LTE PUBLISHED IN CT

[Lloyd Danforth]

When ever I pass a new building project the little, naive, part of my mind that lives near the tip of my tongue says:, "wow!, the addition of that to the tax base should push taxes down!"

Then my critical mind that reposes, near the edge, but, somewhat inside of Reality says: "NAH!"

The big 'lefty' paper in CT ran a series of articles on Sprawl.  I scanned it and sent an LTE.  I didn't think they would publish it, but, they did.

The article:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/909895841.html?dids=909895841:909895841&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Oct+9%2C+2005&author=&desc=STATE+OF+SPRAWL+





My letter:

Reaping Rewards Of Sprawl?

After reading the Oct. 9 Commentary section [editorial, "State Of Sprawl"], all I could think was that with the increase in the tax base of communities that are gaining all these "McMansions," taxes for the established residents should have gone down quite a bit. Have they?

Lloyd R. Danforth
Hartford

[Kat Kanning]

 

[Michael Fisher]

LOL

Is that the sound of money being flushed down the toilet I hear? 

[Lloyd Danforth]

I've always thought that the obligation of local government, along with minimising their own costs, is to encourage the expansion of the tax base and share the increase , by reducing everybody's taxes all around.
Still not ideal, but, an improvement.

[Ron Helwig]

I've always thought that the obligation of local government, along with minimising their own costs, is to encourage the expansion of the tax base and share the increase , by reducing everybody's taxes all around.
Still not ideal, but, an improvement.

You mean, for example, by kicking out a few "low tax" homeowners in order to allow a "high tax" business to move in? 

I don't think its any business of the government, at any level, to try to maximize taxes. I think there should be a maximum they are allowed to take (I know some would say that maximum should be zero), and if that isn't enough, then too bad.

The purpose of government is "to preserve these [inalienable] rights".

[Kat Kanning]

/agree rhelwig

[Dreepa]

I've always thought that the obligation of local government, along with minimising their own costs, is to encourage the expansion of the tax base and share the increase , by reducing everybody's taxes all around.
Still not ideal, but, an improvement.

At the last town meeting here (Hopkinton) they just opened up 55 parcels for new houses.  That was the arguement that was made.
One person stated that he was going to to hold the selectman to that promise and that our taxes should go down after the houses are sold.
Will be interesting to watch.

[Lloyd Danforth]

You mean, for example, by kicking out a few "low tax" homeowners in order to allow a "high tax" business to move in??

No, I mean, get out of the way of that Wallmart who wants to turn 50-100 acres of woodland taxed at X into 50-100 acre taxed at X plus something.

I don't think its any business of the government, at any level, to try to maximize taxes. I think there should be a maximum they are allowed to take (I know some would say that maximum should be zero), and if that isn't enough, then too bad.

Where did I say maximise taxes?? I said maximise the Tax Base. Do you understand what that means?
An increase in the tax base, should reduce taxes for everybody.? Probably won't.? That was the joke.
I agree taxes should be zero also, but, I am enough of a realist to know that isn't going to happen

[Dreepa]

Hillsboro NH just had Walmart pass through the first of the zoning boards commissions.
One town council mentioned increased tax revenue.

[polyanarch]

Taxes smaxes.

The more they take, the more they take.

[Lex]

Taxes smaxes.

The more they take, the more they take.

And the more they think they can get away with.