Ideas on funding/fixing public safety

[RecycleMichael]

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14303473

My favorite detail from the Colorado Springs budget cuts is that they took all the trash cans out of the city parks and put up signs saying to take your trash home with you.

Think that would work here?

[Conan71]

My favorite detail from the Colorado Springs budget cuts is that they took all the trash cans out of the city parks and put up signs saying to take your trash home with you.

Think that would work here?

Not a chance.  We are inhabited with pigs who think nothing of tossing empty happy meal sacks out of car windows.

When I used to spend about a week or two a month out on the front range of Colorado, I was always impressed with the pride people had in Colorado Springs.  I don't know if it was really tight code enforcement or people just take it more upon themselves to keep their houses tidy and pick up after themselves.

[Red Arrow]

My favorite detail from the Colorado Springs budget cuts is that they took all the trash cans out of the city parks and put up signs saying to take your trash home with you.

Think that would work here?

Well, we could remove the trash cans and put up the signs.  I think the trash would stay in the parks.  I see too much trash along the roads etc to think otherwise.

[shadows]

"A rose by any other name, would it not be a rose by smell?"

Is not a impact fee the same as any other tax?   

If it is call a fee does it make it any easer to pay? 

We have more government now than we can afford to buy. 

At what point does government become socialism? 

If we made all roads to out ling additions toll roads then the user could pay for the type of roads they wanted.   

[FOTD]

We should follow everything Colorado Springs does...same mentality rules here. So, why not?

Once again, Inteller posts are accurate...especially with regards to Fayetteville.

[nathanm]

an impact fee might be a tax, but it is a one time tax and not a regressive one....unlike the rest of the mooches of the world like Henderson who want a 1% tax increase.  I mean, does that guy have no shame? He presides over one of the districts such a tax would affect the most! 

Don't you know that only socialists believe in paying their own way? 

BTW, having lived in Fayetteville at the time they imposed impact fees, they had absolutely no effect on the continued boom in subdivision building, despite what some of the local construction firms were saying. Perhaps it's just an effect of my only getting business through word of mouth, but the developer I used to have as a client just considered himself lucky that the city had subsidized his projects until that point.

If the claims here were true, there would have been a huge shift of builders towards Springdale and Rogers which had no impact fees. That didn't really happen. There was a shift northward towards building in Bentonville and Rogers around that time, but that began as soon as they decided to locate the new airport up in Benton County.

[Red Arrow]

Don't you know that only socialists believe in paying their own way?  :

I think you have that backwards.  Socialists believe in having the government (someone else) pay their way.

[Red Arrow]

Yes, and you keep making these comments as though they have merit. The cost of repaving, road building and other infrastructure costs in the midtown area that you seem so bent on punishing, are reflected in the cost of our housing, our ad valorem taxes and our occassional special assessments. We paid extra to live in these homes in purchase price. Because our homes increased in value, (while suburbanites chased cheaper $/sq ft options in newer hoods whose homes did not reflect the true cost of developing them), our taxes were/are higher than yours. Our taxes also were used to build expressways and widen arterials that had no real benefit to us so that the new suburbanites could race back and forth from downtown. We fought hard to keep a good chunk of my neighborhood from being razed to make a Riverside expressway for the developers. We've subsidized your lifestyle for 50 years. Pay up.

Do you not remember when newly arrived Cities Service employees all bought expensive homes south on Sheridan Road which was a GRAVEL two lane because developers refused to pave it? The city had to wait for their property taxes and sales taxes to start rolling in before it could be paved. Yeah, that made sense.

We obviously disagree on whether my comments have merit.

I was unable to find housing prices for midtown in 1971 to compare to the price of our house when our family moved here from near Philadelphia, PA.  I do know my parents wanted approximately 1 acre of land so we could have a big fenced in back yard for our German Shepherd dogs.  They also wanted more than the 25 or so feet between houses like the place we left behind.   They didn't care about sidewalks.  Bixby City water service was here but the houses were on septic systems. Sound like mid-town yet?  The price of the new "cheap place in the suburbs" was about 30% more than the selling price of the home back east.  The new place was about 3 years old, at approximately 1500 ft^2 had a bit less living area than the old place by not having a basement, but did have an attached  garage.  By the way, it is not a snout house.  Among other things we have a side entry garage.  (The lot is wide enough.)  The front wall of the garage is even with the living and dining rooms and actually recessed a few feet from the bedroom area.  My parents bought this place because it is what they wanted.

