U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2015, 03:57 PM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 6,757,396 times
Reputation: 2572

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I'm not ignoring it, it's the linchpin of my argument.
But it is a fallacious arguement. It conveniently ignores that every "visitor" to Austin -- no matter their origin -- is tied to some economic activity. It ignores that travelers stay in hotels that pay taxes, commuters work in offices that are on the tax rolls, and generate sales tax revenues for the city. It ignores that people from outside the city come here to dine in our restaurants -- which are on the tax rolls -- and generate sales tax revenue. They shop in our stores -- all taxable property, real and personal -- and generate sales tax.

The City of Sunset Valley doesn't seem to have a problem with these moochers that trouble you so much. These freeloaders paid over $4.5M in sales tax to SV last year -- so much that they totally funded the city without a penny of property tax. Oh, to be so taken advantage of.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-06-2015, 04:18 PM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,710,710 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpurcell View Post
Not even close to even geographic distribution. There are seven in between Mopac, 183, Town Lake, and I-35.
Again, you're proving my point.

7 of the 45 stations are in the central city. I believe you'll find that more than 15% of the population lives in that center.

PLUS half the residents _outside_ that area spend half their time _inside_ that area.

But still 7 stations are sufficient.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-06-2015, 04:23 PM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,710,710 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by scm53 View Post
It ignores that travelers stay in hotels that pay taxes
We're specifically not talking about visitors staying in hotels, because, yeah, they pay taxes.

Talk to me when commuters from Cedar Park pay CoA hotel taxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scm53 View Post
The City of Sunset Valley doesn't seem to have a problem with these moochers that trouble you so much. These freeloaders paid over $4.5M in sales tax to SV last year -- so much that they totally funded the city without a penny of property tax. Oh, to be so taken advantage of.
That's because Sunset Valley _are_ the moochers.

You think a setup like Sunset Valley could exist in some random county not inside a large city like Austin?


And you think SV would work if it got 400,000 commuters at rush hour every day?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-06-2015, 06:23 PM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,710,710 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by scm53 View Post
The City of Sunset Valley doesn't seem to have a problem with these moochers that trouble you so much. These freeloaders paid over $4.5M in sales tax to SV last year -- so much that they totally funded the city without a penny of property tax. Oh, to be so taken advantage of.
Sunset Valley also externalizes a lot of their social costs onto the CoA.

How many apartment complexes are in Sunset Valley? How many SV homeowners work at that commercial for minimum wage (vs how many commute into Austin and burden Austin's resources)? How many employees at the SV retail reside in Austin (with the public safety expenditures that implies for Austin, again, it's socio-economic not density)?

And remember, the sales tax SV uses to offset property taxes are from the 1% that in Austin goes to CapMetro. So again, SV externalizes that cost onto Austin residents (they commute into Austin on roads that have capacity freed up by CapMetro).
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-06-2015, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
14,852 posts, read 33,427,500 times
Reputation: 8159
The CoA would not exist in its present form w/o the suburbs. The suburbs wouldn't exist in their current form w/o the CoA. It is a pointless argument.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-07-2015, 06:59 AM
 
3,152 posts, read 4,061,362 times
Reputation: 3396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I'm not ignoring it, it's the linchpin of my argument.

That Austin taxpayers are paying for the public safety of suburbanites that come into the city.
Austin taxpayers didn't do much of a job of public safety for downtown visitors last year about this time, did they? COA encourages large festival events so much that it might as well re-purpose its parks as convention centers. Who is COA subsidizing, the hoteliers where the festival-goers stay? Where is the "public safety" primarily active?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Thousands of people come into the city for half of the day, and pay basically 0 taxes to the city (sales tax on lunch, maybe).
First who says they owe anything to the city? Second, they spend lots of money at businesses all over Austin. Businesses that are in business because of all the "visitors" that purchase goods and services from them. Given your derision for anything other than downtown condominiums (which the vast majority of the population have absolutely zero interest in owning or living in) it's not clear whether you are referring to "visitors" from Austin suburbs or from entirely outside the city of Austin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
If everyone (kids and adults) spent all their time at home, then maybe. But that's just not the case. Kids in schools during the day get police protection. Two adults at work and a child in school require more police protection than two adults.
Fallacy. There is no "more police protection". The same number of police are providing "protection" to all at any given time. No more additional protection is provided regardless of your claim that it is "required". Your theory of "protection" is somewhat idealistic and not very realistic. Given Austin's history of police incidents the "protection" you refer to is probably not as desirable to all Austinites as you suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
That's why annexation of suburban land is fair. Its CoA getting back at least a part of what it expends on their part.
Non-sequitur and based upon your complaint logic - wholly nonsensical. If it "costs" so much more for Austin to "serve" the suburban area then why would Austin be expanding territory to grab land that is full of nothing but higher marginal costs - increasing its costs more than its revenue according to your [faulty] theories? Neither "fair" nor economically sound based upon your own logic. So either Austin acts irrationally or your logic is flawed or both.

Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-07-2015 at 07:23 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-07-2015, 08:15 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,710,710 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Austin taxpayers didn't do much of a job of public safety for downtown visitors last year about this time, did they?
So there weren't police immediately covering that situation?
The twenty people injured were left to die in in the streets and had no emergency services?


Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Fallacy. There is no "more police protection". The same number of police are providing "protection" to all at any given time.

No more additional protection is provided regardless of your claim that it is "required". Your theory of "protection" is somewhat idealistic and not very realistic.
So Austin has the same number of police it had in 1950? As its population (and the population of the larger metro) has grown, it wasn't forced to hire more to provide more protection to it's residents and the commuters?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Non-sequitur and based upon your complaint logic - wholly nonsensical.
It's not a non-sequitur at all, read the whole conversation thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
If it "costs" so much more for Austin to "serve" the suburban area then why would Austin be expanding territory to grab land that is full of nothing but higher marginal costs - increasing its costs more than its revenue according to your [faulty] theories?
Because it costs Austin to serve those suburbs whether or not it annexes them.

Now, the costs are different. So when deciding annexation, one factor that plays in is whether any additional revenues outweigh any additional expenses. But expenses exist already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Neither "fair" nor economically sound based upon your own logic. So either Austin acts irrationally or your logic is flawed or both.
It's a completely rational economic decision.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-07-2015, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,719 posts, read 29,489,114 times
Reputation: 9265
I would love to see data about property taxes and population by zip code. That might help test some of the thoughts written here.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-07-2015, 11:50 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,710,710 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20 View Post
The CoA would not exist in its present form w/o the suburbs.
You really think Austin would be different if the suburban municipalities didn't exist? Especially enclaves like Sunset Valley?

My life would be so much different if I couldn't go to SV and pay 8% tax instead of 8.25?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-07-2015, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
14,852 posts, read 33,427,500 times
Reputation: 8159
It isn't about where YOU would go (as presumably an Austinite), but how the city of Austin would have so many fewer people working here, the companies that would not have located here, the office buildings that would not have been built, etc.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top