[Winona Online Democracy]
I disagree with making the home owner pay a larger share for street
construction in front of their home (or for that matter, paying for the cost
of repairing the sidewalk in front of their home). It absolutely does not
add to the resale value of your home, and good grief, it's a PUBLIC street
and a PUBLIC sidewalk- right?
Cherisa Templeton
>From: Ed Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [Winona] Response to the mayor's question
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:29:59 -0600 (CST)
>
>[Winona Online Democracy]
>
>At 11:12 PM 8/29/00 -0700, Wendy D. wrote:
> >I think it would be asking a lot of a homeowner to cover the full cost of
> >repairing the street in front of her home. Seems fair to charge a
>percentage
> >to her. If there were other ways to charge which would ask the supposed
>users
> >to pay, that would seem more fair. An extension of the sales tax beyond
> >dredging to pay a portion would be fine with me.
> >The proposal to extend Bundy Blvd north seems good to me. How to pay for
>it?
> >My first impulse was to ask Corey to pay a chunk. Maybe he could pay for
>some
> >of the hidden costs as well, like for the unemployment checks to the
>Tri-Mac,
> >UBC, and Fleet Farm workers who earn a living wage right now (sarcastic
> >humor).
>
>
> Let's be careful not to confuse residential streets with those serving
>commercial purposes. Both provide benefit to the community as a whole, and
>thus the costs should be borne to some extent by the entire community
>through taxes.
>
> However, street improvements leading into a commercial or industrial
>area
>(e.g. extension of Bundy Blvd. north of Hwy 61) also provide a specific
>economic benefit to those businesses, so it seems reasonable that they
>should be asked to pick up a larger piece of the cost. This is rarely the
>case, in contrast, for improvements to residential streets (e.g. Wabasha
>street near WSU) unless they are just being put in or have really been
>allowed to deteriorate. Only in the minds of city planners and tax
>assessors (who claim street improvements increase the value of a house,
>even
>though you can't actually sell it for any more than you could before) is
>this seen as a benefit to the homeowner. For far too many people, street
>improvements lead primarily to increased traffic, noise, and dirt.
>
> Let me play devil's advocate here (yes, I know there are holes in this
>reasoning, but it makes for good discussion): if the street in front of
>your
>house is used 99% by other people and only 1% by you, should you be
>expected
>to pay more than 1% of its upkeep through specific assessments in addition
>to the taxes you already pay for the "community" part mentioned above?
>
>Ed Thompson
>
>
>
>
>Ed's witty saying for this week:
>If it's called "tourist season", why can't we shoot them?
>
>----------------
>This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
>Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
>Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
>Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
----------------
This message was posted to the Winona Online Democracy Project.
Please visit http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Please sign all messages posted to this list with your actual name.
Posting of commercial solicitations is not allowed on this list.
Report problems to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
