Now that the city council election is behind us, now that Mayor Laura Maczka has left the building, it's time for Richardson to turn its attention to something that's been bubbling away on the back burner for months: the work by the charter review commission to amend Richardson's City Charter. If all goes as expected, the voters will be deciding whether to amend the city charter in the November, 2015, election.
But before we dive into just what changes the commission has come up with, let's first look at the process. There seems to be some charges circulating that the commission is illegitimate, that it's a tool to provide a smokescreen for the city to change the charter to its own advantage and to the disadvantage of the citizens. Is there truth to that?
Monday, June 1, 2015
Friday, May 29, 2015
Review: Dept. of Speculation
Amazon |
"'I think I must have missed your second book,' he says. 'No,' I say. 'There isn't one.' He looks uncomfortable; both of us are calculating the years or maybe only I am. 'Did something happen?' he says kindly after a moment. 'Yes,' I explain."
After the jump, my review.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Sweet Jesus, $47 Million? - Amen
Earlier, I argued against giving targeted tax breaks to developers. Reader Steve Benson raised two counter-arguments.
First, development can sometimes result in added tax revenues greater than the cost of the city services consumed by that development, thus reducing the real tax burden on other taxpayers.
Second, if cities are prohibited from offering targeted tax breaks, some development projects in the category above won't proceed.
Is Steve correct? And if so, should I change my mind about the Palisades development in particular, and targeted tax breaks in general?
First, development can sometimes result in added tax revenues greater than the cost of the city services consumed by that development, thus reducing the real tax burden on other taxpayers.
Second, if cities are prohibited from offering targeted tax breaks, some development projects in the category above won't proceed.
Is Steve correct? And if so, should I change my mind about the Palisades development in particular, and targeted tax breaks in general?
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Selma (2014)
IMDB |
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Sweet Jesus, $47 Million? - ctd
That's what I wrote when I first covered the topic of the $47 million tax rebate Richardson granted to the developer of Palisades. I'm back to make up for my wishy washy answer.Some people's view of the world is black and white and isn't troubled by the complexities of a case like this. Not me. My head hurts thinking about all the angles to this deal. I start with Eric Nicholson's reaction: "Sweet Jesus, $47 million?" But I end up torn. It might not be the best deal Richardson could have swung. But it might not be such a bad deal, either. I'm sorry if you've read this far and are disappointed in that wishy washy answer.
Source: The Wheel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)