The News & Record’s May 8 article on Guilford County’s proposed FY2027 budget repeatedly emphasizes the proposed tax rate reduction while omitting or understating some of the most consequential financial realities.

The article never tells readers the most important numbers in the budget.

The headline itself framed the issue primarily around;

“Guilford County budget lowers tax rate…”

before acknowledging;

“…but bills may still rise after revaluation.”

https://greensboro.com/news/local/government-politics/article_810169b3-8753-4c89-9223-f57986ba5110.html

But the County’s own budget proposal says;

• FY2026 property tax revenue; roughly $542.4 million

• FY2027 projected property tax revenue; about $643.8 million

• = approximately +$101 million, or about +19% in additional property tax.

Page 71;

https://www.guilfordcountync.gov/fy2027-recommended-budget-book/open

Share

The story centers on the reduction from 73.05¢ to 61.9¢, and the proposal being “8.64 cents above revenue neutral.” It’s not actually from revenue neutral and it’s not 8.64 cents.

The “Revenue Neutral” Problem

The article says “The revenue-neutral rate is 53.26 cents per $100 of property valuation.” Most readers would reasonably interpret that sentence to mean “53.26¢ keeps revenues flat.”

But Guilford County’s own budget tables show the exact mathematically levy-neutral rate after reassessment was actually 52.00¢.

Page 72;

52¢ was the rate that actually kept revenues flat after revaluation.

“This recommendation is 8.64 cents above that level because responsiveness and quality service delivery does not maintain itself,” Isler said.

The County then applied a built-in 2.42% “historical growth” adjustment, which increased the official statutory “Revenue Neutral Tax Rate” (RNTR) to; 53.26¢.

61.9¢ - 52¢ = 9.9¢, not 8.64 cents

53.26¢ ≈ $13.2 million in additional property tax collections before the proposed increase to 61.9¢ even began.

The article never explains this.

So readers are left with the impression that 61.9¢ is only modestly above a truly flat-revenue tax rate, when the proposal is actually roughly 19% above exact levy neutrality for property taxes.

Share

WFMY’s Tanya Rivera says;

A $200,000 home, reassessed upward by 40% to $280,000, resulting in a county tax bill increase from $1,460 to $1,733?

Totally misleading

The average residential home went up 59.7%, per Guilford County, but the average $200,000 home went up 74.89%, not 40%;

If the City of Greensboro raises taxes as much as Guilford County wants to;

WFMY repeatedly emphasized the nominal rate reduction, and Guilford County potentially no longer having “the highest property tax rate in the Triad.”

But taxpayers do not pay tax rates. They pay tax bills.

WXII mentions Guilford County Schools funding;

https://www.wxii12.com/article/guilford-county-budget-school-funding-increase-nc/71244345

The School Debt Context Is Almost Entirely Missing;

The County’s budget increases K-12 funding by roughly $58.5 million, necessary to prepare for $565 million in school debt issuance in FY2028, and another $565 million in FY2031. That’s about $1.13 billion in future school-related borrowing not one local news source disclosed.

ABC45’s Christian Gladney repeats Guilford County Manager Victor Isler’s propaganda;

Victor Isler, who serves as the county manager, outlined the details of this $935 million proposed spending plan—an increase of approximately 10.4% in comparison to last year’s finalized budget.

Without mentioning the 19% property tax hike.

And the same meaningless;

https://abc45.com/news/local/guilford-county-manager-presents-935-million-budget-proposal-includes-property-tax-cut

The narrative appears to be having the intended effect;

The Residential vs. Commercial Shift Is Missing Entirely

Our local news media has never explained how residential property values increased dramatically faster than commercial property values. County reassessment data showed;

• residential median increases roughly +59.7%

• while commercial median increases roughly +22.7%.

Lower-value residential homes experienced some of the largest increases in the County, while most commercial properties would get tax cuts at Guilford County’s 42.5% average;

Meaning, even before the proposed increase above neutrality, the reassessment itself shifted a larger share of the property-tax burden, ≈ +5.7 of the County tax base share, onto homeowners, which works out to a ≈ +8.8% relative increase on residential from commercial.

Instead of clearly explaining a projected ≈ $101 million increase in property tax collections, a reassessment-driven shift of the tax burden toward homeowners, and roughly $1.13 billion in future school-related borrowing, much of the local coverage focused almost entirely on “lowest rate in 20 years” talking points, and statutory “revenue neutral” language most would interpret as meaning taxes stay flat.

Taxpayers do not pay lower tax rates.

We pay taxes.

The County’s budget shows the exact levy-neutral tax rate after revaluation was 52.00 cents per $100 of value.

The County’s chart (Page 72) shows;

• Prior levy: $544,707,662

• New assessed value: $104,749,520,000

• Exact neutral rate: 52.00¢;

52¢ was the rate that actually kept revenues flat after revaluation.

Guilford County applied an additional “historical growth factor”. The County multiplied the exact neutral rate by a 2.42% “average annual growth” assumption, which increased the official “Revenue Neutral Tax Rate” (RNTR) to 53.26¢.

The County built in a ~$13 million tax increase into the official definition of “neutral” before the proposed increase to 61.9¢ even began, even though it’s counted every year;

The recommended tax rate is 61.9 cents per 100 dollars of valuation, which is 11.5 cent reduction from the prior year, and the lowest property tax rate in over 20 years.

Guilford County Manager Victor Isler

The proposed 61.9¢ property tax rate is;

• about 16% above the County’s official growth-adjusted “neutral” rate,

• but 19% above exact/actual neutrality

≈ $101.35 million tax increase for property owners after the County Manager said the budget was only going up $89 million.

The key sentence in Guilford County’s press release says “The revenue-neutral tax rate is 53.26 cents per $100 of assessed property value based on the state’s prescribed calculation.”

https://www.guilfordcountync.gov/news/press-releases/2026/05/07/county-manager-presents-fy2027-recommended-budget

Hence (Page 71);

Will the headlines say 10% or 19%?

Will they say $88,186,176 or $101,352,000?

The 53.26¢ “Revenue Neutral Tax Rate” (RNTR) ~$557.9M, meaning it’s not going up from $542,425,000, but roughly $15.5 million more than the FY2026 adopted budget due to the RNTR 2.42% '“growth adjustment”.

Almost the entire revenue increase in the proposed budget is coming from property taxes;

• Property Tax Increase; +$101.35M

• Total Revenue Increase; +$103.1M

• ≈ 98.3% of the entire revenue increase

If property tax collections rise by more than $101 million, and the proposed rate is about 19% above real neutrality, why are taxpayers being told the story primarily through the lens of an “11.5 cent reduction”?

Same thing only different in an opposite way;

Financial (Investment) Plan Manipulation

If “the overwhelming majority of Envision Plans didn’t include investment costs” and unachievable goals have been ‘legally’ presented to clients, hundreds of thousands of clients and millions of others may be misinformed of the probabilities of achieving financial goals presented by Financial Advisors.

https://hartzman.blogspot.com/2020/09/financial-investment-plans.html

Share

The requested records concern a coordinated series of March 2026 valuation adjustments involving multiple Center Pointe condominium units associated with Park View Development LLC and affiliated Roy Carroll entities, suggesting a portfolio-level reassessment or grouped appeal process rather than isolated individual corrections.

This request specifically includes, but is not limited to, records relating to the following Center Pointe condominium parcels and units associated with Park View Development LLC, including the March 2026 valuation reductions and corresponding percentage decreases reflected in Guilford County records;

1. Unit 1501 — reduction from approximately $329,400 to $236,500 (≈ -28.2%)

2. Unit 1502 — reduction from approximately $303,600 to $268,400 (≈ -11.6%)

3. Unit 1503 — reduction from approximately $268,400 to $191,100 (≈ -28.8%)

4. Unit 1504 — reduction from approximately $268,700 to $134,900 (≈ -49.8%)

5. Unit 1505 — associated March 2026 PTC adjustment records

6. Unit 1506 — reduction from approximately $215,900 to $136,800 (≈ -36.6%)

7. Unit 1507 — reduction from approximately $191,100 to $136,800 (≈ -28.4%)

8. Unit 1508 — reduction from approximately $135,400 to $115,800 (≈ -14.5%)

9. Unit 1603 — reduction from approximately $322,200 to $285,300 (≈ -11.5%)

10. Unit 1604 — reduction from approximately $135,400 to $71,000 (≈ -47.6%)

11. Unit 1605 — reduction from approximately $191,100 to $99,100 (≈ -48.1%)

This request includes any associated parcel numbers, abstract numbers, NCPTS adjustment entries, appraisal records, appeal filings, or affiliated entities connected to Park View Development LLC, Roy Carroll, Carroll Companies, or related ownership structures.

Center Pointe is marketed as one of downtown Greensboro’s premier luxury condominium developments, making the coordinated March 2026 downward adjustments across multiple affiliated units especially notable amid a countywide residential revaluation where many ordinary homeowners experienced dramatically higher increases.

The referenced properties are luxury condominium units within the Center Pointe development in downtown Greensboro associated with Park View Development LLC and Roy Carroll-affiliated entities. The coordinated timing and portfolio-wide nature of the March 2026 valuation adjustments raise substantial public-interest questions regarding assessment methodology, procedural consistency, and comparative treatment during the 2026 countywide revaluation process.

https://www.cbadvantage.com/real-estate/community/center-pointe

Requested Records;

• Appeal / Adjustment Records

• All applications, petitions, requests, filings, submissions, or forms requesting;

• valuation reductions, corrections, PTC adjustments, rebates/releases,

• appraisal reconsiderations,

• present-use changes, or any other assessment modification

for the above-referenced properties and any others owned by Park View Development LLC, Roy Carroll, Carroll Companies, or related ownership structures from January 1, 2025 through the present.

The Sales Data Does NOT Obviously Support a Luxury Condo Collapse

Nothing publicly obvious suggests Center Pointe values crashed 40–50%, luxury downtown condo demand evaporated, or units suddenly became distressed inventory.

What valuation methodology justified reductions this large?

Were these reductions based on actual arm’s-length comparable sales, or were they driven by internal reassessment negotiations/appraisal methodology adjustments unavailable to ordinary homeowners?

If actual sales supported the reductions, that is one story.

If the reductions came from negotiated appraisal treatment, that is another.

The noticeable thing is not just “these condos were reduced”, It’s the scale, the coordination, the timing, the portfolio-wide nature, the contrast with countywide residential increases, and the apparent disconnect between the reductions and observable luxury condo market conditions.

https://www.movoto.com/greensboro-nc/center-pointe/sold/

Share

Supporting Documentation

All supporting documentation submitted by or on behalf of the property owner(s), including;

• appraisals, broker opinions,

• comparable sales analyses,

• valuation worksheets, engineer reports,

• inspection reports, photographs,

• repair estimates, attorney correspondence,

• consultant submissions, spreadsheets, or any other supporting materials.

Internal Assessor Records;

• All internal records relating to the valuation adjustments, including;

• assessor notes, appraisal cards,

• field review notes, valuation calculations,

• adjustment worksheets, ratio studies,

• income approach analyses, market approach analyses,

• land/building allocation worksheets, internal memoranda,

• and records showing how adjusted values were calculated.

Communications

All emails, text messages, Teams/Slack messages, calendar invites, meeting notes, memoranda, or correspondence between;

• Guilford County Tax Department employees,

• County Manager’s Office personnel,

• County Commissioners,

• Board of Equalization and Review members,

• outside appraisers or consultants, attorneys,

• and representatives of Park View Development LLC, Roy Carroll, Carroll Companies, or affiliated entities

relating to;

• valuation adjustments, appeals,

• reassessments, revaluation methodology,

• tax burden impacts, timing of adjustments,

• or the 2026 revaluation.

Timeframe; January 1, 2025 through present.

Timing / Processing Records

Records showing;

• when the appeal(s) or adjustment requests were first submitted,

• dates of review, approval chains,

• workflow status history, identity of employees involved,

• and dates the adjustments became effective in NCPTS.

• PTC Coding / Definitions

• Portfolio / Grouped Appeal Records

All records reflecting whether the referenced Center Pointe units were;

reviewed collectively,

• grouped for valuation purposes,

• processed under a common appeal strategy,

• assigned to the same reviewer or appraisal team,

• or handled as part of a coordinated portfolio reassessment.

This includes:

• batch adjustment records, linked appeal identifiers,

• shared appraisal methodologies, portfolio valuation spreadsheets,

• internal grouping codes, and communications discussing the units collectively.

Public Communications / Sensitivity Discussions

All records discussing;

• media risk, political sensitivity,

• public perception, revaluation optics,

• high-profile taxpayer treatment,

• or anticipated public reaction

relating to the referenced valuation adjustments, Park View Development LLC, Roy Carroll, or Center Pointe properties.

Rolling / Phased Production Requested

To facilitate timely public access and reduce administrative burden, I specifically request that records be produced on a rolling and phased basis as they become available, rather than withholding all responsive documents until the entire request is completed.

Please prioritize and produce readily accessible records first, including but not limited to;

• appeal applications, adjustment forms,

• parcel records, appraisal cards,

• valuation worksheets, NCPTS adjustment screenshots/logs,

• approval records, and finalized adjustment documentation.

I understand some categories of records, particularly communications searches, metadata extraction, and broader interdepartmental correspondence, may require additional time. I am willing to wait for those more time-intensive productions while receiving simpler and readily retrievable records immediately as they are identified.

If possible, please provide records in batches organized by:

• property/unit,

• record category,

• or production date.

This request is intended to promote prompt partial disclosure consistent with the North Carolina Public Records Law and to avoid unnecessary delays associated with completing every aspect of the request before any records are released.

Guilford County Public Records

Your record request #26-557 has been submitted successfully.

Thank you for contacting Guilford County. We have received your request and are working to determine if there are any responsive documents.

