Greenville Raises Property Taxes… to Improve Housing Affordability?

Greenville County just navigated one of its most contentious budget seasons in decades—a showdown that nearly led to a county government shutdown. The flashpoint? A proposed millage increase was sold, in part, as a way to support “affordable housing” and public transit. The reaction? Lines out the door, standing-room-only council chambers, and enough public pushback to derail the budget on its first try.

This recap pulls directly from a recent Selling Greenville episode, where the host walked through what happened, what passed, and why the local housing market will likely feel it—especially renters and small landlords.

Greenville Raises Property Tax for Housing Affordability

Greenville Raises Property Taxes. The debate centered on a seven-mill property tax increase. Translated to kitchen-table math, the change pencils out like this:

• Owner-occupied homes: about $28 more per year for every $100,000 in assessed value. (Example: a $300,000 primary residence ≈ $84/year more.)

• Non-owner-occupied/commercial property: about $42 more per year for every $100,000 in assessed value. (Example: a $300,000 rental ≈ $126/year more.)

  
  

That’s the headline math behind the Greenville property tax increase for the housing affordability pitch—and it marks the first serious move to raise county property taxes in roughly 30 years.

County leaders also admitted something that rarely gets airtime: decades of growth (more homes, more businesses) have helped avoid prior tax hikes. That’s awkward for anti-growth voices; the same “not in my backyard” opposition that resists new housing also often resists higher taxes. You don’t get lower taxes without a growing tax base.

How a budget nearly broke the county

The budget’s third reading drew hundreds to council chambers. It was loud, emotional, and, at times, hostile. The proposal failed on that first third-reading attempt with a 6–6 tie (a supermajority is required). One councilwoman strategically voted “no” after seeing it would fail—not because she opposed it, but to keep the door open to bring the third reading back for another vote.

Days later, at the redo, a freshman councilman switched to “yes.” The councilwoman who’d held her vote procedurally then also voted “yes.” The result: 8–4 approval. Deputies escorted the switching councilman out amid shouting; several attendees were removed from the chambers. The budget passed—but not quietly.

Why the urgency? Without a budget, the county government could have shut down within a week. Whatever anyone thinks about millage, that outcome would have been catastrophic for basic services.

What the money is supposed to fund

In a budget with plenty of line items, two priorities dominated the debate:

• Affordable housing: funding for programs positioned to preserve or create lower-cost options, especially for residents who risk displacement as neighborhoods change.

• Greenlink (public transit): money aimed at improving service in a system most county residents rarely use today.

  
  

That pitch collided with household realities. Local buyers have already absorbed three years of tough affordability math—higher purchase prices and elevated mortgage rates—and now face higher annual property taxes. Retirees and households on fixed incomes feel the squeeze most.

The math behind your bill (and how to find it)

The county’s tax estimator shows the chain from assessed value → assessment rate (4% owner-occupied / 6% non-owner) → taxable value → millage. The new budget raises the millage. If you own a home, you can pull up your parcel online and see exactly how the increase flows through.

Even with the modest per-$100,000 figures, big properties add up fast. That’s where this budget has immediate second-order effects—not just for homeowners, but for renters.

Why renters may feel it more than anyone

On paper, many rentals would see $10–$20/month in pass-through costs. In practice, several knock-on effects often hit at once:

1. Mom-and-pop landlords (the majority owner type) already operate on thin margins. A tax bump can be the nudge that prompts a sale—especially for owners who don’t live and breathe spreadsheets.

2. Deferred maintenance tends to grow when cash flow tightens. That spiral is tough to reverse and can shrink the supply of well-maintained, reasonably priced rentals.

3. Newer investors who buy from those sellers will underwrite at today’s costs and expect higher rents to make deals pencil.

   
   

All of that means the Greenville property tax increase for housing affordability could paradoxically raise rents across the board—even beyond the pure dollars-and-cents impact of the millage itself.

The affordability paradox

County materials referenced inflation to justify the increase. But Greenville already has mechanisms to reflect rising values: properties are reassessed and, when assessed values climb, tax bills rise without touching the millage. One councilman even suggested the reassessment “mechanic” may be broken—a separate debate entirely.

There’s also an optics problem. Increasing taxes to improve affordability can read like “rob Peter to pay Paul.” Targeted grants may help a narrow slice of residents—and that’s good as far as it goes—but the wider market still runs on supply, demand, and costs:

• Supply constraints remain a bigger story. Zoning fights and approvals that drag out projects keep inventory tight.

• Demand is unusually broad-based, with three active generations—Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers—competing in the market at the same time.

• The region’s calling card has long been its cost-of-living advantage. People move to Greenville for affordability, not beaches or nightlife (think Charleston).

  
  

In a perfect world, annual home appreciation would hum along around 1–3% or 2–4%, the kind of steady glide path almost nobody complains about. Instead, rapid in-migration, remote work, and multi-generational demand have pushed pricing pressure higher, and raising holding costs (taxes) without materially speeding up homebuilding works against the very affordability aim.

Politics, process, and what comes next

This episode underscored two truths:

1. Engagement is way up. Residents packed the room, lined up hours early, and made their feelings known.

2. Choices have consequences. The budget passed, and the county avoided a shutdown—but the voting record will likely echo into future council races.

The podcast’s take was measured: paying “a little more” beats a government shutdown every time. But the larger ask is for holistic thinking—not slogans, not one-off grants, but careful analysis of how a tax change ricochets through homeowners, renters, small landlords, transit riders, and the construction pipeline itself.

What this means for buyers and sellers right now

• Homeowners: Expect a modest annual increase tied to assessed value.

• Small landlords: Re-underwrite your portfolio with updated taxes. Decide early whether to adjust rents, reinvest in maintenance, or consider selling into today’s market.

• Renters: Watch for renewal adjustments. The headline mileage math looks small, but market effects often run bigger than the spreadsheet says.

• Would-be builders/developers: The affordability conversation isn’t going away. Projects that add supply—especially at workforce price points—remain critical.

Watch Or Listen To The Selling Greenville Podcast

Subscribe to the Selling Greenville podcast for real-time insights, bold perspectives, and unfiltered takes on the Upstate housing scene. Whether you’re buying, selling, or simply watching the market unfold, this is where Greenville goes to stay informed.

Bottom Line

Greenville County raised millage for the first time in about three decades—a move justified by supporters as funding for affordable housing and public transit and opposed by residents wary of yet another cost increase. The budget almost failed, then passed 8–4 after a dramatic redo. In the near term, homeowners will see modest bill bumps; renters and small landlords may feel the ripple effects most as the market reprices.

The core tension remains: if Greenville wants lasting affordability, it must pair any revenue strategy with a meaningful supply strategy. Otherwise, the Greenville property tax increase for housing affordability risks becoming a paradox that nudges housing costs higher, not lower.

Ien Araneta

Journal & Podcast Editor | Selling Greenville