The idea of giving owner-occupants an additional tax break deserves a full discussion, but city officials should not rush into that decision.

And yet the City Council appears poised to approve a tax plan on Wednesday, one that distinguishes homeowners on the basis of how they use their property.

Under a proposal backed by Councilman Todd Apo, the budget chairman, the tax rate for residential property owners would be lowered by 30 cents per $1,000 of property value.

That's at least some improvement, but the council could do more.

Specifically, it could take the rest of the $28 million now allotted for a homeowner tax credit — a $200 giveback per owner-occupant household — and use that money to lower the tax rate further, across the board.

Apo and other proponents of the credit maintain that this approach will aim relief more at the lower-income strata than at the owners of the higher-end homes. A $200 rebate will mean more to someone paying $1,200 in taxes than someone paying $5,000, or so this argument goes.

While that's true to some degree, the council already is giving a tax reduction to those who have less through its "circuit-breaker" tax caps for the lower-income and elderly homeowner. Relief is needed across the board.

The whole question of whether to treat owner-occupants differently as taxpayers should be taken up at the beginning of the taxation cycle, before the next valuations go out in the fall.

At that time, the council should consider the advantages of creating an owner-occupant class and weigh those against the disadvantages. They would be in a better position to do so comprehensively.

It makes some sense to promote homeownership as a means to create stable communities. Just as likely, however, city leaders are motivated by the politics of the situation. Owner-occupants vote, are growing more vocal as a political entity and have become more numerous over the years because of lower interest rates.

But there are reasons to be cautious about this approach. Favoring owner-occupants may provide a disincentive for investors to develop rental units and for landlords to continue renting their property. And those who do will surely pass the additional tax burden through to renters in the form of rent hikes. In a city where the rental market has been tight, this can't be taken lightly.

In general, creating a tax code that is too complex and restrictive on the use of property can be problematic and have unforeseen consequences. It's not something to be rushed.

Let's take the time we need to consider the implications, and meanwhile give taxpayers across the board as much relief as the city can afford.