Related;

Park View Development LLC / Center Pointe (Roy Carroll) Valuation Adjustments and 2026 Revaluation-Related Assessment Records Request for Guilford County; Two

Comparable Sales / Market Support Records

All records showing the comparable sales, market analyses, MLS data, broker opinions, sales ratio studies, condominium market reports, or valuation support materials used to justify the March 2026 valuation reductions for Center Pointe units associated with Park View Development LLC.

This includes;

• comparable condominium sales used by assessors,

• adjustments applied to comparable properties,

• downtown Greensboro condominium market studies,

• internal sales ratio analyses,

• and records discussing whether the reductions aligned with prevailing market values and recent Center Pointe sales activity.

Publicly available Center Pointe sales histories suggest an active luxury condominium market, raising additional questions about the basis for coordinated downward assessment adjustments immediately before the 2026 revaluation cycle.

Guilford County Public Records

Your record request #26-558 has been submitted successfully.

Thank you for contacting Guilford County. We have received your request and are working to determine if there are any responsive documents.

Commercial property values rose by far less, shifting the burden to residential; +22.7%

Residential values rose much faster; about 2.6x faster than commercial; +59.7%

When Guilford County’s Tax Department announced values rose by 40-45%, they didn’t mention residential rose by far more than commercial.

As residential values rose much faster than commercial, and if residential/commercial shares were roughly 65/35 beforehand, then a revenue-neutral 42.5% average revaluation shifts a larger share of the county tax burden onto residential property owners as a group to ~70.7% from 65%, or about 8.8% more than before.

57,950 homes at the lower end are going to get hurt by far more than the more expensive homes (20,561 + 37,389).

Why?

Mortgage rates more than doubled from pandemic lows, yet Guilford County is layering massive reassessment increases on top during an affordability crisis;

As mortgage rates surged, many buyers were priced out of higher-end homes and pushed into more modest, affordable houses instead. That concentrated demand on lower-priced neighborhoods, driving lower end prices far faster than normal. The result is that working and middle-class homes often saw some of the sharpest value increases, not because incomes rose, but because higher borrowing costs forced more buyers to compete for fewer affordable options.

At the same time, longtime residents in those neighborhoods now face rising tax assessments tied to prices they may never have benefited from in cash. Families who could barely afford entry-level homes are going to get more squeezed than they already are, first-time buyers face fewer options, and renters will likely see higher taxes passed through in rent. What was once the affordable part of the market has become less affordable for everyone, and now faces sharp tax hikes via the 2026 revaluation.

Most families cannot refinance or move into relief.

Many are locked into low mortgage rates and/or can’t afford the tax increases.

Some homeowners are becoming trapped with mortgage balances higher than what they can sell their homes for, and the number facing that problem is growing.

Many lower income homeowners and renters will pay a larger share, while most commercial properties and high end homes will pay relatively less;

Example; A Modest Greensboro $175,000 Home; Current taxes; $2,455.

Projected taxes with 15% increase; $3,464; Increase: +$1,009 / year; +41.1%

Please advocate to pause the tax shock or support broad based homestead exemptions

Real World Example; The owner of Natty Greene’s Building and home compared to a Middle Income Greensboro Homeowner

If our legislators pass a 20% property tax increase;

• The owner of 345 S Elm St’s (Natty Greene’s) residential home; +6.8% (+$762)

• Hamburger Square (Natty Greene’s); –19.6% (–$5,401) Tax Cut

• Middle Greensboro home; +108% (+$1,879) Massive Tax Hike

The owner of Natty Greene’s Building’s house by Greensboro Country Club;

• Old taxable value: $802,800

• New taxable value: $1,017,650

• Increase: +$214,850

• Percent increase: +26.8%

Compared to County Average; +42.5% per GC Tax Department

The house came in ~15.7 percentage points BELOW average

Current tax: $11,263

At revenue neutral;

• Estimated new tax bill; ~$10,000

• Estimated decrease (Tax Cut); ~$1,200

• Percent change: ~ –11%

Natty Greene’s Building, owned by Hamburger Square LLC, saw a decrease in value of 4.5% for 2026.

'2026 tax at revenue‑neutral rate assuming a 42.5% average increase (GC Tax Dept.) applies uniformly to all taxing jurisdictions (Guilford County, Greensboro, and the Downtown Improvement District)

Tax cut = $27,570.67 – $18,474.50 = $9,096.17 (≈ 33% reduction)

Which is what happened to the commercial side of Guilford County’s properties, which include apartment complexes, per the Tax Department;

Contrast vs a house in the middle of Greensboro, whose owners, who are customers of Natty Greene’s, have about $61,000 in take home pay after taxes;

• Old value: $123,700

• New value: $305,800

• Increase: 147%

1. Current tax bill: $1,736

2. Estimated increase: about $1,276

3. New Total; $3,012 at Revenue Neutral

Roughly a 73% tax increase; About 5% of their after tax income, just for property taxes. Which is what happened to thousands of properties on the low end if the median increase was 86% for the $75,000 to $150,000 tier;

If our legislators pass a 20% tax increase;

• Hamburger Square Owner’s house; +6.8% (+$762)

• Hamburger Square (Natty Greene’s); –19.6% (–$5,401)

• Middle Greensboro home; +108% (+$1,879)

This revaluation will hit middle and lower-income Guilford County residents hardest.

Related;

The Baseline Manipulation is Real and Material; Pre-Revaluation Value Adjustment and Assessment Timing Question; Roy Carroll Edition

Guilford County Revaluation Data; Residential vs. Commercial and Lower Value vs. Higher Home Value Disparities

The Unequal Impact of “Revenue-Neutral” Adjustments; For Most of Us, It’s a Tax Hike

Greensboro’s Property Revaluation Is Producing an Unexpected Result; Tax Cuts for Some of the City’s Most Expensive Homes at the Expense of the Least

Revenue Neutral, Reality Not; Homeowners Forced to Fund Commercial Tax Cuts; $144,000 Tax Cuts for Tower; Increases for Guilford County Families

A $50,000 Homestead Exclusion Is the Fair Response to Guilford County’s Revaluation Shock

Updated; Tammi Thurm’s Tax Increase Plan; Reverse Robin Hood Comes to Greensboro

Guilford County Property Values Are Surging, but Incomes Aren’t; The Hidden Shift in Guilford County’s Property Tax Burden

Crumbling Commercial Values Threaten Guilford and Greensboro Homeowners with Steep Tax Hike

Greensboro’s Two Downtowns; A Failing Gentrification with Office Vacancies and Remote Work Compounded with the Surrounding Poverty-Stricken Reality

Share

Please pause the 2026 property revaluation before it sets tax bills, just as Pender County commissioners voted unanimously to do on April 7th.

In Guilford County, the revaluation data raises serious fairness concerns not being addressed;

The tax burden is shifting downward. Residential property values rose more than 2.5 times faster than commercial at the median, per Guilford County’s data.

Guilford County’s residential properties rose to a median increase of 59.73%;

guilford_revaluation_distribution.png

Commercial properties saw a lower 22.72% increase, which will be made up by lower tier residential;

The increases are heavily distributed against lower value homes while many higher value homes are set for relative tax breaks, along with most of the commercial space under an estimated revenue neutral outcome.

Please fully analyze and publicly explain the disparities

Show exactly who would pay more and less

Consider a pause or adjustments to avoid disproportionately burdening your lower income constituents.

Moving forward as-is risks locking in relatively lower income homeowners and renters with much higher tax bills to make up to tax cuts and lower taxes for the rest.

Please don’t harm our most vulnerable neighbors.

g

George Hartzman

Related;

Share

Thanks for reading Public Integrity

It’s buried in Item 3 of “Miscellaneous” on the Consent Agenda;

https://guilford.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

Which includes amongst other properties owned by the same company;

On March 4, 2026, the assessed value of the unit, owned by Park View Development, LLC, otherwise known as Roy Carroll for 2025 was reduced from approximately $322,200 to $285,300;

• Realtor.com estimates the property could sell for $388,000.

• Original 2025 value; $322,200

• Adjusted 2025 value (as of 3/4/2026); $285,300

• 2026 revaluation; $364,100

The timing raises the question of whether valuation adjustments are being applied differently for a connected few.

The reduction means the property’s post-revaluation increase will look less significantly lower than the countywide average of ~42.5%;

• From the adjusted value; $285,300 → $364,100 = +27.6%

• From the original pre-adjustment reality; $322,200 → $364,100 = +13.0%

The county average increase (~42.5%) is supposed to be based on true prior values, not backdated lowered appeal-adjusted numbers;

• True increase for Roy Carroll’s property = ~13%

• County average: ~42.5%

On this property, Mr. Carroll is a much bigger winner under revenue neutral;

• Estimated tax cut: ~$880/year from $4,259.53 to ≈ $3,378

• Reduction: ~20.7%

After the County’s reduction, the math looks like Carroll +27.6% would imply;

• Only a ~10.5% tax reduction (~$440 savings)

The core issue is a baseline manipulation problem. When Roy got his condo retroactively reduced within the revaluation reset, it looks like he’s disproportionately benefiting with some help.

Meanwhile, Guilford County’s residential properties rose to a median increase of 59.73%;

The $225,000 & <$350,000 value range produced a median increase of about 58%, but Carroll’s only went up 13% from where it was revalued on March 4th;

The 27.6% increase is still below average, but much less conspicuously so. The backdated reduction delivers a double advantage; it lowered the 2025 tax bill itself (from $322,200 to $285,300 base) and resets the measurement baseline for 2026, making a $364,100 revaluation appear as a 27.6% jump rather than 13%, which is the opposite of what happened for most homeowners. Roy Carroll’s condo went up within the one percent of all county parcels;

Another way to look at it, provided by Guilford County;

Commercial properties saw a lower 22.72% increase, which will have to be made up for by lower tier residential;

Who would have thought?

The data does not support an innocent explanation. The vast majority of properties saw much larger percentage increases. The retroactive baseline change is a textbook example of manipulating the measurement period to disguise a windfall.

The question is whether a system that allows a connected owner to retroactively lower his prior year’s assessment after seeing the new revaluation is procedurally fair to the other 170,000+ property owners who had no such opportunity.

Related;

Thanks for reading Public Integrity Watch! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Share

The county’s own data, released on April 6, shows a stark divide between residential and commercial property increases;

Residential median increase; 59.7%

Commercial median increase; 22.7%

Residential values rose more than 2.5 times faster than commercial values at the median.

Within residential property itself, the increases are not evenly distributed.

• Lower-value homes saw increases as high as 75% to 86%

• Higher-value homes saw increases closer to 38% to 46%

That gap matters because property taxes are based on relative changes, not just total revenue. Even if officials adopt a “revenue-neutral” tax rate, the burden doesn’t stay the same, it shifts.

And based on this data, it shifts heavily onto homeowners. The lower the home value, the higher the percentage increase.

The result is predictable; homeowners, particularly those least able to absorb higher costs, will take on a larger share of the tax burden. It shifts in two key ways;

• From commercial properties to residential homeowners

• From higher-value homes to lower- and middle-value homes

This isn’t a theoretical concern.

“Revenue-neutral” does not mean “impact-neutral.” It means redistribution.

The question is whether that redistribution is fair.

Right now, the answer appears to be no.

I urged officials to pause.

Before moving forward, the Greensboro, High Point, Jamestown and Guilford County should;

• Fully analyze and publicly explain the disparity

• Show exactly who pays more and who pays less

• Consider adjustments to avoid disproportionately burdening certain groups

Moving forward as-is risks locking in a system many relatively lower income homeowners and renters will experience as fundamentally unfair, and pay the price.

Share

Related;

Properties that rose more than average, often lower- and middle-priced homes, are seeing big tax increases, even without income growth.

The result is a regressive shift, pushing more of the burden onto working homeowners and renters.

Fix; Adopt a $50,000 homestead exclusion, or other agreed upon number after evaluation, in Guilford County / Greensboro / High Point etc...

• Same dollar tax break for every homeowner

• Much bigger impact for lower-value homes

• Helps offset revaluation-driven tax spikes

• Rebalances the system toward fairness

• It reduces the burden on owner-occupied homes

It shifts relatively more of the tax base back toward;

• Higher-value properties

• Commercial real estate

Revenue neutral ≠ fair. The system is shifting the burden downward while producing six-figure tax cuts for some large properties while sending steep increases to working homeowners, and a homestead exclusion is a simple way to correct it.

Right now, that mechanism is;

• Cutting taxes on many high-value and commercial properties

• Raising them sharply on homeowners in fast-appreciating segments

A $50,000 homestead exclusion won’t fix everything. But;

• It directly offsets the disproportionate increases caused by revaluation

• Every homeowner gets the same dollar reduction

• Reduces the steepest increases

• Restores balance to a system that is currently shifting in the wrong direction

For example;

• A $150,000 home sees roughly a one-third reduction in its tax bill

• A $600,000 home sees a much smaller percentage reduction

Same benefit. More meaningful where it’s needed most.

Share

A homestead exclusion makes the tradeoff explicit; It reduces the burden on owner-occupied homes

It shifts relatively more of the tax base back toward;

• Higher-value properties

• Commercial real estate

If policymakers in Guilford County and Greensboro want a response that is both fair and realistic, this is it.

TL;DR; When a homeowner’s home value jumped 63%, they asked Council Member Tammi Thurm for a revenue‑neutral tax rate to soften the blow. Thurm replied she’d support a rate decrease but hinted the city might need “a small increase in the net revenue number.” That “small increase” is actually a tax hike, and even without it, revenue neutrality doesn’t protect homeowners whose values rose faster than average; lower‑priced homes soared 60‑80% while many commercial properties and luxury homes saw far smaller gains. A revenue‑neutral rate would still raise taxes on modest homeowners while handing six‑figure tax cuts to the Wells Fargo Tower ($144,000) and the United Health building ($80,000). A 20% rate increase would double the burden on working families while high‑end homes and many commercial properties still get tax cuts.

