Reply With Quote
Looks like a ploy to get voters to vote on redistributing 1/8th of the sales tax. But yes, pre-k for SA, ironically if those morons who voted for it actually went to pre-k tthey would have been smart enough to see how bull that program is.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/pol...he-4733468.php
My initial reaction is this:
you Castro. your ing hidden taxes. This is simply a ploy for his higher public office, much like the Pre-K for SA.
your political career, how about doing something positive for the ing city of San Antonio.
This is more akin to you get what you ing pay for in this city. You dont want to pay City Council and the Mayor a real ing salary this is the you ing get.
The with Chan is funny also.
Looks like a ploy to get voters to vote on redistributing 1/8th of the sales tax. But yes, pre-k for SA, ironically if those morons who voted for it actually went to pre-k tthey would have been smart enough to see how bull that program is.
We need pre-K for SA mainly because some people here believe that 1/8th of a cent is 1/8th of the state sales tax...
and? i like a city with nice parks.
yeah not sure how maintaining a sanitation schedule at parks can be seen as negative.
I use the Leon Creek Greenway and the mission trail with some regularity so I guess this is good.
I use a city park every day; once per week I see a crew out there mowing, trimming, cleaning up----I like that. Much cheaper than a gym membership.
I also have no problem with parks programs. I think its something we dont spend enough on as a city along with the arts itself. I just am 100% against it being a hidden tax like this on your CPS bill. What it should be is classified as what it should be, part of your city taxes.
But since Castro is going to run for higher office, there is no way in he is going to push for raising city taxes for something as silly as parks or the arts. Instead they are proposing hiding it away as a CPS charge on your bill.
Since when did utilities start funding park maintenance?
This city is so ing corrupt and everyone just rubber stamps everything Castro does with no actual ing debate. We are ed.
We've been paying for Solid Waste Management thru the CPS bill forever. Not really "hidden" if they tell you about it.
I think its a stretch to compare Solid Waste Billing with Park Maintenance.
One is generally paid for by whomever uses it. One is generally paid for out of city revenues.
Apples to Oranges.
I just dont see it as anything more than the city trying to cover their budget shortfalls by not actually raising the tax rate or cutting services/salaries. Tell me its not that and I'll be ok with it.
Yes that's what it is. But I'm okay with it.
Raise the ing tax rate then and properly fund not only the parks but all of the arts programs this city should fund.
Though that would be bad political theatre for Castro once he is done with San Antonio offices, so it wont ever be done.
For Castro its about his political career first, second and third and whats right,best for the City of San Antonio after.
Also, if its on taxes, I can claim an extra few pennies on my tax return. This way I cant claim . Shady as .
Yeah, i want better/more parks. I'd like every park to look like Hardberger park + the outdoor workout machines they have at some other parks.
But no, I don't like funding stuff like this through CPS. Too slippery a slope.
Exactly.
Ill just point out that if this is funded via property tax, then only property owners will be paying the tax. If paid via CPS, then anyone who has an electric bill will pay the tax.
Renters will still pay just not directly. Just like with property taxes now
Because the property owner acts as an intermediary of the tax transaction in the case of property taxes being passed on, the tax burden is shared between renter and landlord, with the degree of the burden dictated by the elasticity of demand for rentals and the propensity for landlords to adjust rental rates based on minute changes in property taxes, and then factoring in the contractual delay in the ability to adjust rates to compensate for changes in said taxes.
Although, to be fair, the same can be said in the case of it being tacked on to a CPS bill, where the utility user and CPS share the tax burden, with the share of each being dictated by the elasticity of demand for utility service.
All of this could be determined, but it's not worth the time... So fair point forget I said anything
You get this excited over $12 a year to make this a better place for everyone to live? smh
I think the issue is thats it's just another hidden tax. We are already at the legal limit for sales tax thanks to the pre-K scam and property taxes are already onerous. It's like that $1.99 a month "environmental services fee" that is already on your bill every month...where is that 13 million a year going?
I'd get excited because it's a regressive tax. Charging everyone $12 a year regardless of income hurts the middle class and poor a lot more than it does the rich.
I will gladly pay it as I use the Parks for running.
I wish they woul put in more fields for the kids.
Kinda jewish to about $12, don't ya think?
Who's ing about 12 bucks. If you are referring to me as the original poster.
I'm annoyed by the way its being done. I'd much rather they go about doing it in other routes and actually funding MORE than just this park maintenance, but fund for additional parks, and actually having real arts programs in this city.
The way they are doing it is shady as and is ignoring the larger issue being that this city is ed long term economically, unless they figure out a way to turn around the runaway train that is retirement benefits for police/firefighters.
If I lived in Texas I'd be one of them, so no sympathy here
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
