October 19, 2010 at 7:00 pm in INFORUM
Opponents of a Nov. 2 measure to instill a half-cent sales tax for flood mitigation have suggested such a tax will cost consumers more over the life of the tax. Continue Reading
Tags: Cass County, commission, County, diversiondennis, Fargo, Flood, flood tax, flooding, matterncass, sales tax, wagnerrich, walakerscott, West Fargo 22 Comments »
If we collect the amount of money per household that Scott Wagner says we will collect, this measue will fall short of revenue by over one half. I don’t know if he is understating the impact on families for political purposes or just has not done the math.
Like or Dislike: 9 5
I have to ask as a newcomer from out of state with the sticker shock of property taxes and assessments being high, why would a sales tax that distributes the cost more evenly be worse than having our property taxees raised, which would make only the homeowners suffer the burden? I mean it has to somehow be paid. I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but it seems that a sales tax increase would be the least painful way to go. Can you please tell me what is wrong in my reasoning.
Like or Dislike: 4 5
What is the thinking that because Fargo charges so much for property taxes and special assessments, that should exempt Fargo property owners from having to pay for their own flood protection? I’m gonna try that next time I go to buy a car. ‘Here, look at my house payment, it’s too high, why don’t you bill my neighbors for this new car, as you can see, I pay too much already.’
Like or Dislike: 4 4
Well I guess my argument, as somebody who does not live in the flood plain, is that somehow the politicians will always figure out how to pay for their pet projects off the backs of taxpayers who aren’t directly hepled by their grand ideas ( such as unecessary outlying libraries and new schools) . As someone who does not live in the flood plain, I know that they’ll will try to stick it to me too rather than just the home owners within the flood plain. I am just asking what alternatives to the sales tax , as someone who wants to look at all sides of an issue before I throw my support one way or the other. Also, I feel flood protection benefits the whole county.
Like or Dislike: 1 1
Hmm.. Makes the tax measure sound pretty inexpensive. So inexpensive that it should be collected FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO BENEFIT FROM FLOOD PROTECTION! I conducted a study that says it will only cost $88/yr for property owners in the flood plain. (My numbers are about as accurate as those sited in the article) Why aren’t those who benefit from flood protection being asked to pay for it? Why does the whole county have to pony up for the benefit of property owners in the flood plain? Get insurance (if you can), pay for flood protection yourselves (via special assessments), take your chances within the flood plain, or move are the options for those in the flood plain. Have someone else pay for your flood protection should not be an option.
Like or Dislike: 10 10
I do not feel it is right to expect people who will be negatively affected by permanent flood protection or those who have already paid for permanent flood protection to be the first source for the local funding share of permanent flood protection for Fargo. It may be that a sales tax ultimately is necessary to complete the local funding, but that should be a secondary source to assessments on those who will most directly benefit from the permanent flood protection.
Like or Dislike: 9 4
Does anyone remember the flood of 2009?? I sure do! If the city had not put up those huge flood walls and dikes all over, the ENTIRE city would have been under water. The permanent flood protection does NOT just protect those landowners, it protects the entire city and county. So TommyB, it’s not just the homeowner’s who are benefiting. It’s every single person that lives in this town and county, it’s everyone who works in this town and county. Think about the big picture, not sure the small one.
Like or Dislike: 5 7
I didn’t say homeowners, I said PROPERTY OWNERS. Any owner of a building that is in the flood plain should be assessed for the cost of flood protection. Also, you say flood protection protects the entire county. How does this plan help Mapleton? Before I fall for the line that everybody is supposed to chip in to help Fargo out, I’d like to see Fargo put a measure on the ballot to tax themselves to pay for Mapleton’s flood protection. If a measure like that would pass, then I’d be willing to consider taxing the county to pay for Fargo’s flood protection. Until that hapens, I’ll be voting NO.
Like or Dislike: 5 1
that’s only a half cent of the tax. Taxes will be 8% after this is passed, so that 200 bucks a year turns into $3200. $3000 is way too much to begin with! Plus State and Federal is takin out of my check to begin with, roughly $15,000 a year! That’s getting pretty close to half of my yearly wage gets taken, one way or another.
Like or Dislike: 4 2
Not that I’m against flood protection of some sort. But there is already planty of money being paid to somewhere… Refigure where it’s all going! Don’t add more.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
James–You ask a fair question. If there really is a project in the future, we should search for this answer. The thing is, flood protection is about property, not retail sales. So, there is a good argument for using property taxes. But, to make a property tax work, it needs to have some relationship to the benefits received. Politicans do not like to stand for reelection after raising taxes substanially on an area. It is easier, politically, to push for a sales tax. If this measure fails we can have a reasonable discussion of how to proceed. There will be plenty of time to do so.