In late February 2026, retirees in Greensboro’s Woodland Hills neighborhood did what thousands of Guilford County homeowners were doing; they sat down to calculate the damage from the new property tax assessment.

Their home’s assessed value had jumped from $331,600 in 2022 to $541,200 in 2026; a 63% increase. Under the current tax rates, their annual bill would soar by nearly $3,000. They emailed their city council member, Tammi Thurm, pleading for a revenue‑neutral rate to cushion the blow.

“Such a large increase is very troubling for most homeowners, including those of us who are retired and living on a fixed income,” they wrote.

Thurm’s reply was sympathetic but misleading; “I will be supporting a decrease in rates to help offset some of the increases in valuation… but I don’t know if we will be able to get to revenue‑neutral. We may need a small increase in the net revenue number.”

That small increase, if it happens, will be paid largely by Guilford County’s low to middle income homeowners.

What Thurm didn’t tell them is since their home’s value increased by 63%, significantly more than the county average, they are still going to get a tax increase, as “revenue neutral” is a fiction in this revaluation cycle. Even if the county and city set a rate that collects the same total revenue as last year, the distribution of who pays has shifted dramatically. Most homeowners are being asked to subsidize six‑figure tax cuts for commercial properties whose values barely moved, or even declined.

The text of the response;

Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 6:16 AM Thurm, Tammi wrote:

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I will be supporting a decrease in rates to help offset some of the increases in valuation. Costs to the city have increased greatly, just as it has for our residents. We will need to take a hard look at our budgets, but I don’t know if we will be able to get to revenue-neutral. We may need a small increase in the net revenue number. I would encourage you to attend one of the upcoming public budget meetings. The District 5 meeting will be March 5th at Griffin Rec Center at 6pm. You are welcome to attend any of the meetings, you don’t have to attend the meeting in your district.

Thanks

Tammi Thurm
Greensboro City Council
District 5

“Revenue neutral” does not mean “impact neutral.” It means redistribution. Thurm’s reply was polite but evasive. Under a revenue‑neutral rate (estimated around $0.98 per $100 of assessed value), properties that appreciated less than the countywide average (roughly 42.5%) get tax cuts. Properties that appreciated more than average pay more.

The problem this cycle is the appreciation was not evenly distributed. Interest rate hikes crushed demand for high‑end homes and Covid hit commercial real estate while sending lower and middle‑priced homes soaring by 60-80% or more.

The United Health Care Building at 3803 North Elm Street is set for a revenue‑neutral $80,000 tax cut. The Wells Fargo Tower at 300 North Greene Street is going to get a $144,000 tax cut. In contrast, a Greensboro home which jumped dramatically, $253,900 to $460,400, an 81.3% increase, is projected to get a revenue‑neutral tax increase of about $900 to $1,100.

That $144,000 tax cut for the downtown office tower doesn’t disappear. It’s getting shifted directly onto the shoulders of homeowners whose “paper value” increased far above the average.

Thurm’s email suggested the city might need “a small increase in the net revenue number.” What she didn’t explain is that even without that increase, the system is already structured to deliver massive tax cuts to commercial properties and high end homes while raising taxes on everyone else.

She also didn’t mention the $2.2 million loophole drain. Guilford County and Greensboro lost $2.2 million in property tax revenue in 2025 because of the “Blue Ridge Loophole,” which allows for‑profit apartment complexes to claim tax exemptions meant for affordable housing. That gap must be filled, and homeowners are the ones filling it.

Guilford County has so far declined to release detailed breakdowns showing how value increases vary by price tier, neighborhood or property class; the public cannot see who is really being hit, protecting policymakers like Thurm from scrutiny.

“A Small Increase” Is a Tax Hike

Thurm’s phrase; “a small increase in the net revenue number” is political language designed to obscure the fact that if the city collects more total property tax revenue than last year, that’s a tax increase. For retirees on a fixed incomes, that “small increase” could mean hundreds of dollars added to their annual bills. For thousands of other homeowners whose values spiked, it means the same.

Meanwhile, the Wells Fargo Tower saves $144,000. United Health saves $80,000. A downtown commercial property that lost value saves $6,600.

When a constituent asks whether the city will pursue a revenue‑neutral rate, they deserve an honest answer. The public deserves to know that even a revenue‑neutral rate would still raise taxes on homes which appreciated far more than the average.

That the city is already considering going above revenue neutral compounds the burden.

Property values have risen 10 to 14 times faster than typical household income.

At the same time, essential costs have climbed far faster;

• Utilities (electric, gas, water): +40%

• Auto insurance: +50% or more

• Health insurance premiums; +20–30% (with deductibles spiking)

• Medicare Part B premiums (2000 → 2026); +346% (from $45.50 to $202.90/month)

• City of Greensboro budgets (FY2021 → FY2026); +38%; Thurm voted for them all.

• Guilford County budgets (FY2021 → FY2026); +31%

• Average rent (Greensboro, 2000 → 2026); +130% to +150%

• Modest home assessed value; $120,000 → $200,000; +66.7%

• Higher‑value home assessed value; $700,000 → $820,000; +17.1%

The modest home’s value rose nearly four times faster in percentage terms. Because property tax rates are set to raise a target amount of revenue, the distribution of the tax burden follows these percentages, not the dollar amounts.

Under a revenue‑neutral rate (estimated around $0.98 per $100), modest homeowners are seeing massive tax increases, while higher‑value homes may see tax cuts, even though both experienced significant dollar gains.

This is the redistribution officials like Tammi Thurm call “revenue neutral” but rarely explain.

When taxpayers ask for revenue neutrality, they’re asking for the system to treat them fairly. The data suggests the opposite.

A modest house rose from about $132,000 in 2025 to roughly $233,500 in 2026; a 76.9% increase that translates into a revenue‑neutral property tax hike of about $607. Meanwhile, a high‑end home on Country Club Drive saw a much smaller increase in value, rising from $1.94 million to $2.35 million, or 21.1%, which under the revenue‑neutral rate would actually lower the owner’s property taxes by around $4,251.

Share

The Squeeze on Renters

About half of Greensboro households rent. When landlords face higher property taxes, they pass the cost to tenants. A modest rental property that sees a $600 tax increase will likely see rent go up by at least $50 a month. For a family already struggling with rising costs for utilities, insurance, and healthcare, that can be the difference between staying in their home and being displaced.

Many landlords, especially those with older, substandard properties, may not bother to appeal inflated assessments. The cost gets passed on to tenants who are least able to afford it.

Tammi Thurm at a TREBIC Commercial Real Estate Lobbyist Gathering;

From the r/gso Redit thread;

She’s the first to say tax hikes incoming, other than Skip Alston on the Guilford County side. She voted for Kathy Manning and Randall Kaplan’s parking deck for their hotel which appears to be not happening, and she was their former CFO. She illegally voted money for a non-profit whose board she sits on. She let the Code enforcement division usurp the Housing Commission. She voted to raise fees and taxes for her entire tenure. Tammi Thurm is bought and paid for by commercial real estate interests. So yeah, not a fan, and neither should you or anyone else should be.

She also enabled Zack Matheny’s fraud upon city taxpayers, knowing what was going on since last spring. Voted to raise parking fees to pay the debt for the two new underutilized decks; one for her former bosses and the other for Roy Carroll.

What Happens If They Raise Rates Above Revenue Neutral?

If Guilford County or Greensboro decide to adopt a tax rate above revenue neutral, as Thurm’s email advocated, the regressive shift intensifies. The same redistribution happens, but now the total bill gets bigger for everyone, and the burden on homeowners compounds.

In 2022, after the last revaluation, Guilford County commissioners chose not to lower the rate to revenue neutral. Instead, they generated an estimated $92 million in additional annual revenue without most taxpayers understanding what happened. Many property owners saw tax bills rise by around 30%. The same thing could happen again, only this time, the increase would fall even more heavily on the middle and lower tiers of the housing market.

How a 20% Tax Increase Would Compound the Burden

Tammi Thurm’s February 2026 email did not specify is how large the increase might be. But if local leaders follow the pattern of 2022, the current revaluation cycle could produce an even sharper hike.

The modest house would see its tax increase double; from $607 under revenue‑neutral rates to $1,214 with the hike. By contrast, the Country Club Drive home would still see a tax cut, though smaller; about $3,400 off instead of $4,251. Under a 20% rate increase, the rental property could see a $1,200 tax hike, pushing monthly rent up by $100 or more. Renters, already squeezed by rising costs, bear the cost without any of the “paper wealth” homeowners theoretically gained.

The redistribution that is already baked into “revenue neutral” becomes a full‑scale shift of the tax burden from commercial and luxury properties onto working families and retirees.

Thurm’s email said the city would “need to take a hard look at our budgets.” But budgets are choices. Choosing to keep tax rates above revenue neutral, as the county did in 2022, was a choice.

What is missing is the choice to be honest with the people who is going to pay the bills. Tammi Thurm will decide whether her “small increase” is really a massive tax hike on most of the people she was elected to represent.

Whose side is she on? Thurm’s history of voting for property tax and utility (water, sewer, garbage and recycling) increases combined with her commercial real estate related campaign contributions and TREBIC event attendance record suggests she’s ventured into the dark side of the force.

The numbers already tell the story. The question is whether she will actually tell the truth.

City and county leaders can adopt a truly neutral rate, demand full transparency on who wins and who loses in this revaluation, close loopholes that bleed millions from the budget, and design targeted relief for homeowners and renters whose valuations exploded. Or they can pretend that “revenue neutral” and “a small increase” are just technical adjustments, while the people who keep this city running shoulder a growing share of the bill.

Related;

Disclaimer

This article is based on public records, including property tax data from Guilford County, email correspondence obtained through public records requests, and reports from credible news organizations (NC Newsline, Greensboro News & Record, WRAL, etc.). All property values, tax bills, and percentage changes cited are drawn from official county data as of March 2026.

Property tax assessments and exemption determinations are subject to change through the appeals process, which remains open until May 15, 2026. Final tax rates for fiscal year 2026–2027 have not yet been adopted by the Guilford County Board of Commissioners or the Greensboro City Council. The revenue‑neutral rate estimates used in this analysis are projections based on current data and may shift as new construction and other factors are finalized.

The analysis of tax impact distribution, including the concept of “reverse Robin Hood” and characterizations of policy choices, represents the opinion of the author and is intended to foster public discussion. The inclusion of specific properties and individuals is for illustrative purposes and does not imply wrongdoing or illegal activity.

All emails quoted are part of the public record. Council Member Tammi Thurm’s responses are presented in full context as provided.

This article is a work of investigative journalism and commentary. Readers are encouraged to verify data directly with the Guilford County Tax Department and to attend public budget hearings before the final tax rate is set.

Inflation expectations are spiking, gas prices are up about 45% in four months, financial markets are correcting and sovereign interest rates are rising. The immediate cause is the ongoing conflict in the Middle East; the Strait of Hormuz disruption, tanker flows halted and an 8 mb/d supply shock that the IEA called the largest in history. A large part of the world’s energy and food delivery infrastructure has been targeted by military action.

As of March 21, 2026 (roughly 3 weeks into the intensified phase of the conflict that began late February), the damage is a mix of direct physical hits, precautionary shutdowns and massive logistical paralysis.

Current Variables;

The Strait of Hormuz remains partially blocked, and tanker rerouting via East Africa and China’s overland pipelines has offset only a fraction of lost Gulf exports. IEA data last week confirmed an 8 mb/d shortfall. Markets are adjusting to what may be a semi‑permanent loss.

The U.S., China, and the EU are all releasing petroleum reserves, but depletion rates suggest these buffers can cover only 4–6 months under current draws. A coordinated global SPR refill may prove impossible.

Fertilizer ammonia (urea) prices are way up, and both Brazil and India have announced rationing of nitrogen imports. Qatar – Ras Laffan LNG hub (world’s largest): Extensive damage from Iranian missiles/drones. 17% of Qatar’s total LNG export capacity wiped out (12.8 million tons/year, repairs could take 3–5 years.), plus drops in condensate (24%), LPG (13%), etc...

Direct infrastructure attacks (not just Hormuz) shift the risk profile toward prolonged, asymmetric damage—making military “control of flows” even more central to preserving dollar/petrodollar stability.

Actively Gasoline rationing 3/30/2026:

• Bangladesh

• Sri Lanka

• Myanmar

• Localized India

Soft rationing / restrictions:

• Pakistan

• Philippines

• China (exports)

• South Korea

At risk / warning stage:

• Australia

• Southeast Asia broadly

• Europe

This is not a global rationing event yet; it’s a tiered rollout based on economic strength:

• Tier 1 (poorer importers): ration immediately

• Tier 2 (mid economies): restrict / subsidize

• Tier 3 (rich economies): delay using reserves

Even though reserves can stretch things:

• Around day 30–45 → global supply chains start breaking

• Around day 60 → major economies begin forced demand destruction

• Around day 90 → true global fuel scarcity hits everyone

FIRST TO FAIL (0–30 DAYS)

Profile:

• Almost total import dependence

• Minimal reserves

• Weak currencies / can’t outbid others

Countries:

• Bangladesh

• Sri Lanka

• Myanmar

• Parts of Pakistan

What happens:

• Fuel stations dry up first

• Black markets emerge immediately

• Power outages and transport collapse

These countries are already showing this behavior, so in a prolonged disruption, they don’t make it past ~2–4 weeks without severe breakdown.

SECOND WAVE (30–60 DAYS)

High-risk Asian importers with limited buffers.

