I pay (residential) property tax in the City, and I totally support a single tax rate. That said, I haven’t heard enough about the Philadelphia Plan to comment one way or the other. From what I had heard, it sounded more along the lines of new construction rather than renting/buying existing properties (and perhaps fixing them). I think there are plenty of existing properties that I’d rather see occupied rather than new construction. (However, my opinion could totally change if someone were willing to get rid of that AT&T building downtown and put in something less monolithic.)

Also, the proponents of PILOT really tick me off. (Not because I disagree with them, but because I get no sense that it’s being done in a coordinated, thoughtful way.) Has anyone done a study about how much (dollar-wise or resource-wise) the non-profits are using city services? Have we had a real discussion about the non-cash value some institutions (Clark University being chief among them) are providing the city? Have we talked about having a real discussion with the larger non-profits in the city — and not just the colleges, either — over the course of many months?

I have a real problem with the “money for nothing and chicks for free” attitude that underlies both the PILOT and the dual tax questions. The residents of Worcester don’t want to have to give up certain city services, but they sure as heck don’t want to actually make a sacrifice to pay for them. Why should we give up the leaf collection by the road when we can just have Holy Cross pony up some PILOT money? I don’t want the library to have diminished hours, so why doesn’t a city business pay for it?