use some fresh people who haven't fossilized in their thinking.