Profile:

• Heavy dependence on Middle East oil

• Some reserves, but not large

• Industrial economies → high burn rate

Countries:

• Vietnam (≈85% Middle East crude dependence)

• Thailand

• Philippines

• Indonesia

What happens:

• Industrial shutdowns begin

• Export manufacturing slows or stops

• Governments restrict fuel (soft rationing → hard rationing)

These countries typically start breaking down around 30–50 days.

THIRD WAVE (45–75 DAYS)

Large economies with moderate reserves.

Profile:

• Significant import reliance

• Active diversification efforts

• Some strategic reserves

Countries:

• India (~60 days secured supply right now)

• South Korea

• Japan

What happens:

Initially stable due to reserves + contracts

Then:

• Price spikes

• Industrial rationing

• Possible public fuel limits

These countries don’t “run out” quickly, but economic activity drops sharply by ~60 days.

FOURTH WAVE (60–90 DAYS)

Wealthy importers with strong buffers.

Profile:

• Large strategic reserves

• Government intervention capacity

• Ability to outbid poorer nations

Countries:

• European Union (Germany, France, UK, etc.)

• Australia

• What happens:

• Heavy subsidies + reserve releases

No immediate shortages—but:

• Severe inflation

• Industrial curtailment (chemicals, transport, aviation)

• True shortages likely after ~75–90 days if disruption continues.

LAST TO FAIL / MOST RESILIENT (90+ DAYS)

Profile:

• Massive reserves or domestic production

• Diversified supply chains

Countries:

• China (~100–300 days depending on scenario)

• United States

• Russia

• Middle East exporters (except war zones)

What happens:

These countries don’t run out—they:

• Redirect supply

• Benefit geopolitically

• The U.S. in particular is relatively insulated due to domestic production

Share

Consider what could happen if 25%, then 50% and then 75% declines in energy supply occur. Food production, mortality, long‑term population etc... It’s a stress test of our civilization’s most critical vulnerability

Public Integrity Watch ran this information though multiple AI models.

A 25% drop in global fossil fuel production over three years would be an order of magnitude larger than the 1973 OPEC embargo. It would mean losing roughly 25–27 million barrels per day of oil equivalent from today’s ~100–108 mb/d baseline.

Immediate effects;

• Oil prices would likely settle in the $150–$300+/bbl range, with rationing spikes higher.

• US gasoline would hit $6–$12+/gallon—far above the current $3.90 driven by the Iran war.

• Headline inflation would surge 6–12%+ annually for years, as energy feeds directly into CPI and indirectly into everything else (transport, food, manufacturing). Central banks would face a brutal choice: hike rates into a recession (stagflation) or let inflation run.

The most dangerous channel runs through food.

Modern agriculture runs on fossil fuels—diesel for tractors, natural gas for nitrogen fertilizer, petroleum for pesticides and long‑distance logistics. A 25% energy supply shock would multiply fertilizer costs by 50–200%+. Crop yields in intensive systems could drop 10–25%+ cumulatively.

Fossil fuels pump groundwater for irrigation. A supply shock doesn’t just cut fertilizer — it cuts irrigation in places like the Central Valley, the Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the North China Plain.

Synthetic nitrogen (natural gas) feeds roughly half the planet.

The result would be a global hunger crisis. Excess deaths from undernutrition and related causes would likely climb into the millions per year, concentrated in import‑dependent regions of Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Wealthier nations would face deep recessions and social strain, but the Global South would bear the heaviest human toll.

Natural gas is the primary feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer (Haber‑Bosch). A 25% decline in gas production alone would directly crater fertilizer availability, independent of oil price effects.

It’s also the marginal fuel for power generation in many regions, meaning electricity prices would surge in tandem.

Net exporters (US, Canada, Saudi, Russia) would see windfall revenues initially, though their own economies would still suffer from global demand destruction.

Highly import‑dependent industrial nations (EU, Japan, India) would face balance‑of‑payments crises, currency collapses, and potential sovereign debt defaults.

The US is now a net exporter, but its own food system remains heavily diesel‑ and fertilizer‑dependent, so it wouldn’t be immune.

At a 50% production decline, we’re talking about the collapse of the synthetic nitrogen cycle—the very foundation that allows roughly 40–50% of the world’s population to be fed.

The closest real-world analog is Cuba’s “Special Period” after 1991, when the Soviet collapse cut the island’s oil imports by 50% almost overnight. Cuban agriculture collapsed, caloric intake fell sharply, and the population lost an average of 10–15 pounds in two years. Cuba survived partly through forced localization of food production and urban gardening.

If relatively permanent, short to medium‑term excess mortality could reach hundreds of millions to low billions. Starvation, disease, and conflict over remaining resources would dominate the first 10–20 years.

Long‑term equilibrium would likely stabilize at a population level sustainable with low‑energy agriculture, localized production, and whatever modern knowledge can be retained with lower fossil inputs.

Most analyses (including those by Vaclav Smil and ecological footprint studies) put that number somewhere between 2 and 4 billion people, with a central estimate around 3–3.5 billion. That’s a 60% reduction from today’s 8.2 billion.

The numbers are best‑estimate ranges, not predictions. These are plausible outcomes based on historical analogs and biophysical constraints, not deterministic forecasts.

A 75% decline would strip the industrial system down to its barest bones. Oil, gas, and coal combined would fall to ~25 mb/d oil‑equivalent. At that level, even the most optimistic adaptation scenarios (local renewables, nuclear retention, massive dietary shifts) cannot sustain current numbers.

The long‑term carrying capacity of the planet without fossil fuels—even with retained knowledge—is generally estimated between 0.5 and 2 billion people. A realistic midpoint is 1–1.5 billion.

The gap between where we are and where we would be is measured in billions of lives and the wholesale restructuring of how we grow food, move goods, and organize societies.

If those who control the world’s reserve currency understood the risks, why would they military react first?

The US dollar’s reserve status is propped up by the petrodollar system—oil priced and traded in dollars, with surplus petrodollars recycled into US Treasuries. Disruptions to oil flows, or moves to price oil in other currencies, directly threaten that system.

The Carter Doctrine (1980) codified this: any attempt by an outside power to control the Persian Gulf would be treated as an assault on US vital interests, to be repelled “by any means necessary.”

In a severe energy‑decline scenario, a military response isn’t about producing energy—it’s about controlling remaining flows, securing chokepoints (like the Strait of Hormuz, through which ~20% of global oil transits), and preventing rival powers (China, Russia) from locking up supplies in non‑dollar denominated deals.

Military power buys time. It preserves the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege”; the ability to print the world’s paper/electronic reserve currency in exchange for real resources.

When the system is under existential threat, the first responders are not engineers, but carrier strike groups.

The Iran conflict, the gas price spikes, the inflation expectations; all of these are microcosms of what a larger, sustained decline would look like.

A 25% decline over three years would not be a manageable transition. It would be a catastrophe measured in recessions, hunger, and millions of excess deaths. At 50% or more, the very concept of “population” becomes a question of what the planet can actually sustain without the fossil subsidy that built the modern world.

This is not an argument against decarbonization. It is an argument for treating the risk of rapid supply contraction with the seriousness it deserves—by accelerating alternatives, building resilience into food systems, and ensuring that the inevitable end of the fossil era is managed rather than stumbled into.

Implications

If a 25–50% fossil fuel decline is not an abstract “what if” but a plausible stress‑case, then the current silence around it is itself a policy failure. Renewables cannot bridge this gap on the timescales involved. Solar and wind have energy densities orders of magnitude below fossil fuels, and scaling them requires copper, lithium, cobalt, and rare earths whose own supply chains take a decade or more to build out.

Treat fertilizer and food logistics as strategic infrastructure. Natural gas for nitrogen production and diesel for planting/harvesting deserve the same security attention as oil reserves.

Model the second‑order effects—not just GDP, but excess mortality, refugee flows, and the risk that the military response (Carter Doctrine) becomes the default because civilian alternatives weren’t scaled in time.

Energy volatility is no longer a sector play; it’s a systemic risk. In a severe decline scenario, traditional diversification (stocks, bonds, gold) may fail simultaneously, as the 2026 market whiplash already hints.

Food and agriculture assets will be repriced by their exposure to fuel and fertilizer costs. Long‑term value may shift toward localized, low‑input production—but the transition will be brutal.

Most sulfur (up about 98% YOY) is a byproduct of oil and gas refining. Over 80–90% of global elemental sulfur is converted into sulfuric acid for the manufacturing of fertilizers, chemical processing, and metal refining.

The grocery store is an oil pipeline in disguise.

The hypotheticals above are not predictions. The fact that a 25% production cut would trigger a humanitarian crisis while our current energy and agricultural systems remain almost entirely dependent on fossil inputs, suggests we are living with a level of risk we have not seriously confronted.

Share

Additional information;

In the 1970s, the US and Saudi Arabia struck a deal: Saudi oil would be priced in dollars, and Saudi surpluses would be recycled into US Treasuries and Western financial assets, while the US provided security guarantees and arms.

Other OPEC producers broadly followed, so crude benchmarks (Brent, WTI, Dubai, etc.) and futures markets in New York and London all settled in dollars.

This gives the US “exorbitant privilege”: it can run large deficits and print the reserve currency that everyone needs for energy and trade, while also wielding sanctions via the dollar‑centric banking system.

Several groups have clear incentives to reduce oil’s dependence on the dollar:

Russia

Under heavy US and EU sanctions, it has strong motives to avoid dollar‑clearing systems and US jurisdiction. Has pushed ruble, yuan, and local‑currency settlements for its oil and gas, especially with China, India, and other non‑Western buyers.

China

World’s largest oil importer; paying in dollars exposes it to US financial power and sanctions risk. Promotes yuan‑denominated oil contracts (the “petroyuan”) via the Shanghai futures market and bilateral deals, and experiments with cross‑border payment systems outside SWIFT.

Strategically, a larger yuan role in energy trade helps build a parallel financial sphere less dependent on the US.

Iran, Venezuela, and other sanctioned states

Already pushed out of the dollar system, they trade oil via barter, euros, yuan, rupees, and local currencies, often at discounts.

Their goal is survival and sanctions evasion, but the side effect is incremental erosion of dollar exclusivity in oil.

Two things are happening at the same time:

Wars over physical control of flows (chokepoints, fields, pipelines, shipping lanes). That’s the Strait of Hormuz situation: carrier groups, missiles, drones, attacks on tankers and infrastructure.

A slower, parallel struggle over who gets to denominate and clear those flows (dollars vs alternatives like yuan/BRICS/local currencies).

The shooting war is the “hard‑power” layer of the same contest:

For the US, keeping oil flowing through chokepoints in a way that still settles largely in dollars is about preserving its ability to convert paper/electronic claims (Treasuries, bank deposits) into real resources.

Militaries move first to secure the spigots (straits, fields, terminals).

Finance/FX follows, trying either to keep the dollar oil system intact or, from the other side, to carve out non‑dollar corridors while the US is overstretched.

Three‑layer picture of the current moment:

• Kinetic: who can sink whose tankers and shut whose pipelines.

• Monetary: whose currency energy gets priced in.

• Demographic/food: who can keep their population fed as the energy base destabilizes.

Beyond fuel scarcity, the knock‑on effects of constrained petrochemical manufacturing (plastics, rubber, lubricants) would ground much of the transport sector—even electric vehicles depend on fossil‑based supply chains for tires, seals, and resins.

Desalination, wastewater treatment, and pumping are energy‑intensive. A sustained 25–50% supply contraction could cut off clean water to hundreds of millions, accelerating disease and migration independently of food shortages.

As food and fuel prices rise, expect a chain reaction of failed states, internal repression, and regional wars. Energy scarcity often turns economics into security policy almost overnight (e.g., 1970s oil shocks triggering coups and revolutions).

Several governments are treating small modular reactors as a “second bridge.” The U.S., South Korea, and France have emergency fast‑tracking underway, but lead times remain 5–8 years.

Interest rates have jumped as energy importers scramble for dollars to cover import bills, pushing several emerging market currencies down relatively severely.

In a deeper decline scenario, this dynamic would not be a side effect; it would be one of the primary kill chains, as dollar shortages force import cutbacks that accelerate the humanitarian impact.

Related;

There’s a phrase local governments lean on during revaluation years; “revenue neutral.” It sounds harmless, technical and fair. Same total tax collected, just a different rate.

The reality is revenue neutral doesn’t mean impact neutral. It means redistribution. In Greensboro and Guilford County, that redistribution is shaping up to regressively hit lower and middle-income homeowners and tenants the hardest while delivering quiet, often substantial tax cuts to large commercial properties and luxury mansions.

Exhibit A; United Health Care Building; $80,000 Tax Cut Incoming

United Health Care / Lake Jeanette LO1 (3803 N Elm St)

• 2025 Value; $24.6M

• 2026 Value; $27.5M

• Increase; +11.7%

• Countywide average; ~42.5%

The gap is the thing.

Under a revenue-neutral rate (estimated around ~$0.98 per $100);

• 2025 Tax Bill; $351,052

• Projected 2026 Bill; ~$271,000

• Change; -$80,000 (-22%)

It’s not a loophole. It’s how the system was designed. If your property increased less than average, your tax burden goes down. If it increased more than average, you make up the difference. When interest rates rose, the housing market didn’t just “slow down”; demand shifted downward. That shift is why lower and mid-priced homes saw explosive value increases while higher-end and commercial properties lagged.

Exhibit B; A Homeowner Paying the Difference, as this home appreciated far above average, the owner doesn’t benefit from the lower rate, they get hit with a higher bill to offset properties like United Health.