I am not intent on punishing midtown.   You claim the price you paid for your house included the cost of the roads.  Unless you bought it new, the price you paid went into the pockets of the previous owners.  You brag about the high home values and taxes you pay but evidently they are not enough since your residential roads are also in bad shape even without paying to widen the roads down here.   My parents bought this house as second owners at a price that reflected adequate infrastructure at the time and probably would have remained adequate at 1 house per acre densities.   Future, higher density, additions caused the roads to be as packed as they are now.  Cut the traffic by 75% and the 2 lane roads down here would be busy but adequate.  Maybe an impact fee should have been charged to our addition for a few traffic lights and turn lanes.  Now we get to where we agree a bit.  I think the higher density new housing and businesses probably should have included an impact  fee to expand the infrastructure to what is now needed.  Where we differ is that I don't think we (in our addition) should now pay for infrastructure levels to support at least 4 times the density housing any more than you believe you should pay for our problems down here.  I mentioned a county level impact fee.  You dismissed my previous points as being without merit.  What good would a City of Bixby (or Broken Arrow) impact fee do for Tulsa?  There are a lot of houses within the Tulsa city limits that weren't here 39 years ago. Some of those additions are pretty pricey and their lot sizes are not that big. Their taxes should  pay for some widening even without a special assessment or impact tax.  Or should those taxes go to fix residential streets in midtown? Again, in the case of Memorial Drive, there are federal and Bixby dollars involved in the widening south of the Creek Turnpike.  I will admit to using Riverside/Delaware and 121st to drive home from work.  It has been widened already between Memorial and Sheridan. (Bixby territory)

Just as I am willing to support public transportation that I will probably never use because it might get some cars off the road and make driving easier for me, I believe the expressways have benefited you by keeping traffic off many of your major arterial streets.  I don't believe all the traffic on the arterials is by suburbanites either.  By expressways I am thinking of Skelly (I-44), BA Expy (51, US64), I-244, US75, US169, US412.  Note that these have state or federal dollars involved which means I helped pay for them too.  The Creek Turnpike which I usually take to work is, of course, a toll road. 

The expressways also make it easier for the nasty suburbanites to come to the BOK center which doesn't help Bixby, BA, Owasso, Jenks, Glenpool beyond a little county sales tax but we helped pay for it. Can/does downtown and midtown Tulsa completely support the PAC, Old Lady on Brady.  How about the new ball park?  What would happen if suburbia decided it wasn't worth the drive downtown without the expressways or good arterial streets?  I expect the financial models for these entities depend somewhat on the dreaded tax leaching suburbanites. I also know of at least a few people that work downtown and stay for things like burger night at McNellies.  They are not the majority of the customers for sure but I doubt I'll see a "Suburbanites Keep Out" sign any time soon.

We moved here in August 1971. I believe Cities Service must have already been here since Sheridan was paved, as I remember, all the way to 121st. There wasn't much there though.

It's getting late so I'd better stop for tonight.

[nathanm]

I think you have that backwards.  Socialists believe in having the government (someone else) pay their way.

I don't know about all that. Socialists aren't the ones constantly clamoring for tax breaks and refusing to pay for the infrastructure necessary to service their homes on the edge of town.

Counterintuitive, isn't it?

Also, I think waterboy's point is that all of the existing housing stock has had its infrastructure paid for through general taxes. New subdivisions out at 111th and Sheridan (or wherever) aren't paying for the cost of extending municipal services out there. Everybody else in Tulsa is subsidizing that development on the edge of town by paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to extend water and sewer.

If Oklahoma allows it, another way to recoup such costs (and the cost of rebuilding roads/sidewalks/whatever in older neighborhoods) would be through either a special assessment (which sucks because it's often a huge chunk of change all at once) or a temporary property tax surcharge. (better, since it allows the pain to be spread out over a few years)

The point isn't to make it more painful to buy a new house on the edge of town, the point is to recoup the cost of extending city services.

