[Vision2020] RE: B.I.D.

[cjs]

Donavan - did you take your drugs today?


"The city owns the trees downtown. How I know this is that I was trimming 
some branches that were beating my sign to death and the city was going to 
fine me. Remember the fiasco at the mall when the mall removed some trees?"

I thought you said you never break the law!?!?! Were you lying to me now?

You know NSA doesn't violate the environmental laws of the downtown area. 
Why should they be kicked out and not you? You both are both out of control 
law breakers.

You are right about the bathrooms. We should tax downtown businesses to put 
in a new bathroom in Friendship Square (who cares if there are 50 of them 
elsewhere downtown). I will write my city council members and tell them you 
back the idea.

You are also right about backing the businesses that create jobs and are 
successful. We should require tax cuts only go with those business that 
follow the law, create jobs, and contribute something positive to the 
community.

>From: cjs <cjs at turbonet.com>
>To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
>CC: jpierce at dnews.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] B.I.D.
>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:56:43 -0800
>
>Bad - Idea - Deal.
>
>1)  Double taxation?
>
>2)  Isn't Friendship Square a park? If so, where are the restrooms that all 
>of our tax dollars are to buy? Aren't all "parks" supposed to have 
>bathrooms?
>
>3)  Isn't the city supposed to maintain "all" the sidewalks? They do it in 
>front of residential and the malls and the strip centers? Oh yeah - they 
>maintain the parks too, and what about the public parking facilities? So - 
>what is different about down town? Nothing! Granted they passed the snow 
>removal part on to the owners. Only in front of your property though. That 
>is residential and commercial. That is equal.
>
>4)  The city owns the trees downtown. How I know this is that I was 
>trimming some branches that were beating my sign to death and the city was 
>going to fine me. Remember the fiasco at the mall when the mall removed 
>some trees?
>
>5)  If you wish to improve business in a certain zone or area it is a 
>proven fact that reducing the tax burden on those in that area has "always" 
>spawned prosperity and improvements to the buildings and structures that 
>exist there. Not "more" taxes. That will surely cause the death and 
>devastation of downtown. Or is that somebody's agenda?
>
>6)  Who is "thriving" in the downtown corridor? Oh - wait...... N.S.A. Why 
>- TAX BURDEN RELIEF!!!
>
>7)  We do not need a B. I. D. or anything of the sort. It has been done 
>here a couple of times with the same outcome. Remember Alive After Five? 
>Dead on arrival. There should not be a cost if the city is doing it's job 
>and maintaining the district. Isn't the downtown district a benefit to the 
>entire community? If so, the burden should be shared by all. Equally! Just 
>like the sidewalks in front of your homes.
>
>8) Parking. I think all of us spent a couple hundred thousand dollars on a 
>piece of paper called, "The Downtown Revitalization Plan."  Why aren't we 
>following it? It speaks of the city aquiring property at the north end of 
>town basically for parking.  Anybody can get a copy of this expensive piece 
>of paper that reads like it is mass produced for all small communities, at 
>the building department. Why would we spend hundreds of thousands of 
>dollars on a plan we are not implementing? And you want to do it again? 
>Heeeellllllooooooooo!!!!!!
>
>In summary.........  there should be a special tax district for landlords 
>in the downtown corridor that gives them a substantial discount. For they 
>will re-invest those dollars in their buildings. Hence, maintaining and 
>making a thriving downtown district. This has been proven over and over 
>accross our country and the rust belt is the biggest example.
>
>If this B.I.D. thing is to go thru I think there should be a minimum 
>qualification that the person must have created from scratch numerous 
>businesses and made them successful. I want my tax dollars going to a 
>competeant individual(s). How about you?
>
>Phil