03-29-2006, 10:09 AM
Everyone should read the front-page article on property tax projections in today's Tribune-Herald. In addition to outlining expected revenue and ideas for spending it, the article describes how we homeowner occupants already got a bigger exemption and a 3% limit on annual assessment increases. I was not fully aware of the 3% limit, but did know about the increased exemption, it being right there on my statement.
Despite my deep-rooted cynicism about politicians, I have to say that the ideas presented by County Council members make a lot of sense. Most of them seem to want to spend the increased property tax revenue on neglected services such as parks and recreation, police personnel, and affordable housing initiatives. And yes, several of them did mention infrastructure, mostly road improvements. I understand that many people on this forum worry about overdevelopment brought on by road building. Many of us, myself included, have lived in mainland areas where new or expanded roads were jammed the day they opened and lined with tacky development shortly thereafter.
It is naive, however, to assume that we can have a pleasant, functional community without some improvements to the roads and perhaps other infrastructure. Population density in some areas may reach the point where cesspools and/or septic tanks present environmental hazards. People are going to continue to move here whether we choose to deal with it or not. The trick will be to reach a consensus on how to do it without ruining the things that make this place so special. That means we have to all participate in the planning process however we can, which I intend to do.
Last, but not least, a couple of Council members suggest using some of the windfall to give tax relief to agricultural landowners. No details on that, but it might be a glimmer of hope for those of you who own land for future building. (Although I suppose that they might limit the breaks to people who are real farmers, or even redefine just exactly what Ag land is. Or does the state get to decide that?)
Anyway, there is the potential for some real progress here if we do our part and let the political leaders know what we need.
Despite my deep-rooted cynicism about politicians, I have to say that the ideas presented by County Council members make a lot of sense. Most of them seem to want to spend the increased property tax revenue on neglected services such as parks and recreation, police personnel, and affordable housing initiatives. And yes, several of them did mention infrastructure, mostly road improvements. I understand that many people on this forum worry about overdevelopment brought on by road building. Many of us, myself included, have lived in mainland areas where new or expanded roads were jammed the day they opened and lined with tacky development shortly thereafter.
It is naive, however, to assume that we can have a pleasant, functional community without some improvements to the roads and perhaps other infrastructure. Population density in some areas may reach the point where cesspools and/or septic tanks present environmental hazards. People are going to continue to move here whether we choose to deal with it or not. The trick will be to reach a consensus on how to do it without ruining the things that make this place so special. That means we have to all participate in the planning process however we can, which I intend to do.
Last, but not least, a couple of Council members suggest using some of the windfall to give tax relief to agricultural landowners. No details on that, but it might be a glimmer of hope for those of you who own land for future building. (Although I suppose that they might limit the breaks to people who are real farmers, or even redefine just exactly what Ag land is. Or does the state get to decide that?)
Anyway, there is the potential for some real progress here if we do our part and let the political leaders know what we need.