While some continue to view Baltimore strictly through a doom-and-gloom prism, the reality of life in Maryland’s largest city is more complicated. While on the one hand, the difficult challenges associated with crime and substance abuse continue to plague too many neighborhoods, there are also signs of improvement and economic opportunity.

One way to capitalize on those signs of improvement needs to be reexamining Baltimore’s real estate tax rate. It is regressive. It is a fixed cost for businesses.

The rates can be either an albatross or a spur to attract investments and population.

Measured cuts in Baltimore’s property taxes could spur revitalization already underway: the soon-to-be-officially-opened 4MLK research tower on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard; various Westside housing projects; the new home for the University of Maryland, Baltimore’s School of Social Work on West Lexington Street; upgrades of M&T Bank Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards; and Under Amour’s new headquarters in Baltimore Peninsula.

What might give such economic momentum an extra push? Here’s an idea: Brandon Scott, Baltimore’s newly reelected mayor, and Zeke Cohen, the new City Council president, might put their heads together in the coming weeks and devise a strategy for reducing — if only modestly — Baltimore’s too-high property tax rate.

We must also mention that real estate taxes can be politically dicey. And sloppy solutions can irrationally skew market forces and give birth to tax inequities.

One must remember California’s Proposition 13 in 1978, which capped the tax rate at 1% of assessed value, capped assessment hikes at 2% annually, limited reassessments until a property is sold and required supermajorities for real estate tax hikes. The solution to soaring property taxes, however, was imperfect. Limiting reassessments until property sales locked in owners by deterring purchasers.

The freeze on reassessments until sale also favored the rich over the poor. In 2003, for example, financier Warren Buffett announced property tax payments of $14,410, or 2.9%, on his $500,000 home in Omaha, Nebraska, compared with $2,264 in real estate taxes, or 0.056%, on his $4 million home in California.

The lesson of Proposition 13 for Baltimore? Be careful what you wish for in property tax reform. A poorly devised cure may be worse than the disease.

But the city’s tax rate is simply too high and lowering it is a surefire way to help pave the road for more robust economic activity and real estate investment, which in turn only helps the government and its citizens. The greater number of property taxpayers will more than offset the modestly diminished revenue raised per taxpayer.

The Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation recently reported a jump in property assessments to a whopping 20.1% statewide. A home or business previously assessed at $250,000, for example, will soon be assessed at more than $300,000. And that climb follows last year’s 23.4% increase (as one-third of properties are assessed annually).

Baltimore’s finances would be undisturbed by modestly reducing its property tax rate from the current $2.248 per $100 of assessed value by 5 cents or more.

At present, Baltimore’s rate is the highest in Maryland and handicaps its competition for business and population. Take former Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s measure to cut the tax rate by more than twice that amount during her tenure from 2010 to 2016. And guess what? It didn’t break the bank.

Among other things, the fall in real estate taxes would be a fillip to the high-rises planned to replace Harborplace that Mayor Scott, the City Council and city voters approved last year. Buyers may stampede to be first in line if those taxes were reduced — even modestly.

Are city voters clamoring for a reduction in the property tax rate? The jury is out. The Renew Baltimore plan to cut the rate in half on the installment plan commanded a lukewarm reception. Further, the petition-initiated charter amendment was eventually struck down by the state’s highest court. But an Aristotelian mean in cutting property taxes would be welcomed by voters: a lesser cut over a longer period modeled on the Rawlings-Blake approach.

The biggest mistake would be to do nothing and simply claim that this isn’t the year to reduce tax revenue, however modestly. But if not now, when?

Standpattism is a loser. The science of government is the science of experiment. The status quo is a proven failure. Boldness, not timidity, is the way forward. The tortoise makes progress only by sticking its head out.

Each year that the city fails to make its property tax rate more competitive is another year of giving home buyers and business owners the message: We don’t care about your high taxes. That’s hardly a recipe for success.