Metro Jacksonville

This is a generic question.

Would you rather have:

Higher taxes and a city where all of the services work well like mass transit, wifi zones, excellent education, decent care for the poor, clean streets, well maintained parks, great entertainment options and speedy emergency care.

or

Few services and low taxes?

I like the poll, but it needs to be worded differently.  Since we know that the services will remain on the same efficiency level as they have always been, that it really not an option.  It is, what it is.  So, do we maintain the status quo or give the tax payers a break and let them fight their own economic crisis without the shackles of additional taxes.

Stephen, this is a false, forced choice in this city.  What we are likely to get is high taxes and none of the above services as the higher revenues are bled off in corrupt and wasteful spending as they have been in the past.  Courthouse, equestrian center, Shipyards, senior centers, Children's Commission, computer consulting, batting cages,....No, I don't want to increase taxes to pay for more of this.

Yes, I want mass transit, wifi zones, excellect education, etc., but you seem to be making the assumption that higher taxes will get us there in the way you have structured the question.

Sorry, Stephen.  I guess I was reading it as an advocacy question.  Hmmm. (Considering...)

Would you vote for higher taxes if they would bring mass transit, excellent education, etc.  or...
Would you vote for lower taxes even it means cutting some services you get from the City like libraries, equestrian centers, league play parks, etc.  or even... Would you vote for higher taxes if you trusted the Mayor and City Council to spend the additional money wisely with a view to the future of the City?

Doesn't most of the resistance to higher taxes come from two sources; one, distrust of the Mayor and Council based on their spending patterns in the past; two, the disproportionate burden of property taxes as a source of revenue?

I have read all the complaints and comments over the past months in the various news media about wasteful spending by mayor and council, but as americans we have a short memory. Seems like you could go back 100 years and read about wasteful spending within any governemnt, city, county or state. I read last week a councilman in Ohio, I think it was, wants to buy several swans for their city park because they look nice. So govt spending has been and always will be an easy target anytime the discussion comes up of raising taxes. But what I have also noticed in many of the rants about our govt spending is that most people complain without really having the whole story. Or all the facts. Take the courthouse for example. Everyone and I mean everyone has been complaining about the new Taj Mahal courthouse and saying, stop spending that money and the city budget is clear.. Except for one minor problem, that they either don't know or chose to ignore. Dollars for the courthouse came from The Better Jax plan and can only be spent on capitol improvements. It would not affect the city budget one cent. I know its everyones "right" to voice their opinion. I just hate it when they voice opinions about things they really don't understand.
Just my two cents. Flame away if you like.

How about a third option.  Same rate, yet more efficient?

Count me in on that.

I'm with that one also^^^

Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2009, 06:12:27 PM
How about a third option.  Same rate, yet more efficient?

We can all find inefficiencies in government...and in private industry as well....fact is any large entity will have inefficiencies.

But the bottom line is we can not continue to fund the services that a majority of people say they want without finding additional revenue.

Just ask the people of California.

  These are lean times and our standard of living needs adjustment. 

Quote from: stephendare on July 13, 2009, 07:31:16 PM
Lol.  Is everyone voting?

I'm staying out of this one.  I don't really prefer either option.

Me also ???

Quote from: jbroadglide on July 13, 2009, 05:49:10 PM
Dollars for the courthouse came from The Better Jax plan and can only be spent on capitol improvements.

I don't think anyone is saying that the money that we are currently short is due to the courthouse, BUT why would I want to give the COJ more money? The courthouse is currently 300 million over budget and just NOW started to be build after being and empty lot for how long?

Think about what we could have done with 300 million? We could have used that money to fix up Metro Park (which is coming out of the new budget). We could have used some for rail. We could have done more to improve the value of the city with that money.

THEN people wouldn't be so up in arms over the tax increase. If they hadn't wasted money on that we would feel like they 1) Handle the money we provide to them responsibly 2) There would be things in the city that have increased value to the city and make home owners more likely okay with the increased taxes.

But they did neither so why should I give them more money?

I would be more inclined to targeting tax increases... for example... We vote for a 1% increase in sales tax.  1/4% for projects a,b,c and 1/4% for d,e,f, and so on.  Once the project is completed the tax is ended or a new list of targeted projects gets voted on.  This method holds the administrations feet to the fire to spend the money as was agreed upon by the voters. 

I think the process for approving a local sales tax is more complicated and involves a referendum.

Exactly!  A referendum!  The people decide exactly what they will or will not pay a higher tax for rather than letting an administration change course due to funding shortfalls in other areas. 