Example; A Greensboro Home

• 2025 Value; $253,900

• 2026 Value; $460,400

• Increase; +81.3% (nearly double the average)

Revenue-neutral impact;

• 2025 Tax Bill; $3,562

• Projected 2026 Bill; ~$4,500–$4,700

• Increase; +$900 to $1,100

• Percent Increase; ~25–30%

Same system. Opposite outcome;

At ~3% interest, a buyer might afford a $450,000 home

At ~7% interest, that same buyer may only afford ~$300,000–$325,000

Nothing about their income changed. Interest rates did the damage and Guilford County’s Tax Department has declined to release detailed breakdowns allowing meaningful analysis of how the tax burden is shifting. Specifically, the county has not provided median or distributional data showing how property value increases vary by price tier, neighborhood or property class.

Share

Exhibit C; Downtown Tower; Six-Figure Tax Cuts

Wells Fargo Building (300 N Greene St)

• 2025 Value; $34.0M

• 2026 Value; $37.1M (which it probably couldn’t sell for as office building values are crashing across the country)

• Increase; +9.09%

• Far below the ~42.5% benchmark.

Revenue-neutral impact;

• 2025 Tax Bill; $507,620

• Projected 2026 Bill; ~$363,476

• Change; -$144,144 (-28.4%)

A six-figure tax cut.

And where does that $144,000 go?

It doesn’t disappear. It gets shifted. A simple countywide average; ~42.5% isn’t transparency. It’s a smokescreen. Averages flatten reality, hiding whether;

• Lower value homes saw 70-100% increases

• Mid tier neighborhoods absorbed the largest jumps

• Commercial and high-end private properties lagged behind

Without median increases, quartile breakdowns or class-specific data, the public is left guessing about who is really being hit and how hard.

Lack of clarity benefits the system. When the full picture is hidden, the impact becomes harder to trace and easier to defend, because once we see the distribution, the pattern becomes obvious; the burden is not shared evenly. It shifts downward.

Exhibit D; Declining Commercial Properties Win

230 S Elm St (Downtown Greensboro Inc. Chairman Stu Nichols Commercial Property)

• 2025 Value; $1,219,300

• 2026 Value; $1,177,900

• Change; -3.4%

Revenue-neutral impact;

• 2025 Tax Bill; $18,204

• Projected 2026 Bill: ~$11,543

• Change; -$6,661 (-36.6%)

Properties which lost value receive tax cuts, while homeowners who gained “paper value” in a volatile housing market are asked to cover the gap, and our elected leaders don’t want to say so. Once the redistribution is clearly visible, it’s no longer a technical outcome of a formula.

It’s a policy choice. That’s why the absence of detail matters. Policymakers are being protected from scrutiny. It protects the narrative of “fairness,” because averages sound balanced even when what actually happens isn’t. It blunts public reaction and protects the outcome, as a diffuse, unclear shift is far less likely to trigger public backlash than a clearly documented one.

Clarity would change that overnight.

The Mechanism; How the Burden Shifts

This isn’t accidental, it’s mathematical. The county resets values. They lower the tax rate to keep total revenue the same, except this time the greatest burden appears to be at the bottom instead of the top, and the powers that be don’t want to tell the truth.

Properties below the average increase (~42.5%) pay less. Properties above it pay more.

In this cycle;

• Commercial properties (income-based, slower growth); Win

• High value properties with modest appreciation; Win

• Working and middle-class homes (market-driven spikes); Lose

The Reality They Won’t Say Out Loud

A family in a modest home that jumped from $250,000 to $460,000 didn’t suddenly become wealthier in any meaningful sense. They didn’t realize that gain. They didn’t sell. But under revenue neutral, they are treated as if they did and taxed accordingly.

Meanwhile, a downtown office tower that “probably couldn’t sell for $25 million”, benefits from a valuation system with a tax cut.

This is not a story about rising taxes. It’s a story about who pays them.

Under a revenue-neutral model this time;

• A homeowner pays +$1,000, or ~25–30% more

• United Health saves -$80,000, or -22% less

• A downtown tower saves -$144,000, or -28.4% less (probably more should they appeal)

Unless policymakers acknowledge that shift and act on it, working families are going to underwrite tax breaks they never voted for and will never benefit from.

One of the most telling parts of this entire revaluation cycle isn’t just the outcome, it’s what the public can’t see.

Guilford County has declined to release detailed breakdowns that would allow meaningful analysis of how the tax burden is shifting. Specifically, the county has not provided median or distributional data showing how property value increases vary by price tier, neighborhood, or property class.

That matters.

A simple countywide average ~42.5% isn’t transparency. It’s a smokescreen.

Averages flatten reality. They hide whether;

• Lower-value homes saw 70-100% increases

• Mid-tier neighborhoods absorbed the largest jumps

• Commercial and high-end properties lagged far behind

Without median increases, quartile breakdowns or class-specific data, the public is left guessing about who is really being hit and how hard. And that lack of clarity benefits the system.

Guilford County uses the data to validate revaluations and model tax impacts. Choosing not to release it isn’t about capability, it’s about control of the narrative.

If Guilford County and any City within wants to claim this process is fair, the solution is simple;

• Release the full dataset.

• Show the median increases by value tier.

• Break out residential vs. commercial.

• Let the numbers speak.

Until then, taxpayers are being asked to accept “revenue neutral” on faith while the evidence suggests something very different is happening underneath.

And If They Raise Taxes Instead?

Everything outlined so far assumes a revenue-neutral rate, that the county and cities lower the tax rate to collect the same total revenue as last year.

But they don’t have to.

If Guilford County or Greensboro decide to raise the rate above revenue neutral, the dynamic doesn’t change, it intensifies.

The same redistribution still happens;

• Properties below the average increase still benefit

• Properties above the average still carry more of the load

But now, the total bill gets bigger for everyone, and the burden on homeowners compounds.

In a system where lower and middle income properties already saw the largest valuation spikes, they are going to pay more… on a larger share… of a bigger bill.

It’s Time for a Pause

Before a single rate is adopted, revenue neutral or higher, there’s a more fundamental question that hasn’t been answered;

Do we actually understand who this revaluation is impacting and how?

Right now, the answer is no.

The data needed to evaluate the distribution of increases hasn’t been fully released.

A Pause Isn’t Radical, It’s Responsible

A temporary pause on implementing new rates would allow time to;

• Analyze impacts by income level, value tier and property class

• Identify distortions caused by the interest rate shock and demand shift

• Correct obvious imbalances before they’re locked in

Because once the rate is set, the consequences are real and immediate. Bills go out. Appeals close. And homeowners are left dealing with increases that may have been avoidable.

What’s missing isn’t tools. It’s willingness.

This revaluation cycle is not happening in a normal market. It’s the product of;

• Historic interest rate swings

• Artificial demand shifts

• Uneven appreciation across property classes

Freezing that moment in time and building a tax system on top of it without full transparency is a mistake.

The data suggests that perception isn’t imagined.

Since around 2020, several major trends have unfolded at the same time;

• Local government budgets have grown significantly

• Property values of lower and mid priced homes have increased sharply through revaluations, providing tax cuts for many at the top

• Utility and insurance costs climbed

• Median incomes have risen only modestly

• Local government spending has grown substantially

The City of Greensboro’s total budget has expanded considerably over the past five years;

• FY 2020–2021: about $602 million

• FY 2025–2026: about $830 million

That represents an increase of roughly $228 million, or about 38%.

Guilford County’s spending;

• FY 2020–2021: about $647 million

• FY 2025–2026: about $847 million

About $200 million, or roughly 31%.

The scale of the increase is notable when compared to how incomes haven’t grown over the same period while property values have surged

Guilford County’s 2022 revaluation saw residential property values increase roughly 30-35% on average. Early estimates suggest the 2026 revaluation may push values another 40-45% or more higher compared with the previous cycle. Guilford County’s Tax Department has so far declined to release detailed data.

Median Home Price;

• 2000; ~$112,695

• 2025/2026; $308,000 - $350,000

Increase; ~173% to 210%

Average Rent (Greensboro)

• 2000; ~$550 - $600 (est.)

• 2026; $1,381 - $1,426

Increase; ~130% to 150%

For most homeowners and renters at the bottom and lower middle, reassessed property values appear to be taking the hit to make up for the lower appreciation of more expensive housing after interest rates rose, meaning taxes and rent may be dramatically higher than it was only a few years ago for those with the least chance of being able to afford it;

• Income; inflation-adjusted (real) income growth ~5-6% growth

• Property values; ~70% nominal growth

Property values rose roughly 10-14× faster than typical household income. Nominal income grew ~26%, but inflation ate up ~20% of that, leaving only ~5-6% in real purchasing power gains, especially for homeowners on fixed incomes, even if their home’s market value has technically increased.

While tax rates can be adjusted to keep revenue “neutral,” tax bills can still change depending on how an individual property’s value changed relative to the county average. Guilford County’s Tax Department declined to release the median percentage increase in property values by price tier, data that could help show how the revaluation affected lower and higher valued homes differently.

Based on available assessments and market trends, the median would likely show that lower-valued homes experienced substantially larger percentage increases than higher valued homes, meaning middle and lower income homeowners may face disproportionately higher property tax burdens.

Share

This comes on top of rising costs for utilities, insurance and healthcare, which have all climbed far faster than incomes since 2020. Combined with the rapid growth in city and county budgets, the effect is a widening gap between what residents earn and what they must pay to keep their homes and cover basic expenses.

The revaluation increases have not been evenly distributed

One of the most important and least discussed aspects of the recent revaluations is how unevenly property values have increased across the market.

In many cases, lower valued homes have increased by much larger percentages than higher valued homes.

For example, a modest home that was previously assessed at $120,000 might now be valued at $200,000 or more. That kind of jump represents a very large percentage increase.

Meanwhile, a higher value home might have increased from $700,000 to $820,000, a significant dollar increase, but a much smaller percentage change.

Because property tax systems are based on relative changes in value, this kind of uneven appreciation can shift more of the tax burden toward the lower and middle portions of the housing market.

Homeowners closer to the bottom or middle of the income ladder will likely see larger percentage increases in assessed value than homeowners at the top.

At the same time, many of the everyday expenses that households cannot easily avoid have also increased.

Since 2020;

• Utilities (electric, gas and water combined) have risen about 40%

• Water and sewer rates have increased roughly 20-25%

• Auto insurance premiums have climbed 50% or more in many cases

• Health insurance premiums have increased 20-30% and more as deductibles spiked

These are costs households typically must pay regardless of income.

Income growth has been much slower

Median household income in Guilford County has increased only modestly since 2020. Typical household income has risen by only a few thousand dollars during that time; roughly 5-6% overall.

• Median = typical household

• Average = mathematical average (skewed by high earners or fewer, more expensive homes)

Again, Guilford County’s Tax Department won’t release the raw data and hasn’t even provided the median numbers.

Many households face rising costs for housing, insurance, utilities and healthcare while incomes have grown much more slowly, within a property tax system where lower-value homes may be appreciating faster than higher-value ones as incomes didn’t rise at the same pace.

• Medicare Part B standard monthly premiums have risen significantly since 2000, increasing from $45.50 to $202.90 by 2026.

• Worker contributions for family coverage have jumped from $1,619 in 2000 to $6,850 in 2025.

• While overall medical care prices rose 121% since 2000, general food and service inflation climbed about 86%.

Guilford County risks becoming a place where long-time residents can no longer afford the homes and neighborhoods they helped build. The question now is whether local leaders will act before more families are priced out, taxed out or simply pushed out of the communities they call home.

Related;

Subscribe now

Officials often describe the process as “revenue neutral.”

Sounds reassuring; it suggests taxes will stay roughly the same.

But revenue neutral doesn’t mean everyone’s tax bill stays the same.

It means the total amount of tax collected stays the same while the burden shifts between property owners.

And in Greensboro, early examples suggest something surprising is happening;

Some of the city’s most expensive homes may receive major tax cuts, while some modest homes could see dramatic increases.

When interest rates went up, affordability drove more buyers to lower and mid-priced homes, inflating values the most. The owners, who haven’t sold or realized a dime of profit, face the steepest tax hikes. As lower valued home values grew much faster as interest rates rose, its share of the tax base increased significantly, leading to a massive tax increase for homeowners and renters most likely to be not able to absorb the spike.

The Pattern

The math behind revaluations is simple.

If your property value increased less than the countywide average (42.5%), your taxes likely go down under a revenue-neutral rate.

If your value increased more than the average, your taxes likely go up.

Looking at real properties across Greensboro reveals a striking pattern.

Many high-value homes saw increases far below the county average, while some lower-value homes saw values rise substantially.

Some Expensive Homes Could See Large Tax Cuts';

Carlisle Rd; Greensboro 27408

• Value increase: 8.16%

• Current tax bill: $80,400

• Estimated revenue-neutral bill: $61,050

• Tax cut: $19,350 (24%)

Sunset Dr; Greensboro 27408

• Value increase: 9.47%

• Current tax bill: $40,195

• Estimated revenue-neutral bill: $30,891

• Tax cut: $9,304 (23%)

Briarcliff Rd; Greensboro 27408

• Value increase: 5.7%

• Current tax bill: $36,825

• Estimated revenue-neutral bill: $27,328

• Tax cut: $9,497 (25.8%)

Country Club Dr; Greensboro 27408

• Value increase: 21.07%

• Tax cut: $9,796 (15%)

Hood Pl; Greensboro 27408

• Value increase: 27.6%

• Tax cut: $3,444 (10.4%)

Even homes that rose closer to the average still see reductions.

Wentworth Dr; Greensboro 27408

• Current tax bill: $26,030

• Estimated bill: $24,127

• Tax cut: $1,903 (7.3%)

Some Homes Would See Little Change

Woodland Dr; Greensboro 27408

• Current tax bill: $15,318

• Estimated bill: $15,285

• Change: basically zero

But Some Modest Homes Could See Major Tax Increases

The flip side of revenue neutrality is that homes with larger-than-average value increases absorb more of the tax burden.

