Comments on: James Radford Calls For Giving CSD “Binding Vote” Regarding Large-Scale Annexation

By: Fred Boykin

Fred Boykin — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:59:58 +0000

My views on annexation can be found here on my campaign site:

http://www.fredboykin.com/annexation.php

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:11:48 +0000

So, a big ol’ majority commercial annexation might be just the ticket, right? Just not the one that was originally proposed.

And BTW, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if the city brings back that exact same proposal.

By: Judd Owen

Judd Owen — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:40:43 +0000

Yes, increasing the percentage of revenue from commercial vs residential would seem to be a gain, especially for the schools, since commercial property doesn’t add any expense to the schools. (Though if we were more financially dependent on revenue from commercial property right now, we’d be hurting more than we are. But in the long term, a gain, I think.) But the proposal for annexation we were asked to consider, and which I assume is what is still on the table, included a whole lot of residential, which came with students, which cost money … as it turns out, much more money that was going to be brought in. It’s just math, pretty simple once you get into it, and the math was upside down.

So part of my point is that the issue is not Schools versus Lower Taxes. Even if all one cared about was the taxes — not the schools and hence property values, or having our officers police the strip club and several new major intersections, or other city staff having to handle a large new population and so forth — just taxes, the proposal was a loser. Maybe not for the city side of the tax ledger (believe it or not, I haven’t looked into that part in detail), but for the overall tax bill.

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:39:45 +0000

OK, and now we’re quickly back to where I got stuck with your assertions the first time, so please help me out. (I guess I could have used more wonkiness). The city saw annexation as a valid option to increase tax revenue because it would increase the percentage of commercial vs. residential in the city. Why doesn’t increasing the percentage of total commercial space (which pays for school taxes and overpays for city services) from a meager 15% work?

In terms of class, I was making the observation about PRIORITIES. I’m sorry you take issue with it, but if someone can’t pay their taxes, that’s going to be a higher priority, no matter how much you care about the school system.

I was responding to your statement that annexation was our biggest issue. For many, that’s just not true.

By: Judd Owen

Judd Owen — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:53:20 +0000

Should read “school taxes are 19% higher” …