1/2 Cent Town Hall Meeting Monday 29 October
Posted: 26 October 2012 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Our Manhattan PAC is hosting a Town Hall meeting at the City Library Main Auditorium on Monday 29 October at 6:30 P.M.  Here is a chance to discuss the merits or lack of merit for the tax proposal, without the canned slides from the City or County.  Stop by and examine the five parts of the tax, the ramifications of a yes or no vote, the budget implications and the negative/positive impacts on the County and City budget.  Get the facts and make an informed vote.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 October 2012 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  801
Joined  2012-10-10

Wynn… can you edit the thread title??  If no one shows until “April” 29th, even the Spring election cycle will be over…....

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 October 2012 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Larry - I fixed it.  It was correct in the body of the message, thanks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

i went.  no one attended other than local elected officials and candidates, plus one non politician.  i left after 5 mins.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  801
Joined  2012-10-10

Had a lengthy discussion w/ a person who is about as left leaning as you can get.  He is adamantly against the sales tax.  His reasoning is…. “This d**n commission wants to cut out social services because they don’t have enough money.  In the next breath, they tell us we should vote for more tax that they can hand to their buddies!”  This person knows and talks to a lot of people and his opposition will be echoed throughout those circles.  OTOH, I know there are conservative leaning organizations also opposed to the tax.

This is not an issue that is strictly divided, Republican/Democratic… conservative/liberal.  This is an issue that seems to be divided much more by “Good Ol’ Boy” against common citizen.  It’s divided by lots of dollars spent by the Chamber and their influence pedaling vs. those who just want relief from the property taxes that will escalate dramatically in the next few years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

i oft found myself in agreement, as a conservative, with liberals, particularly jamie morris-hardeman during my term, on these kinds of issues.  conservative and liberal views align many times on non-social issues. it’s not surprise that this is a case in point for the reasons you point to, larry. 

the chamber has come out as the villain in all this because they are, in reality, the town’s shadow government.  right or wrong, the organization has had way too much influence on local government.  so, this may send a resounding thud there and at city hall, if the tax is rejected, which, i’m reasonably confident will be the case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2012 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

We did have a couple of more folks show up after Bob left, turnout was however poor, might indicate burnout or apathy on the topic.  Those present did however have a good discussion.

The issue with this particular tax is very simple.  It has five parts, roads, smaller cities, debt reduction and finally infrastructure/economic development.  Many people tend to label this tax as an economic development tax, which it is not.  The break out of funds would go 33% to Riley County Road and Bridges, 2% to the smaller cities in Riley County to use as they please, 23% to City of Manhattan Property tax Relief, and 42% to be allocated to Infrastructure and/or Economic Development as determined by the City Commission.  In reality the City Commission could use all of the funds for Infrastructure and none for economic development.  My goal if the tax passes is to use the lion’s share of the 42% for infrastructure.  The main point that everyone should keep in mind on this tax is the simple fact that it is not about one thing, but five things.

To provide some insight on some of the negative comments provided.  I for one am on record as wanting to change the way we fund social services.  Voting against this tax for that reason will not take any pressure off of efforts to cut SSAB spending.  SSAB is not part of this tax.  Pass or fail, the issue of SSAB is an issue not related to the tax (unless you can justify giving SSAB Economic Development or Infrastructure funds).  I advocate a paradigm shift in how we handle this particular issue.  It will be a topic at a November Commission meeting.

The LWC opposes the tax because they want to force a Living Wage.  The last two companies that applied for Eco Devo funds all paid above the living wage.  MATC was the only organization that had anyone on the payroll lower than the “living wage.  I believe that was two employees.  Eco Devo funds were provided to MATC to add classroom space.  It does not seem to be sound logic to vote against a tax because of wages for two employees.  The Eco Devo application procedure has been updated to provide very heavy weighting in favor of the Living Wage.  A no vote on this tax will not help the process of Living Wage, in fact it will be a setback.  The classroom space provided to MATC, provides an opportunity for training that can result in employment above the living wage. 

Many of you are demonizing the Chamber.  They serve a function.  The economic development results are mixed, some success and some failure.  My assessment is that the eco devo efforts resulted in more positive than negative results.  Though I do believe that of the five parts of the tax the Eco Devo efforts are last in my priorities, my priority list – debt reduction, roads, infrastructure, smaller cities, eco devo.  We can do better with eco devo efforts. 

Bottom line on the tax is that it has more good points than bad.  If the tax fails the County will have to cut budget or raise taxes to cover the Roads.  The smaller cities will need to find a way to cut budget or raise taxes.  The City of Manhattan has a debt bubble approaching in the Bond and Interest Fund.  These three parts of the tax will result in a cumulative mil levy increase of up to 9 Mils between the county and city of the tax fails. The final two parts of the tax will in theory have a much smaller impact.  Without the infrastructure component we will need to raise taxes to cover the K-18 project.  In addition DMI will no longer have a funding source.  Many proposed CIP projects, like the Library expansion will not have full support of the Commission.  Efforts to bring in or expand existing business by the Chamber or the City will terminate.  A no vote will in the long run result in the following – higher County and City Mil levy, rejection of future CIP projects, elimination of funding to some organizations like DMI and finally continued pressure to cut funds from other city supported activities to include SSAB.  My conclusion is that if you take a holistic view of the tax issue a No vote tends to provide many more negative benefits than positive.

Profile
 
 
   
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.