> Mr. Brandt here: Nice theory, but the flaw in it is that > higher valuations have to be proven by the assessor in court > if they are challenged by property owners. And they are.
This counterargument works only if all property owners challenge their assessments. If some fraction do not then my theory holds. Businesses make "billing" errors all the time; it's a time honored strategy. > Another flaw is that the city wouldn't have been cutting > valuations on downtown office towers for the last several > years if revenue need was the driver. I thought that the title of the post was "Skyscraper valuations going up." ;-) I think that the most important question is the relationship between the revenue and debt curves. Do you have an answer? Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
