Tammi Thurm’s Tax Increase Plan; Reverse Robin Hood Comes to Greensboro
Thurm’s “Small Increase” Is a Big Tax Hike for Greensboro Homeowners
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.
“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.
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;
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;