Kemp Rd W; Greensboro 27410

• Old value: $706,800

• New value: $1,353,800

• Increase: 91.5%

• Current tax bill: $9,916

• Estimated new bill: $13,335

• Tax increase: $3,419 (34.5%)

Cone Blvd; Greensboro 27408

• Old value: $176,500

• New value: $449,500

• Increase: 154.7%

• Current tax bill: $2,476

• Estimated increase: about $1,952

• Roughly a 79% tax increase

Wanda Dr; Greensboro 27408

• Old value: $123,700

• New value: $305,800

• Increase: 147%

• Current tax bill: $1,736

• Estimated increase: about $1,276

• Roughly a 73% tax increase

What “Revenue Neutral” Actually Means

Revenue neutral doesn’t mean neutral for everyone.

It simply keeps total tax revenue the same.

Who is set up to pay shifted dramatically.

If high-value homes rise less than average while lower-value homes rise more, the tax burden moves downward.

Revaluations are supposed to reflect market values.

But when a revaluation produces 20–25% tax cuts for some multi-million-dollar homes while modest homes face 30–80% increases, it raises serious questions about fairness, methodology and timing.

Share

A Pause May Be Necessary

Before these new values are used to set tax bills, local leaders should consider a temporary moratorium on implementing the revaluation.

A pause would allow;

• A full review of the valuation results

• Investigation of major outliers

• More time for homeowners to appeal

So far Guilford County has not released the data since being asked in mid February, and Greensboro’s budget team hasn’t reviewed it, per Assistant Manager Larry Davis and Budget Director Jon Decker.

Without a review, many Greensboro residents could face sudden tax increases of thousands of dollars, while others receive substantial reductions.

A non-transparent scheme shifting the tax burden this dramatically on Greensboro and Guilford County’s lowest income residents deserves careful scrutiny before it takes effect.

Related;

Subscribe now

Disclaimer: The calculations and examples in this article are estimates based on publicly available property data and assumed revenue-neutral tax rates. They are intended solely for informational and illustrative purposes. Actual property tax bills will depend on final tax rates adopted by local governments, individual property appeals, exemptions, and other factors. Readers should consult official county records or tax professionals for precise tax calculations.

As property values didn’t rise equally, the new rate is a “cut” for those whose more expensive homes appreciated less than average.

For everyone else, tax bills are going up under a revenue neutral revaluation outcome.

At revenue neutral, Fawnbrook and Vernon Street face tax increases of 21-24%, while the higher value Country Club Drive get's a 15% tax cut. The reassessment, in effect, shifts a greater share of Greensboro and Guilford County's tax burden onto those least able to absorb it.

Why? Vertical Inequity; When interest rates went up, affordability drove more buyers to lower and mid-priced homes, inflating values the most. The owners, who haven’t sold or realized a dime of profit, face the steepest tax hikes. Fawnbrook Drive appreciated 76.9%, far exceeding the implied average of roughly 42.5%. As lower valued home values grew much faster as interest rates rose, its share of the tax base increased significantly, leading to a massive tax increase for a homeowner most likely not able to absorb the spike.

Share

The burden is being shifted from the wealthy to those of more moderate means. Country Club Drive’s home (Louis DeJoy & Aldona Wos) only went up 21.1% compared to approximate 42.5% average. High-value homes which appreciated less than average, (like the Greensboro Sports Foundation CEO Richard Beard’s Round Hill Rd home), should see tax reductions if both Greensboro and Guilford County keep incoming taxes at the same amount as last year under the anticipated revenue neutral rate numbers.

Taxing the Unrealized Wealth of the Middle and Lower Classes; Homeowners with sharp paper gains will be forced to pay more. The bill increases without regard for income, placing a heavy burden on families who are suddenly “house rich but cash poor”, ignoring the ability for lower income residents and seniors to absorb the increased taxes to offset the wealth tax breaks.

It’s a reverse Robin Hood; The bottom and middle are going to subsidize the top. Higher-valued homes with modest appreciation will see their taxes fall or stay flat while working-class neighborhoods foot the bill, along with increased homeowners insurance premiums and escrow payments, compounding the financial pressure.

About 50% of households in Greensboro are rentals. When landlords get hit, they pass the cost to tenants. If the Farmbrook home is a rental, the landlord’s tax bill goes up $607, and raises rent by at least $50+/month to cover the cost. Even if a rental property is wildly over-assessed, many landlords won’t appeal if there’s too much to fix, so higher costs for substandard properties are passed on to many unlikely to be able to afford the increases.

Revaluation Driven Tax Increases Function as a Tax on Unrealized Gains

Revenue-neutral or not, when revaluations produce large spikes for certain homeowners, the practical effect is the same; government is taxing equity that exists only on paper. Our elected leaders should at least explain why a retired homeowner on Social Security should owe more.

Stealth Tax Increases

In 2022, after property values in Guilford County increased by roughly 25-30% during revaluation, Guilford County’s Commissioners chose not to lower the property tax rate to a revenue-neutral level. By keeping the same rate, the county generated approximately $92 million in additional annual revenue compared to what a neutral adjustment would have produced. Greensboro adjusted its rate higher than neutral as well, and many property owners saw tax bills increase by around 30% in 2022-23, purposefully obscured by the mechanics of revaluation.

A 10% rate hike wouldn’t just add a little to everyone’s bill; it compounds the pain for those already getting hit hardest. Dejoy’s increase would still be a $4,251 tax cut. Richard Beard’s goes from -$258 to +$416. But the Fawnbrook Drive home, already facing a $607 increase under revenue neutral, gets pushed to the brink at $920 more per year, an extra $77/month increase for a homeowner or a renter with lower income. That’s not shared sacrifice, it shifts the heaviest burden onto those least able to afford it.

Let’s not let it happen again

If a stock goes up in value, you don’t owe taxes until you sell it. If your retirement account grows, the IRS doesn’t send you a bill just because the market had a good year. But if your home value rises on paper, the county and cities can immediately raise your tax bill even though you haven’t made a dime.

In Guilford County, a 70-year-old widow still living in the home she shared with her husband. The house isn’t paid off ; she still carries a mortgage. Her income is Social Security, and she works a small part-time job to keep up with monthly bills. Last year, her home was taxed on a value of $246,400 and her county bill was $1,799.95.

After revaluation, the assessed value jumped to $383,500; a 55% increase, well above the approximate county average of 42.5%. Even if commissioners adopt a revenue-neutral rate, her bill would still rise to about $1,965, roughly 9% more. If Guilford County approves a 10% increase above revenue neutral, as a tax hike has been forewarned by some commissioners, her bill would climb to about $2,164, more than $360 higher than last year, a roughly 20% jump.

Because she has a mortgage, that increase doesn’t just show up once a year; it hits her monthly escrow payment. And as some values rise, so does homeowners insurance, pushing that escrow payment even higher.

She doesn’t want to sell her home. She didn’t get a raise, yet her monthly housing cost goes up anyway, not because her income improved, but because the paper value of her home did.

She hasn’t sold it. She hasn’t realized any gain. But her tax bill jumps hundreds, because of “market appreciation” she hasn’t realized.

• That increase isn’t based on income.

• It isn’t based on ability to pay.

• It isn’t based on improvements.

• It’s based entirely on a paper gain.

That’s a tax on unrealized wealth, which in the case of private residential properties, is shelter.

Here’s the mayor of Greensboro’s house, my house, and another across town;

“Revenue-neutral” only offsets the average increase. Properties that went up far more than the average end up paying a much larger dollar and percentage increase.

Share

Meanwhile;

• Larger homes with smaller relative increases (like the 3,758 sq ft property) barely see their bills rise.

• If the average is about 42.5%, many, likely higher valued homes, are going to see a fall in value, as in a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

• Mid-sized homes like mine take a moderate hit, slightly above average.

This is a classic example of vertical inequity in property tax revaluations;

• Lower-priced, previously undervalued homes can get hit the hardest.

• Higher-priced homes often see only minor increases, even if their nominal values are huge.

• Landlords pass the tax increases on to their tenants.

It shifts the burden downward, despite the “neutral” label.

Despite a “revenue-neutral” valuation adjustment by Greensboro and Guilford County, the 2026 revaluation reveals a stark reality; homeowners with smaller or previously undervalued properties are facing the largest tax increases, while larger or already high-value homes will likely see only modest changes.

For retirees, long-time homeowners and working families in appreciating neighborhoods, it can feel like a slow squeeze; pay more every year or eventually cash out and move.

Revenue-neutral or not, when revaluations produce large spikes for certain homeowners, the practical effect is the same; government is taxing equity that exists only on paper.

If policymakers want to defend that system, they should at least acknowledge what it is, and explain why a retired homeowner on Social Security should owe more taxes simply because a black box says her house is worth more this year than last.

Related;

The Mayor of Greensboro’s house, my house and another I ran into.

“Revenue-neutral” only offsets the average increase. Properties that went up far more than the average end up paying a much larger dollar and percentage increase.

Meanwhile;

• Larger homes with smaller relative increases (like the 3,758 sq ft property) barely see their bills rise.

• Mid-sized homes like mine take a moderate hit, slightly above average.

This is a classic example of vertical inequity in property tax revaluations;

• Lower-priced, previously undervalued homes can get hit the hardest.

• Higher-priced homes often see only minor increases, even if their nominal values are huge.

It shifts the burden downward, despite the “neutral” label.

Despite a “revenue-neutral” valuation adjustment by Greensboro and Guilford County, the 2026 revaluation reveals a stark reality; homeowners with smaller or previously undervalued properties are facing the largest tax increases, while larger or already high-value homes will likely see only modest changes. In practical terms, this means that those least able to absorb rising costs are paying the steepest share of the tax burden. The uneven nature of these increases underscores the urgent need for transparency, accountability, and a revaluation process that ensures all residents are treated fairly, rather than quietly shifting costs onto the most vulnerable homeowners.

Share

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1), I respectfully request access to and copies of the following records related to Guilford County’s 2026 property revaluation;

1. Total taxable value for FY 2025 (the year immediately prior to the 2026 revaluation)

• Total 2025 tax base by property class (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc.)

• Total 2026 tax base by property class

• Any exclusions or adjustments used in the calculations

2. Property Class Base Changes

• Aggregate assessed value totals for 2025 and 2026 by property class

• Percentage change in assessed value by class

• Any internal analysis prepared regarding shifts in tax base composition

3. Market Area and Neighborhood Factors

• Market area codes and neighborhood delineation maps

• Neighborhood market adjustment factors used in the 2026 revaluation

• Documentation showing how these factors were derived or calibrated

• Sales ratio studies or coefficient of dispersion (COD) studies conducted for the 2026 revaluation

4. Cost and Depreciation Schedules

• The locally adopted cost schedules used in the 2026 revaluation

• Depreciation tables applied to residential properties

• Quality grade definitions and adjustment tables

• Land valuation schedules by market area

(If portions of the cost manual are proprietary, I request any locally adopted schedules, multipliers or adjustment factors used by Guilford County in applying the system.)

5. Comparable Sales Data

The sales dataset used to calibrate residential market values for the 2026 revaluation, including:

• Sale dates

• Sale prices

• Parcel identification numbers

• Market area assignments

• Any exclusion criteria applied

• Guilford County Public Records

Your record request #26-200 has been submitted successfully.

Thank you for contacting Guilford County. We have received your request and are working to determine if there are any responsive documents.

Subscribe now

Public Records Request; 2026 Revaluation Distributional Impact Data

To: Guilford County Tax Department

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1), I request access to and electronic copies of records sufficient to determine how the 2026 revaluation affected residential properties across different value tiers.

Specifically, I request the following;

1. Residential Value Distribution; Pre-Revaluation

• For the last fiscal year immediately prior to the 2026 revaluation (FY 2025), please provide:

• Total number of residential parcels

• Assessed value of each residential parcel (parcel-level dataset preferred)

• OR, if parcel-level data is not provided, a distribution table showing:

• Number of residential parcels by assessed value ranges (e.g., <$150,000; $150k–$250k; $250k–$500k; $500k–$750k; $750k+)

2. Residential Value Distribution; Post-Revaluation (2026)

For FY 2026;

• Assessed value of each residential parcel (parcel-level dataset preferred)

• OR value distribution table using the same value bands as above

3. Change Analysis

• Any internal analysis, summary tables, or reports showing:

• Median residential assessed value in FY 2025

• Median residential assessed value in FY 2026

• Average percentage increase for residential parcels

• Percentage increase broken out by value tiers (low, median, high value homes)

• Any decile, quartile, or tier-based analysis conducted by the County

4. Sales Ratio and Equity Studies

• Any coefficient of dispersion (COD), price-related differential (PRD), or vertical equity studies conducted in connection with the 2026 revaluation

• Any analysis evaluating uniformity of assessment across value strata

If parcel-level data is provided, I request it in spreadsheet format (CSV or Excel), including;

• Parcel identification number

• 2025 assessed value

• 2026 assessed value

• Property class designation

• Market area code

If any portion of these records is withheld, please cite the specific statutory basis for denial.

These records are requested to evaluate the distributional impact of the 2026 revaluation across residential value tiers.

Guilford County Public Records

Your record request #26-201 has been submitted successfully.

Share

Public Records Request; 2026 Revaluation Equity & Calibration Data

To: Guilford County Tax Department

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1), this is a supplemental request related to the 2026 property revaluation.

I request the following records;

1. Vertical Equity and Uniformity Studies

• Any analyses conducted in connection with the 2026 revaluation measuring assessment uniformity or vertical equity, including;

• Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) studies

• Price-Related Differential (PRD) calculations

• Stratified sales ratio studies by value tier

• Decile or quartile-based assessment ratio analyses

• Any regression output or statistical modeling used to test value uniformity across price ranges

If no such analyses were performed, please confirm in writing.

