Comments on: Tom Burns writes the paper http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:01:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Netmom http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30893 Netmom Thu, 03 May 2007 17:19:15 +0000 http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30893 Excellent. Response. Excellent. Response.

]]> By: Jacket http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30895 Jacket Thu, 03 May 2007 19:12:59 +0000 http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30895 "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. “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.

]]> By: Atomictumor http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30896 Atomictumor Thu, 03 May 2007 19:15:57 +0000 http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30896 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? 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?

]]> By: Mrs Eaves http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30898 Mrs Eaves Thu, 03 May 2007 19:47:27 +0000 http://www.atomictumor.com/2007/05/03/tom-burns-writes-the-paper/#comment-30898 It's my understanding that there would be no abatements for this project. It’s my understanding that there would be no abatements for this project.

]]>