tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post4730428113486372294..comments2024-01-15T05:16:04.605-06:00Comments on JackeHammer: 1/8-cent Transportation Sales Tax RenewalJackie Meltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-37457452595138792152008-07-29T16:32:00.000-05:002008-07-29T16:32:00.000-05:00Cherie wrote:"I have my own philosophy"It, also, w...Cherie wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I have my own philosophy"<BR/><BR/>It, also, was one worthy of consideration.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/><BR/>...and already in touch! ;)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-46232089751566663272008-07-29T15:49:00.000-05:002008-07-29T15:49:00.000-05:00Jackie, I have my own philosophy, but I say forget...Jackie, <BR/>I have my own philosophy, but I say forget the admin! We can surely cut one job to make up for the tax...or two, or three. I mean, where do the city Council members think the money comes from?! I am not infavor of reinstating even relapsed taxes because of the unintended consequences of more taxes....I don't like the money being pilfered and if we have extra appropriated funds, we ought to be re-investing them every year, making the money profit and then returning on those profits for the citizens in the city and county! I think that if we want to better utilize tax increases, we should start with carefully eyeing what can be eliminated in local overhead...the un-necessary spending should go out the door before new funding can be ushered in. Just a thought. I could elaborate more on that, but have to prepare for the Fair Tax topic tonight at Young Conservatives and finish a chapter in Gross National Happiness. First off, I should have asked for you to get in touch with me....my job was down-sized and I forgot to forward information to my home email cheriekail@yahoo.com<BR/><BR/>Please contact me at your convenience! I'd be obliged to get together with you and discuss some hot topics in this local political scene.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-81534014179386716012008-07-29T14:52:00.000-05:002008-07-29T14:52:00.000-05:00Oh, thanks for the compliment, btw. ;)Oh, thanks for the compliment, btw. ;)Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-17302763311656870292008-07-29T14:51:00.000-05:002008-07-29T14:51:00.000-05:00Well, Stu, I'm not sure what might have given you ...Well, Stu, I'm not sure what might have given you the impression that I didn't think people from different sides of the aisle could settle things amicably. I've felt that way for a very long time and, in fact, trust that they or "we" can. <BR/><BR/>I enjoy very much hearing from people from any side of the aisle or squarely in the middle, whether in agreement with my views or not, here at JackeHammer. I find I often learn a lot and consider things that I hadn't thought of before, that can only be good for a person's understanding of any issue. <BR/><BR/>I try my dangedness to take people as individuals having individual thoughts and try very hard not to pre-judge anyone.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I'll admit I'm human and I don't always live up to my standards but it isn't because I don't try. They ARE self-imposed, after all. <BR/><BR/>Glad you visit, glad you leave comments.Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-43413219551175647112008-07-29T14:40:00.000-05:002008-07-29T14:40:00.000-05:00I concur, Jackie. In most cases, specific wording...I concur, Jackie. In most cases, specific wording to cover contingencies CAN exist. Unfortunately, the short-sighted perspectives of the people writing the bill prohibits this preferable action.<BR/><BR/>See, Jackie? People from different sides of the street can still use the cross-walk to shake hands and settle things amicably.<BR/><BR/>Good post, by the way. Think I forgot to mention that in my initial response. I'd also like to thank you for not doing a knee-jerk because I used the word "you" in a figurative and not a literal sense. I know you get that a lot and I wouldn't want you to think I was doing it, too.Stu Solomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546870813158628511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-68939841482769221682008-07-29T13:50:00.000-05:002008-07-29T13:50:00.000-05:00This is a good discussion to have and I'm glad you...This is a good discussion to have and I'm glad you offered a different perspective on it, Stu. <BR/><BR/>I have a response to one of your comments regarding "subjective" language. You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"We have witnessed the problems with wording bond issues and tax levies too specifically with the Park Board being forced to make the pool closings. Because the parks tax issue was so specifically worded, the board was prevented from using any of the revenue to keep older pools and other park facilities open more than 4 days a week."<BR/><BR/>-------<BR/><BR/>That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the Parks sales tax could have also specified that the park sales tax could be used, specifically, to assist with maintenance and up keep cost of city parks already in existance before the parks tax came into existance.<BR/><BR/>There are ways the tax could have included those facilities and parks in existence prior to the implementation of the 1/4 cent park sales tax as beneficiaries of the revenue.<BR/><BR/>Since it is a county-wide tax, I suppose, it would have to be included in the bill or ordinance that participating cities could have license to use some of the parks tax for exisiting parks and facilities if there was a surplus of funds available from previously reserved 1/8 cent portions of the tax, currently earmarked for maintenence of those parks and facilities built WITH the money from the tax.<BR/><BR/>Point being: the taxes can be specified to include whatever the writer of any given bill or ordinance wants to include and can be as specific or non-specific as is directed by that writer.<BR/><BR/>In the case of the 1/8-cent tax, I, personally, would have preferred to have seen language that would specify that in the case of projects arising which were not specified on the day voters approved specific projects for the tax, that they SHALL be brought before council for approval so that citizens would ALSO have some input into non-specified projects as they come up.<BR/><BR/>It's just my personal opinion but I'd like to see voters, through their council members, have more say in decisions of how their tax money is to be spent on such projects which have not been specified. That, certainly, COULD be accomplished during the writing process of a bill or ordinance IF the writers CHOSE to write it that way. <BR/><BR/>I'd like to see some changes made to give voters more of an opportunity to weigh in on these NEWLY developed projects as they arise.<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting anyone vote either for or against the ballot measure as presented, I am just seeking to make sure voters are fully aware of information that goes beyond what they will read in the ballot language at the polls. I, personally, feel that the more citizens know and understand an issue, the better their decisions will be regarding that issue.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad my posting assisted in an exchange of thought and ideas on the subject. :)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing a different perspective.Jackie Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10554151805461400754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10887668.post-48680278566427365552008-07-29T12:13:00.000-05:002008-07-29T12:13:00.000-05:00I'm not the publisher, but as a member of the edit...I'm not the publisher, but as a member of the editorial staff I can assure you CFP has no "stance" on the issue. The publication does not publish any editorials that are to be considered the voice of the paper itself. All articles and editorials are by-lined.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I'd like to address some of what Jackie has published in this post.<BR/><BR/>The "subjective language" you refer to is common and practical. We have witnessed the problems with wording bond issues and tax levies too specifically with the Park Board being forced to make the pool closings. Because the parks tax issue was so specifically worded, the board was prevented from using any of the revenue to keep older pools and other park facilities open more than 4 days a week.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying there weren't other options available to the city, but the Park Board itself could not redirect money to older facilities because the wording of the tax issue was specific in excluding older facilities from receiving funding from the new tax.<BR/><BR/>"Subjective language" as you refer to it is practical and common sense to give the city options in unforeen situations and circumstances. If you or anyone else can read the future, or better yet, if you want the city council to have the right to pass "emergency bills" like the Opus/BKD fiasco, you can support the exclusion of "subjective language" in your tax proposals and bond issues.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I believe such language to be a pragmatic and reasonable approach to the reality of the ever-changing priorities forced upon government by new circumstances and situations in the local government landscape.Stu Solomonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546870813158628511noreply@blogger.com