ShareThis Page
Colin McNickle: Revised homestead exemption faces hurdles |
Featured Commentary

Colin McNickle: Revised homestead exemption faces hurdles

| Monday, January 15, 2018 9:00 p.m
Shane Dunlap | Tribune-Review
Voters exit the polling station during a dreary and cold Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, at Kirk Nevin Ice Arena in Greensburg. .

Pennsylvanians voted last fall, 54 percent to 46 percent, for a measure that will amend the state Constitution to allow for a 100-percent homestead exemption. But numerous hurdles will make drafting enabling legislation tedious and difficult, say Allegheny Institute for Public Policy scholars.

The measure allows (but does not mandate) local taxing bodies — counties, municipalities, school districts — to exclude up to 100 percent of the median assessed value of each owner-occupied homestead, up from the current 50 percent. But there are significant obstacles to implementation, say Eric Montarti, a senior policy analyst, and Jake Haulk, president of the Pittsburgh think tank.

“The underlying purpose … is to allow taxing bodies to make major reductions in homeowner tax burdens, or possibly eliminate them altogether,” they say. “Of course, absent dollar-for-dollar cuts in spending, that means the loss of tax revenue … must be made up by shifting the burden to other taxes and/or taxpayers.”

And therein lies the enabling-legislation challenge: Given pressure to find more revenue because of rising pension, compensation and other costs, it’s improbable that most school districts can cut expenditures in any meaningful way. Any homestead-exemption revenue loss would have to be made up by shifting taxes to other sources, primarily on income. Which means renters and their landlords would incur added tax liability with no offsetting property-tax reduction.

Also problematic is government jurisdictions’ relative paucity of interest in the existing homestead exemption or in shifting taxes.

“It is easy to understand the wishes of homeowners to want relief from property taxes,” Montarti and Haulk note. “On the other hand, schools, municipalities and counties need revenue to provide services. Efforts to shift a large share of the burden to other revenue sources must of necessity create political opposition from those for whom the tax burden would be increased.”

Among additional challenges for lawmakers, the old flat-dollar exclusion moves to an equal-percentage exclusion. Whereas some wealthier property owners under the existing system might believe they get too little of a break, homeowners with lower valuations might, under the new regimen, feel owners of higher-valued properties get too much of a break. Additionally, given how grossly outdated homestead valuations are in many counties — because of failure to reassess regularly — percentage-based exclusions could exacerbate taxation unfairness. And how might the new law stymie long-running efforts to eliminate all school property taxes?

“If an appreciable number of school districts were to adopt a significant exclusion and shift taxes to income or other permitted taxes, the elimination of school taxes statewide would become even more cumbersome than it is already,” Montarti and Haulk say. “All these and doubtless many more hurdles to passage of legislation to adopt the provisions in the constitutional amendment point to a very long, contentious and arduous road ahead.”

Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.