Like or Dislike: 8 2
Mr. Lindgren, on your comment “There will be plenty of time to do so”… frankly, I’m getting sick of sand bagging (my property is outside the flood plain, but I still get out and help). I think many other folks are getting tired of the, what seems to be now, yearly flood fights. The earliest we could have had flood protection from a diversion was 2016. Now you’re stretching that out even more. You’re assumption that “there will be plenty of time” is very narrow-minded and selfish as you and your supporters are basically gambing with our safety of community and it’s ability to attract new people and businesses. When’s the cutoff? When in your mind is it too late? People aren’t going to wait forever for this happen.
I expect to see you out at every flood fight, sandbagging as well, if you are willing to hold up this project and continue to endanger us.
Like or Dislike: 2 2
To say you get no benefit from the diversion if your property is outside the flood plain or already protected by the Sheyenne Diversion is absolutely false. Consider this: if Fargo was lost to a flood, the 20k folks who drive into the city would lose those jobs. The retail/commercial sectors would also be lost. To think West Fargo and Moorhead would be able to simply “pick up the pieces” and get on with their lives without Fargo is naive at best. Fargo goes down, everyone/everthing that depends on it goes with it…
Everyone hates paying taxes, but I think for peace of mind, most folks are will to pay $50/yr. It’s an investment in the area and community and it’s future.
How about this, if everyone in the county is expected to chip in to help Fargo out, why don’t these same people have some say in Fargo’s boundries? ie. Why doesn’t Fargo stop taking land from Horace and West Fargo. Let’s build the diversion directly on the current city of Fargo boundries and not allow Fargo to expand beyond the moat we funded for them.
What’s your reasoning behind locking Fargo in to prevent it from growing? Are you secretly hoping West Fargo surpasses it in population and becomes the economic engine of North Dakota? Your argument is beyond hypothetical and borderline facecious.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
Thanks for your response. I think initially I was in favor of the tax. I’ll take into consideration what you have said. Also, thanks for standing up for skeptics like myself on the issue of religion.
Like or Dislike: 0 1
The state already is taxing too much. They have more than enough money to solve this without more taxes! They are just looking to stuff more money in their own big pockets!
Like or Dislike: 1 4
Beau–You are making the assumption that there is a relationship between passing this tax and getting flood protection is place. So far as I can find out, there is no such relationship. Today, the Corps is working on a solution. Yet, there is no tax in place. By other theories, passing the tax could delay things. The fastest way to get things solved is for the elected people to get approval to build. They have not done this.
Like or Dislike: 1 3
There’s no relationship? You’re seriously going to sit there, as a former Fargo mayor, and feed me that line of b.s.? Here’s some SIMPLE facts Jon.
The diversion WILL be built. It’s not a question of “if”, but “when”.
The local municipalities and states will have to contribute the amount the government does not cover. We’ve already have some basic projections on what this is going to cost. All you are simply doing is stalling to start the tax, which will drag this out longer.
Beau–To you its B.S. To me it is just my own experience I’m reflecting. I’m on the Garrison Div. and we’ve had an Envionmental Impact Stat. done for 4 years. It’s not been approved. There are BIG public works projects that EVERYONE, all elected people supported. They were never done. The New Rockford Canal was excavated. To connect it to the other canal, the Lonetree Res. needed to be done, never was. The New Rockford sits there useless. The planning for a diversion or whatever they do can continue–local gov’ts need to pledge their share of the funding. They can raise the money when its needed. This is done every year by local governments when they issue bonds for new developments. That’s just my experience. Maybe your is different.
Like or Dislike: 0 2
Unfortunately Jon, you’re comparing Apples to Oranges… The Garrison is a horribly mismanaged effort that many folks around North Dakota consider a failure. It’s a project that involves bodies from 28 seperate counties in North Dakota to serve water to one of the least populated areas of our state. Poor leadership has plagued that project from day one (being as you sat on the diversion project, that would include you). No one outside of North Dakota would have any idea what NAWS is if you mentioned it. One the other hand the Fargo-Moorhead diversion is a project that would approach some of the largest public works programs in the nation in size and cost. It would protect a region that is growing and expanding and most would be considered the economic engine of the state (compared to the Minot Area, which is stagnant). Most people around the nation are familiar with the flooding situation in Fargo, as it was on the news for almost a month in 2009. Folks around the world were calling into media and radio stations to express their support for the Fargo-Moorhead area.
It’s disappointing to hear that you are using the past failures and experiences from the Garrison Diversion (NAWS) to use as a basis to hold up the Fargo-Moorhead diversion. Being a prior mayor of Fargo, I figured you wouldn’t so willingly stab her in the back.
It also appears the people have voted you out, so you no longer have to worry about NAWS either.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company