Isabel Pena-Randa-Curry testifies on social contract and wealth inequality

Hello.

Hi.

My name is Isabel Pena-Randa-Curry.

I'm a PhD candidate and researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and I study public finance, land and property taxation, and city planning.

I'm also a Colombian-born Washington Heights resident, living on a graduate student budget, working multiple jobs, and even then, after paying rent and basic expenses, there's not a lot of money left.

I strongly support the pied-a-terre tax.

My research has taught me that a city's fiscal system is more than an accounting mechanism.

It's an expression of a social contract.

I've also learned that there's a surprising consensus in orthodox economics on what makes land and property valuable, and it's not the property owners.

A $5 million or $200 million apartment, say, overlooking Central Park, is worth that much because it overlooks Central Park, because of our parks and subway systems.

public investments and its proximity to Wall Street, and because this is a productive and unique city that millions of people make run.

In other words, urban property value is socially produced.

And precisely for this reason, it's entirely reasonable that those who can most afford to

Those who not only own a $5 million property, but own more than one, should return that value to the public that helped create it.

Unfortunately, our current property system does the exact opposite.

We tax the wealthiest the least.

The city's own reform commission found that a $500,000 home could face more than three times the effects of

effective tax rate than a $5 million one.

I ask you, what kind of social contract does that reveal?

And is that the social contract that you want to uphold?

New Yorkers know what they want.

Two recent polls found that roughly two-thirds of New York City voters support higher taxes on millionaires.

And economists also agree.

Land taxes do not dampen economic activity.

The rich are the residents least likely to leave New York, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.

And even the economists called this a gentle tax.

They also know that an economically successful city requires public investments rather than a few slightly wealthier millionaires.

I should also add that I'm a little shocked that the foundation of local public investment property taxes is being referred to in these

proceedings by city councilors as a hit list, a scarlet letter, a security threat, or a form of eminent domain.

I'm sympathetic to the concerns over difficulties over implementation.

I myself have spent months observing assessors and bureaucrats who implement property taxes as part of my research.

I also know that if this tax is blocked or significantly delayed because of the minutia of the rollout, which perhaps does have problems, New Yorkers will see these hurdles exactly for what they are,

ideologically motivated and meant to protect private wealth.

If we want New York to remain a city for teachers, families, and everyone else who makes it run, not simply a place to store wealth,

We need a tax system that reflects that social contract.

I expect the City Council to stand by that and to support the pied-a-terre tax.

Thank you.

Next.