http://www.urbanaparks.org/pdfs/QA_Referendum.pdf
I took the time to read through the urbana parks referendum. It outlines how the last tax rate increase in 1997 was used for and how it intends to use this proposed increase.
I had one major questions before I started read: Is this a proposal to maintain current level of services or is this a proposal to offer enhanced services and charge us accordingly. With money increasing steadily with new construction an increasing property values, are the proposed services something we should have expected anyways?
After reading this, something jumps out at me:
Without a rate increase, what will happen?
"Without a rate increase, the Commissioners will have to review the entire Park District program
of services and make decisions that likely will result in some of the following:
- New projects will not be possible at Crystal Lake Park
- Deteriorating features will be removed and not replaced
- The district will not be able to apply for grants because matching funds will not be available
- The district will not be able to improve neighborhood or community parks
- Crystal Lake Pool may need to close
- Natural areas will not be as protected from invasive species and deterioration
- Grass will not be mowed as often, flowers will not be planted, tree care will be reduced
- Recreation programs and services will be cut"
Of the eight drawbacks mentioned, 5 out 8 clearly show a failure to maintain current levels without a tax increase.
Something else jumped out at me after reading in the lengthly detail about the negative aspects of the tax caps:
"J. Even though the property tax rate keeps going down, doesn’t the park district get more
money each year?
Yes, even though the tax rate goes down every year, the park district gets more money each
year because property values increase and more properties get added to the tax rolls."
You really have to look close or you might miss the fact that the park district gets more money each year because property values increase and more properties get added to the tax rolls.
After my first round of analysis it looks as if the citizens of urbana will require a tax increase just to maintain levels of services previously expected, with the enticement of some new construction items that I feel are attractive and worth consideration independently.
Because of their failure to meet expectations and live within their means, I doubt they are going to plan accordingly to live within their means after this tax increase. A failure to live within their means after a decade of phenomenal economic success and rising property values is yet another red flag. Then there is the possibility that property values will not continue to grow as fast, or grow at all....
"Because of their failure to meet expectations and live within their means..."
Well, no. They have been living within their means. And as a result of increased costs of fuel, power, and health care, they are facing the choice of asking for more money, or cutting services. That's what living within your means is, either provide the services you can with the money you have, or ask for more money. They point out that they operate on a "pay as you go" basis, instead of incurring long-term debt.
The fact that property values have been rising is a straw man. If you read the rest of the QnA, you will find that the rate of increase in funding to the Park District is not tied to property values. The funding is tied to the Consumer Price Index which looks at the average home expenses (not average corporate, or government expenses), and has only grown at a rate of about 2.5% in recent years. This means that as property values have been rising, the actual tax rate has been falling.
The Crystal Lake improvements look like they are saying "The pool is getting old and will need major repairs soon. Instead of just patching up the old pool that has increasing needs, lets update it to become a modern pool that can better serve the community." (Zero depth entrance is a handicap-accesiblity item, I believe). This seems to be a reasonable strategy. Like buying a new truck when the old one has higher and higher cost repair issues.
Regardless, the reality is that either the Park District gets an increase in funding, or they will cut services to continue to live within their means. The question for voters is which choice they would prefer.
What kind of a community are we if we can't force working people to pay for a pool that a guy in a wheelchair can roll himself into? It's not his fault he is in a wheelchair, so why should he have to pay for his own special pool to swim in? The rest of us should have to pay for his misfortune - that way, a little social justice will be achieved and we can all sleep well at night, knowing that we have taken away one person's misfortune and transferred it to others who do not share that particular misfortune. Is not swimming in a pool a right just like breathing fresh air? In a city as great as Urbana, swimming in a pool shouldn't be limited to those people who pay for a pool to swim in.
Really, this is a public health issue. Access to fun is a necessary component in a thriving, democratic society. For too long, the rich have kept access to doctors, pools, expensive colleges, etc. to themselves. They are so scared about what would happen if access to these essential resources was opened up to the poor, minorities and differently-abled. Any opposition to this tax increase will show just how scared they are. They don't want to lose their place of privilege in society, which they have maintained simply by limiting access to these critical resources. Well times are changing, and they will just have to learn to live with it.
Well, you can make the argument that the existance of the park district takes money from everyone unwillingly, whereas anyone who wants to could simply pool their money and buy recreation. You could make a similar argument for police and fire protection as well, depending on how strictly capitalist you want to be. Given that police departments, fire departments and park districts did not exist at the time the constitution was written, you could also make the argument that the founding fathers never meant for public money to pay for these luxuries.
Once the people (of a country, state, or local district) do collectively make the decision to tax the public for publicly available facilities and services, then it seems that it should be a given that those services and facilities are available and usable by as large a percentage of the public as possible. (Yes, even them crips and Irish. Maybe even the people of different skin colors.)
My fellow anonymous, that's exactly my point. Money is only unwillingly being taken from those people who are scared of what will happen once the rest of us get our access to nicer pools and stuff. And you know what, they deserve to have their money taken away from them if that's how they feel. As Jesus said, they should sell all they have and give it to the poor.
