|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 22:07:42 GMT -6
Raised taxes hit the renters too... the owners pass it right along to the consumer. OK then, if your rent goes up 10 bucks a month and you can't afford it, you need to find a cheaper apartment. I don't mean to be glib but this is ridiculous. If people honest to goodness just don't have the money, then please vote NO. But the people who talk about how this is all about the money, and they just can't "afford" to give anymore, while sitting all warm and cozy in their red Georgian 2-story, well, they need to go to confession. |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 22:14:47 GMT -6
$40 a month isn't enough padding to keep someone afloat - its a tank of gas. I don't ever presume to tell people how to spend their money. I don't spend $40 a month on gas. I sincerely doubt that this referendum when all is tacked on to it will ever be as cheap as $40 a month. I would never tell someone to vote yes because I know best how to spend their money. My point was that it was calculated that it would amount to about $5800 over the course of 20 years. Someone said it would probably end up to be $10,000 when all is said and done. That's 40 bucks a month. Vote no if you want to vote no. But people shouldn't say this is about something its not about. Just like you did. At least you said what your real issue was and that's cool. You should vote with how you feel. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 22:24:14 GMT -6
This 5800 property tax increase over 20 years comes from what math and assumption base exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 21, 2006 22:30:27 GMT -6
There was a table showing the tax amounts over the 20 years. Topher and I came up with almost the exact same numbers. I can't remember if it was here or on the other board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 22:30:55 GMT -6
Raised taxes hit the renters too... the owners pass it right along to the consumer. OK then, if your rent goes up 10 bucks a month and you can't afford it, you need to find a cheaper apartment. I don't mean to be glib but this is ridiculous. If people honest to goodness just don't have the money, then please vote NO. But the people who talk about how this is all about the money, and they just can't "afford" to give anymore, while sitting all warm and cozy in their red Georgian 2-story, well, they need to go to confession. Single mom, child with autism, rents and has the cheapest apartment in the district. She breaks even or even backslides each month on CC debt because her child needs the Supported education program the district offers. Her child will probably be segwayed out of the inclusion in the classroom at the middle school level if not sooner. She can't afford a bump in the rent, especially if the 'desirability' bumps up as you wish it to. Where's she supposed to move? Her NO vote means she's being a tight-as* with her wallet? |
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Feb 21, 2006 22:32:13 GMT -6
[quote author=charmant board=school
I don't spend $40 a month on gas.
I sincerely doubt that this referendum when all is tacked on to it will ever be as cheap as $40 a month.[/quote]
Maybe it will be cheaper. Initially, the district's portion of the property taxes will go down about $120 per year on a 300K home. They won't go up until after the 2009 referendum kicks in for the operating expenses (assuming that will pass). Does anyone have any idea how much $$$ will be requested in the 2009 referendum? If it will truly cost only about $480 per year, deduct $120 and the incease is only about $360 per year. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that this would not be a severe financial strain on the vast majority of residents within our district.
BTW - You don't spend $40 per month on gas? That comes out to about 8 miles per day. Is that even possible? Between kids' activities, work, errands, health club, volunteer work etc. I'm sure I easily log 3-4 times that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 21, 2006 22:33:46 GMT -6
Sure, point to a single hypothetical person. The fact remains that, on average, this is a community that is considered relatively affluent.
I think no one denies that a few can't afford this. But, overall the "can't afford it" excuse is nonsensical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 22:36:03 GMT -6
Actually Stinks, there's more than 1 real person like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 21, 2006 22:37:32 GMT -6
I understand that. I'm talking overall community, and you know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 21, 2006 22:39:21 GMT -6
Is that the typical 204 voter or would that be an anomaly? Look Arch, I was a single mom and had to hack alot of stuff for a very long time - you can save the bleeding heart for someone else.
You live where you can afford to live and you deal with what you need to deal with. I am sure that this poor woman has more to think about than voting for a referendum, and she doesn't really notice an increase in her PPT because she lives in an apartment.
And you are SO far off the point which was, for majority of people who live in this district, forty bucks is couch change. And that's that.
|
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Feb 21, 2006 22:42:05 GMT -6
OK then, if your rent goes up 10 bucks a month and you can't afford it, you need to find a cheaper apartment. I don't mean to be glib but this is ridiculous. If people honest to goodness just don't have the money, then please vote NO. But the people who talk about how this is all about the money, and they just can't "afford" to give anymore, while sitting all warm and cozy in their red Georgian 2-story, well, they need to go to confession. Single mom, child with autism, rents and has the cheapest apartment in the district. She breaks even or even backslides each month on CC debt because her child needs the Supported education program the district offers. Her child will probably be segwayed out of the inclusion in the classroom at the middle school level if not sooner. She can't afford a bump in the rent, especially if the 'desirability' bumps up as you wish it to. Where's she supposed to move? Her NO vote means she's being a tight-as* with her wallet? She should vote NO, because she truly has no other choice. For every family that fits the above criteria, there are probably ten that fit this criteria: I drove by a home today where a "Vote No" sign was perched proudly on the front lawn. I would estimate the home to have a value in the upper 500K range. If they can't afford an additional $40 per month, then they have much bigger problems than the upcoming referendum. Downsizing should be their first priority. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 21, 2006 22:50:32 GMT -6
I wasn't off point, I was specifically calling this out: "If people can't afford the extra $20-$50 a month to live in this district to continue to support what makes this district special, then they maybe need to downsize or move to another district."
I probably should have quoted that up front.
|
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 21, 2006 22:50:40 GMT -6
[quote author=charmant board=school I don't spend $40 a month on gas. I sincerely doubt that this referendum when all is tacked on to it will ever be as cheap as $40 a month. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that this would not be a severe financial strain on the vast majority of residents within our district. BTW - You don't spend $40 per month on gas? That comes out to about 8 miles per day. Is that even possible? Between kids' activities, work, errands, health club, volunteer work etc. I'm sure I easily log 3-4 times that.[/quote] Dont be presumptuous!!!! I don't spend $40 on gas, I don't belong to a health club, my kids are in activities that they can walk, ride their bikes to and I volunteer within walking distance of my house. Dont spend my hard earned dollars either. Since $40 for 480 months is not attached to the referendum, my bad assumption is that it will be $140 per month for longer than 480 months. But this is not about the money solely. This is about credible numbers and I'm 'just looking' for the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 21, 2006 22:56:44 GMT -6
[ I drove by a home today where a "Vote No" sign was perched proudly on the front lawn. I would estimate the home to have a value in the upper 500K range. If they can't afford an additional $40 per month, then they have much bigger problems than the upcoming referendum. Downsizing should be their first priority.[/quote]
It's not about being able to afford the cash for some.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinks on Feb 21, 2006 23:05:12 GMT -6
Then what is it?
|
|