2. Sales Calibration Data

Records sufficient to show how residential market values were calibrated, including;

• The sales cutoff date used for 2026 calibration

• The full dataset of arm’s-length residential sales used in modeling (parcel ID, sale date, sale price, market area)

• Criteria for excluding sales from analysis

• Any weighting adjustments applied

• Any documentation describing how changing market conditions (including interest rate increases) were incorporated into the valuation model

Electronic format (CSV or Excel) is preferred.

3. Neighborhood Market Adjustment Factors

• The neighborhood or market area factor tables used for 2026

• Documentation reflecting changes in market factors from the prior revaluation cycle

• Any internal memoranda or reports explaining factor adjustments

4. Land and Improvement Modeling

• Aggregate residential land value totals for FY 2025 and FY 2026

• Aggregate residential improvement value totals for FY 2025 and FY 2026

• Residential land valuation schedules by market area

• Any revisions to land pricing tables adopted for 2026

5. Appeals and Informal Review Data (When Available)

• Total number of informal review requests filed for 2026

• Number and percentage resulting in value adjustments

• Average percentage reduction granted

• Distribution of reductions by value tier, if tracked

Guilford County Public Records

Your record request #26-202 has been submitted successfully.

Share Public Integrity Watch

Public Records Request; Median Residential Revaluation Data

To: Guilford County Tax Department

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1), I am requesting the following information related to the 2026 residential property revaluation:

Requested Records;

1. Median-value home assessment changes for 2026

2. Median assessed value of residential properties for 2025

3. Median assessed value of residential properties for 2026

4. Median percentage increase by market area or neighborhood, if available

5. Any supporting data tables, reports, or calculations used to determine these median values

6. Stratified median information

7. Median increases for low-, mid-, and high-value residential properties, broken into deciles or quartiles

8. Documentation or calculations showing how these stratified medians were derived

Methodology Documentation

• Any internal guidelines, formulas, or reports used to calculate the median and stratified median changes

• Clarification on whether the median calculations account for sales exclusions, property exemptions, or abnormal market adjustments

Explanation of Request:

The purpose of this request is to evaluate the distributional impact and fairness of the 2026 revaluation. While the county has published average (mean) increases, averages can be skewed by extreme property value changes, making it difficult to understand the typical homeowner’s experience. Median values provide a more accurate picture of how most residents’ assessments changed and help identify whether the revaluation produces disproportionate tax impacts on lower- or higher-value homes.

Providing these records will allow independent analysis of vertical equity in the revaluation and support transparency in the property tax system.

Guilford County Public Records

Your record request #26-203 has been submitted successfully.

What you probably haven’t noticed is what Greensboro’s taxpayers are funding with higher parking prices, property taxes and water bills.

Over the past several years, Greensboro borrowed $64.8 million plus interest constructing two new parking decks; the Eugene Street and the February One Decks. The debt will be repaid with taxpayer money, borrowed through municipal bonds our children and grandchildren will still be paying off twenty years from now.

These decks weren’t built because downtown Greensboro needed more parking. A small group of connected insiders needed parking for their private developments, and they convinced Greensboro’s City Council to make everyone else subsidize their future profits at the expense of other local property and business owners along with their customers.

The two new parking decks;

• Eugene Street; $27.7 million, 948 spaces

• February One; $37.1 million, 720 spaces; Total Construction Cost: ~$42.8 million

• Total cost; $64.8 million

Meanwhile, the city closed two decks;

• Davie Street Deck; 415 spaces lost

• Bellemeade Street Deck; 1,276 spaces lost (closed February 2025)

The Paradox; there are plenty of new spaces, they’re just not where many who go downtown want them to be.

The February One Deck was explicitly designed to support the future home of Kathy Manning and Randall Kaplan’s Westin Hotel. Finished in 2024, it sits at 110 S. Davie Street, adjacent to their planned hotel site and about a six minute walk to the Tanger Center.

The February One Deck also sits across from the recently purchased former News and Record site by the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro (CFGG), among other investors.

Parking in the deck is fine if you’re going to the not built hotel, the International Civil Rights Museum or the Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts, unless you want to grab dinner on South Elm Street, which would be a five-to-ten-minute walk though blocks of empty storefronts and panhandlers asking for money. Not terrible on a nice day, but not exactly convenient when you’re carrying shopping bags or dodging rain.

Randall Kaplan is a Greensboro businessman. Kathy Manning is his wife, a former congressperson and a prominent political and Tanger Center fundraiser. Together, they stand to profit from a currently non-existent hotel served by a parking deck built for them with our money.

Tammi Thurm

Before joining the Council, Thurm worked as;

• Chief Financial Officer and Human Resources Manager, Listingbook, LLC (2006–2013)

• Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Operations, Capsule Group, LLC (2002–2013)

• Both companies are owned by Randall Kaplan.

• Kathy Manning regularly used a Capsule Group email address at the time.

Thurm, the CFO of Randall Kaplan’s companies, someone who worked directly for and with the couple, served on City Council while her former boss and his wife pushed for public funding directly benefiting their investments.

Tammi voted on their projects without recusal.

Greensboro taxpayer funded Sports Foundation President Richard Beard recently told the War Memorial Commission “No progress on the Weston Hotel downtown.”

The February One deck will likely cost Greensboro taxpayers between $46 million and $52 million when fully paid off in 2045; approximately $11 million to $16 million more than the construction cost alone.

The Tanger Center Debt will cost Greensboro taxpayers $68,990,210 including principle and interest;

Roy Carroll and Tuggle Duggins

The Eugene Street Deck at 215 North Eugene Street sits near Roy Carroll’s attorney’s office overlooking the baseball stadium. It’s a solid 10 minute walk to the Tanger Center, and about a half mile, or 15 minutes to Natty Greens. The parking deck was built for Tuggle Duggins parking and Roy Carroll’s existing and planned new hotel.

Greensboro’s Parking Math

Per the City of Greensboro’s latest Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Parking Facilities came up $3,701,401 short;

$6,570,157 Expenses - $2,868,756 Service Charges = -$3,701,401 for 2025

The City budgeted $300,000 in Parking Violations and brought in $330,040.

Monthly Parking Fees were budgeted at $888,000 and came in at $679,032, or $208,968 less.

Greensboro borrowed $2,550,000 to take down the Bellemeade deck and lost the parking revenue to give to Roy Carroll;

Greensboro lost 415 parking spaces at the Davie Street Deck and 1,276 at the Bellemeade Deck.

As of January 2026, the city implemented new paid parking in previously free surface lots to help fund the maintenance and construction debt of the new decks. The borrowing and losses explains the parking rate spikes;

Payment in all surface lots are required Monday through Friday, 8 am to 6 pm, and must be made through the ParkMobile app or by phone as the City begins to transition away from coin-operated meters. Parking in these lots will continue to be free after 6 pm and on weekends.

The parking fund is effectively subsidizing or enabling downtown economic development.

In FY 25, the City transferred $2,163,273 from the General Fund to the Parking Facilities Fund to cover expenses.

Parking Facilities Expenses Per Year;

• 2016; $3,409,082

• 2017; $2,951,230

• 2018; $2,599,692

• 2019; $2,801,565

• 2020; $2,532,664

• 2021; $4,997,347

• 2022; $5,375,870

• 2023; $5,521,336

• 2024; $8,180,046

• 2025; $6,570,157

The Greensboro Performing Arts Center Task Force Economic Impact/Feasibility Committee included Roy Carroll and Randall Kaplan. Kathy Manning, Randall Kaplan’s wife, lobbied for and raised private money for the Tanger Center via the CFGG among other investors, which now stands to profit from the February One Deck with their newly acquired News & Record Property across the street.

Kathy Manning served as Fundraising Chair for the Tanger Center and Chair of its Donor Design Committee. Their plan assumed that every performance would sell out all premium parking spaces at every event, generating enough revenue to pay the debt service. Matt Brown and Kathy Manning proposed 303 +27 = 330 sold out VIP parking spaces for each and every event;

Even sold-out shows don’t fill every premium parking space, because people carpool, take rideshares or park in cheaper lots further away. The projections involved flat out bogus math. How are 11 “Dance Recital/Talent Competition” events with 1,000 free tickets and 12 “Student Play or Concert[s]” with 1,500 free tickets going to sell out 330 VIP parking spots for $18 each?

Private businesses intensely lobbied City Council with words and money to build a performing arts center Roy, Randall and Kathy can profit from, and now they want everyone else to cough up more money to subsidize the public debt they enabled for personal profit with new and higher parking rates and property taxes.

The parking fund is bleeding money. The city responded with aggressive enforcement (ticket revenue is up) and rate hikes on surface lots that were once free. You’re paying for parking even if you never park downtown. You’re paying for a performing arts center even if you never attend a show. You’re paying for a hotel developer’s infrastructure even if you never stay in his hotel. You will receive none of the profits from these ventures but will pay to make up for the losses.

Greensboro’s City Council built parking decks that benefit private developers and we’re paying for it. Every time you feed a meter, every time you get a parking ticket, every time you wonder why your property taxes keep going up, remember the February One and Eugene Street Decks. Remember the Tanger Center. Remember the developers who got public infrastructure for free. And remember the Council members who made it possible.

Share

What Should Happen Next

A full forensic audit of the parking fund, tracing every dollar of debt, every revenue projection and every expenditure back to the original authorizing votes.

An independent investigation into conflicts of interest involving Council members and the developers who benefited from parking deck construction and performing arts center financing.

Related;

STPAC fraud; “Matthew Brown is the author of the attached document in the email”, which didn’t include the interest on the debt

https://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2018/06/stpac-fraud-matthew-brown-is-author-of.html

Matt Brown, Kathy Manning and Walker Sanders betrayed our community

https://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2018/07/matt-brown-kathy-manning-and-walker.html

Some of who enabled and/or committed fraud against Greensboro taxpayers and the investors who purchased STPAC bonds

https://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2018/06/some-of-who-enabled-andor-committed.html

“Matt Brown’s 10/24/2017 email to Kathy Manning and Walker Sanders”

https://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2018/06/city-of-greensboro-public-records.html

Disclaimer

This article presents allegations and analysis regarding public financing decisions made by the City of Greensboro. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent verified facts or legal conclusions. The individuals and organizations mentioned in this article have not been afforded an opportunity to respond to these allegations within this publication. The characterizations of their actions, motivations, and financial interests represent the author’s interpretation of public records and may not reflect the full context of their involvement or intentions. The article alleges potential conflicts of interest involving public officials and private parties. No formal investigation has been conducted by independent authorities, and no legal determination has been made regarding whether any ethics violations or laws were broken. Service on public boards and committees alongside business relationships does not automatically constitute a legal conflict of interest. Financial figures cited are based on publicly available budget documents and reports. Debt projections include estimates of future interest payments that may vary based on actual bond terms and payment schedules. Revenue and expense figures are subject to accounting interpretations and may not represent the complete financial picture. Readers are encouraged to review primary source documents including City Council meeting minutes, financial reports, and public records to form their own conclusions about these matters. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion regarding the propriety of any actions described.

“Triad growth is slower than expected”, by the Triad Business Journal’s (TBJ) Elizabeth “Lilly” Egan, presents precise‑sounding information which doesn’t align with widely available less optimistic market reports.

Triad growth is slower than expected as region lags behind Charlotte, Raleigh

https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2026/02/09/greensboro-winstonsalem-vitner-cline-baker-economy.html

The article refers to “Mike” Vitner, identified as founder and chief economist of Piedmont Crescent Capital in Charlotte. In reality, the firm is led by Mark Vitner, a former longtime Wells Fargo senior economist.

In early 2006, Vitner famously stated, “There is no housing bubble”. TBJ presents him as an authoritative, neutral economist rather than a growth-oriented regional capital advocate, laundering opinion as expertise.0

From the article;

Mike Vitner, …said while there is investment coming to the Triad, there has not been as much job growth yet as expected. Vitner said this is in line with a national trend of a growing disconnect between the unemployment rate and job growth.

Piedmont Crescent Capital benefits from market optimism, a context not provided. When the messenger’s incentives aren’t disclosed, the message gains false objectivity.

Office; Vitner’s 8.3% vacancy rate assumption is almost certainly Class A / newer inventory only. Market-wide data (CBRE, C&W) show mid-teens to 20%+, which aligns with what anyone walking downtown already knows. Presenting a subset metric as a market metric is misleading even if technically defensible.

From Yardi Research;

Public Integrity Watch isn’t nitpicking. We’re doing the analysis TBJ should have done, or would have if it actually performed investigative journalism.

Industrial; TBJ reports a 4.6% Q4 2025 industrial vacancy rate and uses it to paint a picture of very tight conditions. Realtor CBRE’s Q4 2025 industrial figures for Greensboro/Winston‑Salem show vacancy at 7.7%. If the 4.6% metric refers to a specific subset of properties, the article never explains it. Readers are left believing the Triad is supply-constrained when it’s actually loosening faster than the Triangle.

Apartments; The article reports apartment vacancy rate 9.7% in Q4. Greensboro's apartment vacancy rate was 9.5% in Q4 2025 according to Cushman & Wakefield data, about 2.3 percentage points above the historical national average of 7.3% per the U.S. Census Bureau. Vacancy rates have been rising recently after hitting historic lows around 5.6% in 2021. At 9.5%, Greensboro’s apartment market is approaching the high end of the “healthy” range. While 9.5% isn't crisis-level, it does indicate a softening market that favors renters over landlords, a significant shift from the tight markets of 2021-2022.

From the TBJ article;

Michael Cline, a demographer at N.C. State said... From 2020 to 2024, the Burlington MSA grew by 6.7%, Winston-Salem grew by 4.3% and the Greensboro-High Point area grew by 3.1%. That is compared to Wilmington’s 13% growth, Raleigh-Cary 10.2% growth, the Charlotte area’s 8.1% and the state’s overall 5.7% growth. “We expect growth in this area, and we expect growth in North Carolina, but it’s going to be a slower growth moving forward,” he said.

