Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] local ballot issues [Local Politics]

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Shawn,

 

The problem is, the government officials will get this extra money, then they will take the money they are currently spending on roads and sidewalks and spend that money on something else with a zero net sum gain for roads and sidewalks.

 

On 11/8/05, Shawn Parker <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:

crazy. i don't understand people's aversion to taxes when they can
mean better living conditions.

better streets and sidewalks. everyone cheers. until they find out
it's going to cost them a few cents more at the store. psssh.

i guess it's just me, but i'm willing to pay a little extra for better
streets, safer sidewalks, more sidewalks and a permanent farmers
market.

oh well.

On 11/8/05, Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> So I just saw that results of the election today in Columbia.  Kind of
> a puzzler...
>
> # Columbia Proposition 1
> # -Extends 1/8 cent sales tax for parks for five years
> # Yes 7407
> # No 6528
>
> OK, so we like parks, more or less.
>
> # Columbia Proposition 2
> # -Extends 1/8 cent sales tax for ice rink/multipurpose building for two years
> # Yes 6095
> # No 7836
>
> So I thought this was an odd proposal, but I did kind of expect it to pass.
>
> # Columbia Proposition 3
> # -Extends 1/4 cent sales tax for public safety for three years
> # Yes 8910
> # No 4998
>
> Proposition 3 looked like (to me) a classic boondoggle if I ever saw one.
>
> # Columbia Proposition 4
> # -Extends 1/4 cent sales tax for streets and sidewalks for seven years
> # Yes 7013
> # No 6886
>
> That this almost went down just amazes me.  Does anybody really think
> the infrastructure fairy is going to wave a magic wand and give us
> better roads and sidewalks where we really need them?  But what's
> worse is this:
>
> # Columbia Proposition 5
> # -Adds a 1/8 cent sales tax for streets and sidewalks for 10 years
> # Yes 5434
> # No 8472
>
> Obviously, this went down because it was a proposed tax increase, and
> no other reason.  That said, since almost nobody is happy with the
> current road/sidewalks situation in town, I'm still trying to figure
> out where people think the money will come from.  It's evidently not
> legal for the city or county to try and tax gasoline, so what other
> revenue source do people think will suddenly appear?  Meanwhile:
>
> # Columbia Proposition 6
> # -Raises development charge for new construction from 10 cents to 50
> cents per square foot
> # Yes 8816
> # No 5039
>
> Ooh!  Ooh!  Let's get the developers to pay for it!  That's not a tax
> or anything, right?  Geesh.  I think you could make a reasonable case
> for raising these fees, but anybody who thinks this will obviate the
> need for more spending on roads is fooling themselves.  Like it or
> not, Columbia is now really close to the tipping point on traffic.  I
> was forced to run an errand betwen the campus today and Gerbes on
> Broadway today at 4:30.  That took just about an hour, including all
> of five minutes inside the store.  (Yes, I was stupid enough to think
> it would be faster driving than taking my bike.)  I was figuring this
> would take half an hour, tops.  This could the beginning of something
> really awful...
>
> jking
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>


--

- slp

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green 
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion