May 3rd, 2007 by Atomictumor
Tom Burns cited moral principles today in a letter to the Oak Ridger regarding the whole Target up on the hill thing. Now, moral principles is something that I get behind.
He tells me that the city is gambling its future on a for-profit entity that can pay for itself. He tells me that local businesses are getting screwed by this deal, which would be repugnant. He tells me, additionally, that “…the moral policy is to raise the property tax as necessary to pay for the public education we want to provide our children.”
I don’t know if any of these things are moral imperatives.
Now, this happened to hit me as I was pondering a few things after dropping the kids off at school. Lets say that Tom’s right, we blow off the city bond and raise property taxes. We can raise it what, 7 cents on the dollar to squeeze by this year with that extra half mil the schools need? This still leaves nothing in the school board’s reserve fund, mind. Next year, problem starts all over. So what then?
Will there be a white horse on the horizon offering the promise of sales tax revenue? Will Tom and the rest of Oak Ridge start shopping here? Or will they suggest, once again, that the property taxes go up? OK, thats fine. I can take a hit there. Oak Ridge, in 2006, had one of the top 10 property tax rates. Higher than Nashville, and Chattanooga. Higher than damn near all the rest of the state.
For a town of 20 odd thousand? For the “smart” people? Still tho, its mine and Tom’s moral imperative to support a property tax increase, so we bump it up again for 2008, and we’re still out on the line trying to draw business into town.
How much can the property tax sustain? Can we just keep bumping it up, or will 2008 see Oak Ridge’s door getting knocked down by all the businesses wanting to move to town, madly impressed by the way we attract business opportunities, and realizing that THIS is the market they want to be in. I’m dubious about that.
Now, one thing I do agree on with Tom is the fact that Oak Ridge doesn’t give two shits about local business, which is damn near criminal. Oak Ridge is the kind of town that should be bending over backwards trying to help small business, without the rather high membership fees to the Chamber of Commerce.
Oak Ridge should be doing what it can to attract more Razzelberry’s, Time Out Delis, antique stores, food co-ops, thrift stores, and botiques. Oak Ridge should be doing what it can to point people to these businesses, understanding that the sales tax generated from these places not only support local families, but are the bread and butter of the town.
Hell, that’d solve the Target issue right there, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it be bitching to be able to spend a buck or two more and know the folks that own the shop you spent the money at are buying their kids school supplies with it?
Tom, I’ll tell you one thing. Since I moved to this town, and since I started doing the ‘tumor, I can count the number of times that I liked what the city officials are doing on one hand. They’re (mostly) good people, but I disagree with their methods and motives 99% of the time. That simple fact is the biggest reason I don’t put up FOR yard signs all over town.
However, Tom, I think the greatest moral imperitive today is making sure that the town’s healthy, and a multi year sole dependance on raising property taxes to deal with a cost increases isn’t the way to do that. I believe that the best action for the town is to take a 10 year chance, put the money down, and let GBT do its thing.
We both know the failsafes involved in the exchange do a huge job of protecting the city from the mistakes made with the golf course, and the mall.
Why is it tho, Tom, that I’m the only one of the two of us willing to admit that?
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Excellent. Response.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“However, Tom, I think the greatest moral imperitive today is making sure that the town’s healthy, and a multi year sole dependance on raising property taxes to deal with a cost increases isn’t the way to do that. I believe that the best action for the town is to take a 10 year chance, put the money down, and let GBT do its thing.”
This project funding is strictly for infrastructure as I understand the proposal. Infrastructure IS a government function. Tom is just plan wrong there.
Next, as the property now sits, it is assessed at a certain value on the taxes paid on it. If the infrastructure is added, and actual, uh, you know, heaven forbid, buildings are put on it the assessment would go up. That means the owners will pay more property taxes than they do now. Hmmmm? What a concept. Then if the buildings actually you know, have inventory in them and sell the sales tax then comes into play.
All the empty buildings are straw men passed out by the opposition to this project. Empty buildings still have property taxes paid on them. With a thriving economy injected with new blood at C.P. these buildings also may become occupied producing sales tax also.
Good point AT, the moral object at this time is to get the Oak Ridge economy going again. That means you invest in yourself to show those willing to invest that you feel the town is worth it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
One concern that was presented, tho, Jacket, that I haven’t been able to answer in the 30 minutes I researched, is whether there is talk on an abatement for property taxes for this.
Now that I’d be opposed to, and it kinda sinks a large part of the FOR argument.
Anybody know for sure?
May 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
It’s my understanding that there would be no abatements for this project.