[Vision2020] RE: my suggestions for next school bond

[tbertruss at aol.com]

Bill:
 
I understood you did not like your money going for these development costs for the now abandoned new high school site, but these landowners who might receive a "windfall" who pay property tax would be paying a fraction of these costs, as would every taxpaying property owner involved in supporting MSD with their taxes.
 
Is it not possible to require landowners who may receive a "windfall" from a publicly funded development to pay a share of these development costs, if it is clear the landowners are going to, for example, build apartments that utilize the roads and sewers, etc. that were funded publicly through a new high school development?  So if a landowner did build apartments to take advantage of the infrastructure built with tax money, they would be required to chip in for the costs of these developments, when the landowner aims to make profit off publicly funded development infrastructure.
 
This seems like a simple solution to this problem you raised, though I do not know the law on this subject, so there may be some reason my idea is not workable.
 
Ted Moffett
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill London <london at moscow.com>
To: Tbertruss at aol.com; kjajmix1 at msn.com
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:17:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: my suggestions for next school bond


T-
Of course, whenever tax money is spent, someone benefits.  That was not my point.  I referred to the huge windfall of having the taxpayers spend about $4million for roads, sewers, etc that those local landowners will not have to spend were they going to develop their land....
I wasn't interested in seeing my money used in that manner
BL
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tbertruss at aol.com 
To: kjajmix1 at msn.com ; london at moscow.com 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: my suggestions for next school bond


All:

Bill London wrote:

"The owners of undeveloped
land near that high school site would reap a financial bonanza (they would
not have to pay for development costs) and I would be helping pay for it.
Not good."

Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but these land owners near the proposed new high school site pay property taxes that go to support MSD, so at least in part they would pay for the development that would happen if the proposed high school went forward.  Besides, you are opposed to your taxes benefiting landowners in the context of a debate on public education?  Even a remodel of the old Moscow High School might use your tax dollars for the financial benefit of land owners in this area of Moscow if the remodeled high school raised their property values do to making the downtown area more of a valued destination for shopping and business.  Would you also object to this?  

I can see the logic in wanting to stop sprawl via keeping the high school downtown, but any publicly funded construction is going to use tax dollars that will benefit someone or some business at taxpayers expense.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050429/991e8e33/attachment.htm