In a message dated 8/10/02 6:21:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > He did propose a tax increase, which we all knew was coming. Without an > increase they couldn't fund some of their obligated employee expenses. One > thing that you need to remember is that the City's portion of your entire > property tax bill is quite low. The greater portion (about 50%) is the > school portion. Therefore, the increase he's talking about does not mean an > > increase in your bottom line, just the amount attributed to the value of > your > home - and part of that is the natural increase due to the increase in the > value of your home. > Keith says; Pardon me, I have read this paragraph over ten times and do not understand it as yet. Though it sounds like double talk to me, I am positive that was not the intent of the writer. She knows, and cites the school portion, "about 50%". But leaves out the City portion; a relevant figure here. She acknowledges that, "He did propose a tax increase, which we all knew was coming." But hastens to suggest, "...the increase he's talking about does not mean an increase in your bottom line." OK? And I guess the natural order of creation, "...is the natural increase due to the increase in the value of your home." Increase, increase, but no increase. If there is; that is natural. Say what? I wonder if similar reason and clarity was manifest in Mpls. Redistricting meetings in which Miss Collier participated? Those outcomes are headed for a court hearing. Keith Reitman NearNorth _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