Sales taxes would require that the Florida State Statutes be revised. I think we should for the next governmental session, after all, they want to give me a property tax break, even though I did not ask for one, and the mayor wants to raise my property taxes, which I CERTAINLY DID NOT ASK FOR.

Raising sales taxes is the only FAIR way to generate additional revenue. If you spend, you pay, its a consumption tax, everyone who spends pays. I'd like to see a sales tax of 10% and eliminate all other BS corporate taxes, just make the tax across the board on everything, including internet sales for companies based here in Florida. Then divy up the revenue based on county sales as they pertain to the counties themselves. 67 counties living off of what their populations spend. Utopia.

It certainly would have a dramatic effect on spending on consumer products.

I do not like either of the choice. What about cutting expenses and improve efficiency? In an economy down turn, companies that unable to cut overhead expenses cannot survive the crisis and get replaced by efficient ones. What happen to government services? They get to bully us into paying higher taxes for less service. D#$%. Oops, the last word is for the other thread.

Our city government is playing on our fears by exploiting the property tax shortfall. Where is the discusssion regarding what was done with the windfall during the property boom? I didn't see much improvement, if any, of services or ammenities while the city was reaping the benefits of increased taxes due to higher property sales prices. The noticeable improvements like the Baseball Grounds, Coliseum and Main Library were funded by the Better Jax Plan. It's time government tightens their belt like the rest of us are having to do. IMO government needs to get out of the church, social service, entertainment, art, parenting, etc business. Government cannot continue to be everything to everyone. It seems the more government involves itself in societies issues the worse those issues become.

Jacksonville aside and with the government being efficient with both options, I'd probably go the low taxes "with decent services" route.  However, this is too broad of a topic to go either way without more information.

the assumption of an efficient government is as valid as the assumption of high moral of general population. The formation of government (think back when we used to be hairy and live in caves)  is to for the benefit of scale. If the government is efficient, the government is larger the better. Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It does not matter we are talking about a human government , a bee hive or a pack of dogs. The size/tax/service must always strive for the fragile dynamic equilibrium that changes with time and place.
In short, the assumption of the poll is not valid therefore the poll itself is not valid. 

Huh??

Since I prefer NYC and Chicago over Callahan and Yulee, higher taxes and services is my preference.

Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2009, 12:52:23 PM
Lake.  There are only two options.   Higher taxes with great services, or Low Taxes with few services.   Its just about general preferences.  Not trying to find all the various shades of grey in between.

Then I can't say I really have a general preference.  While higher taxes can bring you a NYC, they can also bring you a Detroit, Stockton or Bridgeport.  On the other end, lower taxes can bring you Maclenney or a Fargo, but also an Austin, Seattle or Honolulu.  Unfortunately, the reality is in the various shades of grey somewhere in between.

^Compared to NYC, Boston, San Fran, Providence, etc., they are low.  Compared to Jax, they could be considered high, which would place them in that grey area. 

Seriously though, its no big deal, I understand the poll, I just don't have a black or white preference.  My neutral preference could shift either way, depending on additional circumstances.

If you toss in big European cities the picture just gets muddier.  Paris, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Geneva, Madrid are wonderful places to live.  Much better than NYC or Chicago, but MUCH higher taxed.  Then there's Rome or Berlin or Amsterdam that have the taxes and are worse.

I'll take fewer services and lower taxes everyday.

And the question shouldn't read No Services.  Maybe Fewer Services would not be as loaded.

I'll go fewer services with lower taxes.  However, on a case-by-case basis things could change depending on the situation.

I think the truth, given the history of this administration, is that no matter what we're probably going to wind up with higher taxes and lower services.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 16, 2009, 08:08:05 AM
I think the truth, given the history of this administration, is that no matter what we're probably going to wind up with higher taxes and lower services.

That is what we are all afraid of and convinced of.  Steve's question was more general, not just about Jacksonville, but it still comes down to trust and efficiency no matter where we live.  Personally, I'm tired of being looted in the name of a "great city."

Tell the Peyton Bandwagoners that, there are a few on this site^^^^

i do not believe in big government.

just government that compels people on pain of death to pick up doggy doo.

Anyway, I'd go with no taxes and no services and no laws preventing private companies from filling in the needed gaps, were I able to design a city from scratch.

What Jacksonville needs is a wrecking crew.  All unoccupied, unfinished, and/or for sale improved property should be demolished forthwith (unless there are certain structures with historical AND aesthetic value AND a willing buyer shows up in 30 days), the owners given a fair use check, the debris removed, and the land planted and turned into mini-parks and gardens.

New Construction building permits can then be applied for at 10x the current cost, while changing the permitting process for currently improved property to reduce the cost (and time involved) by a factor of 10.

Then sprawl and the blight that goes with it will stop.