As Jesus said, they should sell all they have and give it to the poor.
But did he say, "gov't should take everything you have and give it to the poor"? There is a difference you know.
Truly mind boggling how the socialists who tend to promote secularism often argue as if Jesus was in charge of the government.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Isn't it great that we are actually being asked for permission to raise taxes/fees?! This should happen more often.
Offline priorities are preventing me from reading much into all the comments. I will be back this weekend.
"This means that as property values have been rising, the actual tax rate has been falling." I read from the proposal that tax rates are decreasing relative to assessed value. It does not discuss how much tax liabilty has increased by total or per capita for me to trust that perspective. I'll be looking at that before voting one way or another.
"Access to fun is a necessary component in a thriving, democratic society. For too long, the rich have kept access to doctors, pools, expensive colleges, etc. to themselves." It's not about rich and poor. I value the park district. It has many great features such as statue park and the dog park. I'm asking a fair question as to why the last tax increase wasn't good enough, even during times of great economic performance. How much did their revenues increase over that time? It is easy to argue that they could have had more money if and "look, expenses have increases". How much has the price risen over the past ten years for the Urbana citizen? The only mentions of revenues is that small little statement agreeing that they increased? By default, I am extremely sceptical of a report that is not balanced and clearly does not analyze revenues, except conditionally as a function of market value of the property in Urbana.
"As Jesus said, they should sell all they have and give it to the poor." Jesus said what?! : ) The park district issue is about the rich vs poor? Interesting point to consider, but the poor people also pay rent to the people who pay the property taxes who increase the rents to pay for services of the city. They pay for it one way or another. Not that that's bad if it is a good value.
"If you read the rest of the QnA, you will find that the rate of increase in funding to the Park District is not tied to property values. The funding is tied to the Consumer Price Index which looks at the average home expenses (not average corporate, or government expenses), and has only grown at a rate of about 2.5% in recent years. This means that as property values have been rising, the actual tax rate has been falling." Has the increase in revenue from property taxes only grown at 2.5%? What was the increase in property tax revenue this year?
"Has the increase in revenue from property taxes only grown at 2.5%? What was the increase in property tax revenue this year? "
A valid question. From the QnA:
"The total property tax funds that the park district receives each year are
restricted by the “Tax Cap” law to 5%, or the percent increase in the Consumer Price Index,
whichever is less. In the last six years the average percent increase in the Consumer Price Index
that must be used has been 2.53% (with a high of 3.4% and a low of 1.6%)."
Thanks. I interpret this as the price going up anywhere between 3.4% and 1.6% over the past 6 years. I'm tying to put that into perspective.
So you if you take a $5 item in 1997, the price will be $6.40 in 2007 if the average increase was 2.5% annually (estimate). Is this a safe baseline?
Yes, given the progression: 5.00, 5.13, 5.25, 5.38, 5.52, 5.66, 5.80, 5.94, 6.09, 6.24, and 6.40.
I read the entire proposal again incorporating some of the different perspective shared in this thread. I even asked "what would Jesus do".
We could infer that expenses are increasing and that only increasing the price between 1.6% and 3.4% is not reasonable to maintain the current level of service. It is clear that this is NOT their message. The main argument is that they want to address UNMET needs by bringing the tax RATE back to previous levels. We are warned at the end of this document that if we don't act now to meet unmet needs, the park district will not be able to maintain the service level that are not unmet.
I like to think I'm reasonable, but I'm going to vote no. They talked primarily about rates and not about funding levels. I think they could make a case that funding levels are not adequate to maintain the current level of service and we need even more to support new levels of service, but I'll vote on that when I see it. I think they should choose a consultant with a less manipulative selling style.
Now I'm going to study up and decide whether or not to vote on ending the war in iraq and whether or not I support the invasion of Iran. Thanks for all feedback and helping me decide my vote.
I can't tell if Anon 9:21 is serious or sarcastic - that's probably a result of the outlandish ubersocialist talking points that constantly bombard us from the far left.
"The rest of us should have to pay for his misfortune - that way, a little social justice will be achieved and we can all sleep well at night, knowing that we have taken away one person's misfortune and transferred it to others who do not share that particular misfortune."
Yeaaaaahhhhhh....see, that's exactly why I don't buy into socialism. Rather than helping those who are in the water onto the boat (or giving everyone the opportunity to work hard so that they can buy their OWN boat), socialists would rather that we just sink the boat, so EVERONE gets to be in the water...It's the whole socialist negative mindset that I don't like.
/rant
Commence firing, using examples based off of my boat scenario to show how clever you are.
I prefer to pay for capital projects with bond issues rather than operating fund tax rate increases. I think the park district should come back with an actual plan for Crystal Lake park and the pool with actual cost estimates. While I sympathize with the fact that their fuel & utility costs are increasing faster than the CPI that is a fact of life for all of us. I doubt that I will be supporting this referendum either.