[Vision2020] Nate's House
Nate Wilson
natewilson@moscow.com
Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:34:14 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------030606060505070803060003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dearest all:
The tax issue is of course a real one. I just don't think it is
actually what everybody is worried about (everybody here defined as
those concerned folks whispering into the ear next to them). Would
people be muttering and making concerned tax burden noises if the
Appaloosa Horse Club bought the Beach? But I used that one already. How
about the United Way? I admit that we who attend Christ Church are
insidious people and have foul plots for this town, but I feel like Al
Capone (or Whatserface the Hollywood madam), standing as defendant for
tax evasion. Surely you can do better?
A couple side notes: One, I believe NSA (New St. Andrews) pays a
property tax on their building directly proportional to the amount of
square footage they rent out (to the bakery). Two, I have not bought The
Beach: A Place to Party. Just my house. Three, I have not declared my
family a church and thus deceitfully gotten out of my property taxes, as
tempting as that would be. Pip-pip.
NDW
P.S. Christ Church owns one building (in which I work). It stands on the
corner of Fifth and Washington (if you care to throw eggs at it). The
church, I believe, also owns a chunk of dirt East of town. We really
must be stopped.
John Danahy wrote:
> Nate has provided us with a simple answer to a complex question. If
> Nate buys one house and lives in it, he joins the rest of us in
> supporting, through property taxes, local governmental entities. If
> he buys more houses and becomes a landlord, he increases his support
> of these entities because as a landlord he doesn't get the $50,000
> exemption on the houses he doesn't live in.
>
> If, however, Nate buys one house, and lets other like-minded people
> live with him for some nominal rent, creating either a commune or a
> boarding house, and he still claims the $50,000 exemption then he has
> engaged to place, through deception, a greater burden of support on
> the rest of us. If he then claims his house is a church, run as a
> non-profit, the burden on the rest becomes even larger.
>
> The real issue here is not about who buys one building, but who has
> bought many buildings. If a single entity, either one person or
> commune, engages to purchase an ever increasing economic control of
> the city, then all citizens should be aware, if not concerned. The
> city governments handling of the Wal-mart affair many years ago was a
> wake up call for all of us. We have watched the local university
> become bigger at our expense, why shouldn't we be concerned when
> another tax free entity becomes bigger at our expense?
>
> John
>
> jdanahy@turbonet.com <mailto:jdanahy@turbonet.com>
>
>
>
--------------030606060505070803060003
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Dearest all:<br>
The tax issue is of course a real one. I just don't think it is
actually what everybody is worried about (everybody here defined as
those concerned folks whispering into the ear next to them). Would
people be muttering and making concerned tax burden noises if the
Appaloosa Horse Club bought the Beach? But I used that one already. How
about the United Way? I admit that we who attend Christ Church are
insidious people and have foul plots for this town, but I feel like Al
Capone (or Whatserface the Hollywood madam), standing as defendant for
tax evasion. Surely you can do better? <br>
A couple side notes: One, I believe NSA (New St. Andrews) pays a
property tax on their building directly proportional to the amount of
square footage they rent out (to the bakery). Two, I have not bought
The Beach: A Place to Party. Just my house. Three, I have not declared
my family a church and thus deceitfully gotten out of my property
taxes, as tempting as that would be. Pip-pip.<br>
<br>
NDW<br>
<br>
P.S. Christ Church owns one building (in which I work). It stands on
the corner of Fifth and Washington (if you care to throw eggs at it).
The church, I believe, also owns a chunk of dirt East of town. We
really must be stopped. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
John Danahy wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid000001c36063$a5885530$e274e4ce@laurie3zo89bgq">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">Nate has provided us with
a simple answer to a complex
question. If Nate buys one house and lives in it, he joins the rest of
us
in supporting, through property taxes, local governmental entities. If
he
buys more houses and becomes a landlord, he increases his support of
these
entities because as a landlord he doesn’t get the $50,000 exemption on
the houses he doesn’t live in.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">If, however, Nate buys
one house, and lets other like-minded
people live with him for some nominal rent, creating either a commune
or a
boarding house, and he still claims the $50,000 exemption then he has
engaged
to place, through deception, a greater burden of support on the rest of
us. If he then claims his house is a church, run as a non-profit, the
burden on the rest becomes even larger. </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">The real issue here is
not about who buys one building, but
who has bought many buildings. If a single entity, either one person
or commune,
engages to purchase an ever increasing economic control of the city,
then all
citizens should be aware, if not concerned. The city governments
handling
of the Wal-mart affair many years ago was a wake up call for all of
us. We
have watched the local university become bigger at our expense, why
shouldn’t
we be concerned when another tax free entity becomes bigger at our
expense?</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">John</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;"><a
href="mailto:jdanahy@turbonet.com">jdanahy@turbonet.com</a></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span
style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------030606060505070803060003--