Too much unknown to change to change taxes

Philadelphia is finally undertaking a long overdue reform of its property assessment system, which has generally overtaxed the poor, under-taxed the rich, and shortchanged the city and School District.

The inconsistencies are legendary. Two identical houses standing side-by-side can be hundreds of dollars apart in tax bills because the assessments are so out of whack.

The Nutter administration is to be commended for taking on the politically radioactive task of reassessing the entire city based on a property's actual market value. But a little more patience is needed to get it right. The pieces aren't falling into place in their proper sequence, and the city's solution relies more on faith than facts.

New assessments mean new tax bills for property owners, but many don't know what to expect. It would have helped to have an expansive public-education program to explain the new tax system.

Taxpayers' most important question - What will my taxes be? - can't be answered until the fall. That is when the assessment figures are expected to be made final.

Mayor Nutter has proposed that City Council take a leap of faith and pass a budget this spring without knowing the new assessments, and without a firm tax rate. The final rate would be determined in the fall, once the assessments are verified, and it would be based on the city's and schools' revenue needs.

That necessary leap of faith is over too wide a canyon, particularly considering that it requires Harrisburg to do the city a favor.

The legislature has not yet passed a package of bills needed to allow the city to soften the blow on taxpayers by spreading out the impact of new tax bills over three years and providing relief to the elderly and disabled.

Not only are Gov. Corbett and the legislature unreliable, but they have a history of treating Philadelphians' problems with a callous disregard. In the past year, they have underfunded programs for the city's most vulnerable citizens, undermined efforts to curb gun crimes, and threatened the voting rights of the poor and seniors.

The mayor and City Council have the option of writing the budget and setting a tax rate based on the current, but flawed, property assessments. That has risks, too, however, because property owners can appeal their assessments, arguing that they are unfair, and potentially costing the city and schools millions in revenue.

The city, though, wants to hire assessors to help it argue that current appeals are largely on undervalued properties. Council should grant that request as quickly as possible.

The mayor's plan would also give $90 million more to the School District, which is facing another almost impossible deficit. The district makes a good argument that without additional funds, instructional programs would suffer. But the mayor and Council do have the option of raising taxes for schools, though that's hard for politicians.

Council can debate these issues in its budget hearings as well as by considering a bill introduced by freshman Councilman Mark Squilla that would postpone the assessments for a year. Even though it has no cosponsors, Squilla's bill raises important questions that deserve a robust discussion of the potential consequences of taking a leap of faith and the risk of losing appeals.

That discussion will give taxpayers needed knowledge of the big changes to come, and give the city time to launch an in-depth education campaign.

Making the city's property tax system fair for the first time in memory is too important a reform to implement without the public's having a clear understanding of what it all means.