Of course, in places like Fayetteville, you get to pay the impact fees even in infill situations. I haven't thought enough about it to decide whether that's reasonable or not.

[BKDotCom]

I don't know about all that. Socialists aren't the ones constantly clamoring for tax breaks and refusing to pay for the infrastructure necessary to service their homes on the edge of town.

Most socialists are on the receiving end..   sooner care / welfare, etc..
System works well for them.. we get to pay for all their services.

[Red Arrow]

I don't know about all that. Socialists aren't the ones constantly clamoring for tax breaks and refusing to pay for the infrastructure necessary to service their homes on the edge of town.

Counterintuitive, isn't it?

It is only if I were to accept your perception, which I don't.  Maybe you are having another senior moment.

Socialists are the ones that depend on the government to take care of their needs.  They pay taxes according to their ability and withdraw goods and services based on their needs.  Of course they don't clamor for tax breaks.  The poor won't be taxed and the rich (and usually powerful) have enough to satisfy their desires almost regardless of how much you take.  If not, they have a foundation set up to make sure they are not hurt. When I think of socialists, I think of Hugo Chavez and his kind.   US American socialists are rank amateurs by comparison.

Also, I think waterboy's point is that all of the existing housing stock has had its infrastructure paid for through general taxes. New subdivisions out at 111th and Sheridan (or wherever) aren't paying for the cost of extending municipal services out there. Everybody else in Tulsa is subsidizing that development on the edge of town by paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to extend water and sewer.

If Oklahoma allows it, another way to recoup such costs (and the cost of rebuilding roads/sidewalks/whatever in older neighborhoods) would be through either a special assessment (which sucks because it's often a huge chunk of change all at once) or a temporary property tax surcharge. (better, since it allows the pain to be spread out over a few years)

The point isn't to make it more painful to buy a new house on the edge of town, the point is to recoup the cost of extending city services.

Of course, in places like Fayetteville, you get to pay the impact fees even in infill situations. I haven't thought enough about it to decide whether that's reasonable or not.

If the area around waterboy can have its infrastructure paid through general taxes, it's only fair to have new development extended the same treatment.  I have heard that some of the original close in areas were funded by special assessments but that much of Tulsa's infrastructure has been funded by general revenue.  It sounds so much like "I've got mine but you can't get yours".  At one time, midtown was on the outer edges.  Maybe we went through the same stuff back then.

The way I understand the Roads package, it includes repairs to many residential streets at the expense of everyone in town.  Some of the arterials in mid town have "improvements" either planned or being done.  "Improvements" may be in the eye of the beholder but anything other than regular maintenance spits in the eye of SE Tulsans being told to pay up

[Conan71]

It is only if I were to accept your perception, which I don't.  Maybe you are having another senior moment.

Socialists are the ones that depend on the government to take care of their needs.  They pay taxes according to their ability and withdraw goods and services based on their needs.  Of course they don't clamor for tax breaks.  The poor won't be taxed and the rich (and usually powerful) have enough to satisfy their desires almost regardless of how much you take.  If not, they have a foundation set up to make sure they are not hurt. When I think of socialists, I think of Hugo Chavez and his kind.   US American socialists are rank amateurs by comparison.

If I may add your your well-put point, most subjects of socialism are not allowed to clamor for lower taxes, better working conditions, better living conditions, etc.  Complaints like that are usually met with a gun muzzle.

[nathanm]

If I may add your your well-put point, most subjects of socialism are not allowed to clamor for lower taxes, better working conditions, better living conditions, etc.  Complaints like that are usually met with a gun muzzle.

I think you are confusing socialism with authoritarianism. It's easy to conflate the two, but they are separable. See most of Europe for a good example of that. Generally not authoritarian, yet partly to mostly socialist.

Similarly, Red Arrow conflates socialism with communism.

And FWIW, there is a significant class of well off folks who buy into the whole socialism thing. It's called noblesse oblige. You know, taking care of the servants.

[Red Arrow]

Similarly, Red Arrow conflates socialism with communism.

So did some communists.  Remember the CCCP, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

[nathanm]

So did some communists.  Remember the CCCP, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

I do. I also remember how they eliminated most private property, so I see the lie right there in their name. Similar to the German Democratic Republic.

You don't have to buy into their nearly 20 years past disinformation, however.