By failing to contextualize or reconcile the information, TBJ appears to be acting in the best interests of Greensboro’s real estate industry and its advertisers at the expense of average readers.

Share

Context on North Carolina’s Incentives Track Record

TBJ treats incentives as forward-looking guarantees rather than historically unreliable options. That omission biases every conclusion that follows.

In the last five years, North Carolina offered companies $2.7 billion in incentives but only paid out $233 million; of the promised 211,881 jobs, only 99,935 materialized. In 2024, there were 20 failed state incentive projects, and in 2023, 19 projects were unsuccessful.

JetZero

Taxpayers are on the hook for up to $2.35 billion in incentives for JetZero, a company founded 5 years ago which currently employs only 225 people and has never built a full-scale aircraft.

Kevin Baker, executive director of the Piedmont Triad International Airport, said he expects job growth in the region will continue to pick up as employees begin to move to the area for economic development projects such as JetZero’s plan to bring 14,500 jobs to the region by the mid-2030s.

While JetZero’s commitment to the region is significant, the actual timeline for job creation extends far beyond the “mid-2030s” Baker references; the company’s plan envisions adding jobs gradually through 2037, with the full 14,500-job impact not materializing until 2063;

TBJ’s choice of citing Baker’s optimistic projection about JetZero driving near-term job growth in the Triad region without context appears to conflate long-term possibilities with reality.

Baker’s suggestion that employees are already “beginning to move to the area” based on two executive relocations is hardly evidence of meaningful labor migration.

Citing a multi-decade timeline as justification for expecting job growth to “pick up” in the near term demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of economic development timelines or a willingness to spin preliminary corporate commitments into imminent job market transformation, neither of which serves the public’s need for accurate information.

JetZero’s blended wing body aircraft is a highly speculative commercial concept that departs from proven tube-and-wing designs and has never successfully reached commercial passenger service. Flying-wing designs are inherently unstable, requiring complex flight-control systems that remain unproven for civilian transport. Despite billions in research by NASA, Boeing and others, the only operational examples are military aircraft like the B-2 bomber, where cost and commercial viability are irrelevant.

JetZero is effectively asking North Carolina to bet on solving aerospace engineering challenges that have stymied the industry for decades, or to accept that the end product may be military rather than commercial.

The TBJ article makes no mention of Boom Supersonic

Boom Supersonic secured nearly $200 million in government incentives to establish its Greensboro manufacturing hub, where it recently completed its $500 million “Superfactory”. Critics argue the project remains a highly speculative venture that has yet to deliver on its massive economic promises. Although the 150,000-square-foot “Superfactory” is physically complete, it remains largely a “shell” until full-scale Overture production.

Boom is only required to have 561 positions filled by the end of 2026, with the full 1,750+ jobs not due until 2030.

In 2024, Boom faced scrutiny for workforce reductions even as it touted future growth, with the company stating it was “re-prioritizing” its focus toward engine development. Major established engine manufacturers like Rolls-Royce, GE and Pratt & Whitney declined to partner with Boom, forcing the startup to design its own engine, “Symphony,” from scratch; a multi-billion dollar undertaking that even industry giants find risky.

The recent move to sell natural gas turbines for data centers is seen by some as a “quiet retreat” or a desperate attempt to generate cash as the primary goal of supersonic travel faces mounting technical and regulatory hurdles.

TBJ appears to be aligning its framing with the interests of real-estate developers, incentive recipients, and institutional boosters rather than average readers trying to understand actual economic conditions.

The public deserves clear-eyed reporting that distinguishes present conditions from distant possibilities, especially when billions in taxpayer-backed incentives and the region’s economic future are at stake.

Housing shortage threatens momentum. Hardister talks development, density and solutions

https://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2026/02/05/housing-shortage-affordability-crisis-legislation.html

But once you strip away the rhetoric in the Triad Business Journal’s article by Editor in Chief/Publicist/Propagandist Lloyd Whittington, a clearer picture emerges; Jon is asking taxpayers to underwrite the costs and risks of growth so that developers and large employers, including members of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC), which he leads, to protect and expand their profits.

This isn’t “saving the American dream.” It’s shifting the bill to everyone else.

The Hidden Business Model; Public Risk, Private Profit

Hardister and Whittington frame the issue in bleak terms; North Carolina is roughly 800,000 housing units short, with tens of thousands needed in the Triad alone. As big employers like Toyota, Boom Supersonic and JetZero bring jobs, he asks the scary question; where will workers live?

The answer, in their telling, is for taxpayers to bankroll the infrastructure that makes intensive development profitable;

• State and local money for roads and transportation.

• State local public dollars for water and sewer upgrades.

In other words, the public picks up the tab for the most expensive and least glamorous part of growth, pipes, pavement, permitting systems and higher utility bills, while developers and landowners reap the upside through higher land values, more units to sell and stable or rising prices, which most can’t afford.

Nowhere does Hardister demand proportional givebacks from those who would directly profit; no automatic public equity stake and no enforceable return-on-investment framework for the public taxpayers picking up the tab.

It’s all carrot, no stick.

“Strings Attached”

Hardister;

• wants local voters to lose control over how their communities grow when state-level conditions override local planning judgment.

• needs local governments to inherit long-term costs; schools, emergency services and ongoing maintenance for the growth they are being pressured into accepting.

• while his developer clients gain certainty, speed and new capacity without public benefit, just higher property taxes, water and power bills.

If someone is going to live with the consequences of overburdened schools, clogged roads and stretched utilities, it’s the residents who didn’t ask to be turned into a subsidy base for TREBIC’s members.

Hardister’s “strings” are not about protecting taxpayers; they’re about guaranteeing profit for the industry he represents.

Jon’s use of the crisis is selective.

He points to;

• The average first-time homebuyer age creeping up to 40.

• A huge share of Gen Z and millennials needing financial help to buy.

It’s real economic pain. But instead of treating it as an indictment of a speculative, profit-driven development model which repeatedly failed to deliver affordability, it’s used as leverage to convince taxpayers to absorb the risk for builders and increase their profits with our taxes.

Notice who is never asked to take a haircut; the developers and investors who’ve enjoyed years of appreciation and profit. Hardister’s conjured “crisis” is a rhetorical weapon to pry open the public wallet for his minions.

Jon’s pitch isn’t a public-interest blueprint; it’s an industry wish list dressed in crisis language to enable direct taxpayer funded financial benefits to TREBIC’s members.

Hardister is not a neutral observer of the housing market. He is;

• A former six-term state legislator, deeply familiar with how to shape legislation and appropriations.

• The president of a regional real estate and building industry coalition whose members stand to profit from more taxpayer-backed infrastructure.

• A public subsidy sponge/lobbyist for his ‘capitalist’ TREBIC members

When someone in that position calls for more taxpayer monies, it’s fair to ask;

Is this about keeping housing affordable for ordinary North Carolinians or ensuring that TREBIC’s members have their risk buffered and profit pipelines secured, as ordinary residents fund the pipes, roads and systems that make those profits possible?

Hardister with councilmember and Greensboro government contractor Hugh Holston, who's supposed to care about rental tenants;

Jon with Greensboro City Councilmember Crystal Black;

Mayor Abuzuaiter, former City Attorney Chuck Watts and City Manager Trey Davis at a TREBIC event;

Adam Marshall, Partner at Law Firm Carolinas, a TREBIC member and new City Council member;

As a registered lobbyist, Jonathan Hardister is registered with these Principals, some of whom are City of Greensboro Contractors;

#1 Amusements, Inc. • Term: 2025
AACRE, LLC • Term: 2025
BusPatrol America • Term: 2025
Greensboro Chamber of Commerce • Term: 2025; Greensboro government contractor
Kick Ass Concepts • Term: 2025; Marty Kotis
National Utility Contractors Association of the Carolinas • Term: 2025
North Carolina Appraisal Institute • Term: 2025; Real Estate
North Carolina Independent Colleges & Universities • Term: 2025
North Carolinians for Texas Hold'em, LLP • Term: 2025
The North Carolina Folk Festival • Term: 2025; Greensboro government contractor
Triad Real Estate & Building Industry Coalition (TREBIC) • Term: 2025

With new Greensboro city councilman Irving Allen;

I call BS.

g

Related;

Disclaimer

This article reflects the author’s analysis, opinions, and conclusions based on publicly available information, reporting, and observed patterns in public policy, lobbying, and local governance. It is intended as commentary on matters of public interest and does not allege criminal conduct unless explicitly stated and supported by verified sources.

All individuals and organizations referenced are mentioned in their public or professional capacities. Any interpretations of motive or impact are presented as opinion, not statements of fact, and readers are encouraged to review the cited sources and form their own conclusions.

This publication is not affiliated with, funded by, or acting on behalf of any political party, developer, industry group, or government entity. Its sole purpose is to examine the use of public resources, transparency in decision-making, and the balance between public risk and private benefit.

This article reflects the personal opinions and interpretations of the author and is offered for informational and commentary purposes only. It is not intended as legal, financial, or professional advice, and readers should not rely on it as such. All references to individuals, organizations, legislation, and events are based on publicly available information to the best of the author’s knowledge at the time of writing; any errors or omissions are unintentional. The views expressed do not represent and should not be attributed to any employer, organization, publication platform, or third party associated with the author. Any mention or characterization of specific people or entities is opinion, not a statement of fact about their motives or conduct. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and form their own independent judgments.

Dear Mr. Hartzman,

Hello! This was our response to records request #31068, filed on July 30, 2025.

Sincerely,

Kurt Brenneman, Public Records Request Administrator
Greensboro Central Library
219 N. Church Street

Chuck Watts worked for the City of Greensboro as City Attorney for six years. He started on June 1, 2019 and retired effective immediately on July 2, 2025. He hired his former firm right out of the gate;

The financial data adds a concrete dollar figure to longstanding ethical concerns about whether Watts improperly steered city legal work to his former firm.

From Brenneman, Kurt

Dear Requester,

In response to your public records request concerning The Banks Law Firm and Chuck Watts, the Greensboro City Attorney’s Office responds, “The City Attorney’s Office does not have additional records responsive to this request.” The Financial and Administrative Services Department provides the attached records.

The substantial payments directly relate to an emerging ethics scandal. As reported by Public Integrity Watch in September 2025, Watts’s decision to hire and direct work to The Banks Law Firm, his former professional home, prompted an examination of a potential violation of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.7 of the state’s professional conduct rules prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s own financial or personal interests will materially limit their representation. Legal ethics experts suggest that hiring one’s former firm creates a clear conflict, as it can suggest favoritism, a lack of independent judgment, or an improper personal benefit through sustained goodwill with former partners.

“The sheer scale of the payments, now publicly confirmed, transforms a theoretical conflict into a quantifiable one,” said a former legal ethics professor from a North Carolina university speaking on background. “More than a half-million dollars in payments to a former partnership is a red flag the State Bar shouldn’t ignore. The question is whether Mr. Watts’s personal interest in maintaining a beneficial relationship with his former colleagues influenced his professional judgment on the city’s behalf.”

The $681,182.29 total suggests this was a sustained source of business for The Banks Law Firm, authorized by its former partner.

Share

For Greensboro’s City Council and residents, the records raise questions about oversight and procurement processes within the city’s legal department. “The public deserves to know that legal contracts are awarded based on merit and cost-effectiveness, not prior relationships,” said the source. “This data demands a transparent review of how and why this firm received so much of the city’s legal business.”

Watts’ actions appear to have violated the City’s Code of Ethics and City Charter.

The Open Legal Question

Separate from State Bar ethics rules, another layer of uncertainty comes from North Carolina law governing public contracts. Specifically, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-234 prohibits public officials from deriving a “direct benefit” from contracts they make or administer.

Whether Watts’s contracts with his former firm fall into that statutory prohibition depends on facts not yet public;

Did Watts retain any financial interest in the firm (ownership, profit-sharing, retirement payout)?

Did his role in signing the contracts constitute “administering” them under the statute?

If the answer to either question is yes, the statute suggests the Watts approved contracts could be a willful violation could even carry criminal liability.

The State Bar enforces professional ethics standards, but the statutory questions fall into a different arena, one of municipal law, contract and potentially criminal law. What’s clear is that the City Attorney’s professional obligations required him to avoid even the appearance of divided loyalties.

Disclaimer

The article “Public Records Show Former City of Greensboro Attorney Chuck Watts Paid His Former Partnership ‘The Banks Law Firm’ $681,182.29” is based on publicly available records and previously published investigative reporting.

Source of Information; The financial figures cited ($681,182.29 and individual payment amounts) were obtained through a public records request fulfilled by the City of Greensboro’s Financial and Administrative Services Department. The ethical and legal context is drawn from the September 15, 2025, report published by Public Integrity Watch.

Allegations and Ongoing Inquiry; References to a potential ethics violation are based on allegations and analysis presented in the aforementioned report. The North Carolina State Bar may or may not be conducting a formal investigation; any such proceeding would be a confidential matter unless and until disciplinary action is taken.

Presumption of Good Faith; The article does not assert that former City Attorney Chuck Watts or The Banks Law Firm PA engaged in unlawful conduct. The purpose of the reporting is to inform the public of documented financial transactions and related ethical questions that have been raised in public forums.

Right to Reply; Efforts were made to include relevant context. Should any party mentioned wish to provide further comment or clarification for the record, they are encouraged to contact the editorial team.

No Legal Opinion; This article should not be construed as a legal opinion or a finding of fault. It is a report on matters of public record and public interest.

Corrections; We are committed to accuracy. If any factual errors are identified, please contact us immediately for correction.

Published for public awareness and discourse.