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.
Location: Prescott Valley,az summer/east valley Az winter
2,061 posts, read 4,134,075 times
Reputation: 8190
Advertisements
public transport is definitely something our taxes should be paying for! Police citing people for speeding is definitely something I back. The full time jobs created by USOC are in excess of 800~ plus all the visitors and part time. My opinion is that 2c should pass~ and if bob from down south can prove that taxes will more than triple if 2c passes it would amaze me~ never read where it'll increase that much. Guess he wishes no police/fire/ambulance services were available to him but most people feel these services are necessary. Well the police can always pay their way by citing speeders going 1 mph and red light runners~ that would probably be how he wants it done!
another method of finance would allow fire department to be private~ and charge for service like in unincorperated mericopa county, Az! Just do not need rural metro service~ it'll cost you!
another method of finance would allow fire department to be private~ and charge for service like in unincorperated mericopa county, Az! Just do not need rural metro service~ it'll cost you!
Public safety is something that should absolutely not be placed in the hands of private entities. By public safety I am talking about police, fire and EMS.
Anytime you take those services and try to privatize them, there is never any money saved, and the quality of service is significantly degraded.
Rural-Metro, of Arizona fame is not a success story. People there continually bank on their not having to ever actually use the service.
We work hand in hand with private ambulance providers here, in our EMS system, and there are significant differences in the quality of service that is given, when compared to a publicly funded service.
I am not familiar with Colorado law, but here, in Wisconsin, a private, for profit entity is not subject to open records laws. This allows them to prioritize their responses from the 9-1-1 service to the guaranteed payout of inter-facility transports. It happens here every single day of the year, and the tax payers are the ones who suffer.
The private companies also go thru employees by the handful, because they are not set up as a career providing service. In order to retain employees, a sense of professionalism is required with set career paths, promotions, and pay commensurate with risk.
If people want to stand up and say that they want to roll the dice with emergency services, and really do not care about the quality of the service, then please just say so. Government is not here to be an employment agency, but it is here to provide for the safety of the common public.
I strive for fiscal responsibility every day of my life, and expect the same out of all levels of my government. Obviously that always leaves me with disappointment, but it is something to strive for.
These types of emergency services are best run outside of the private sector. These are cases in which seconds truly do count, and those few seconds can make the difference in the lives of people.
You just never know when it will be you that is unable to breathe, or when it may be you trapped and lost inside your own home because the smoke and heat has disoriented you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob from down south
I believe we can adequately protect the city with less of them, and we can pay them in line with other cities (read: less).
I won’t address pay, as that is best handled by the people in your community. However, if reductions are what you seek, make the line positions of the fire and police as a last resort.
Firefighting is an inherently physically demanding job, and is very dependant on response times. The firehouses in your city are set up to provide an equal and fast response to everyone in your city.
Consider where the next closest firehouse is to you if the tax payers decide to close the one across the street from your home. The consider how long how you can hold your breath, or worse, watch a loved one struggle for air, or remain trapped in your home because the heat and smoke of a fire prevented you from getting to their room.
I am not telling you to blank check the fire department, or the police department or any other department in city government.
Just don’t repeat the same mistakes that cities, such as mine consistently do when trying to balance budgets. The first thing city administrations go for is the people actually tasked with performing the job needed.
I know times are tough, believe me I do. However, in down economies, fires tend to rise and calls for emergency medical help typically remain constant, meaning that there is typically an increased demand for the service being cut.
These cuts will be dangerous for someone. The job of putting out fires remains the same no matter how many fire stations or firefighters a department has. It still takes the same number of people to force open doors, or to stretch hand lines, or to ventilate roofs, or to drag a fire victim out. Fewer resources means that more of what is left must now do the same job. This has a drain on the rest of the city, leaving other parts unprotected when in previous years that didn’t occur. That translates into longer response times, fewer people on each arriving company, etc…
The next to consider is cost in terms of both civilian and firefighters safety. Every city which has drastically cut their departments has incurred increases in both the civilians killed in residential fires, as well as firefighters responding.
I am not telling you this to try and change yours or anyone else’s mind. I believe in making educated decisions, and feel that quite often people become distracted strictly by dollar amounts.
Each of us has a duty to do what is best for us and our families, as well as our communities. Let’s just make sure the decisions made are the most informed that we can make them. There is no doubt that these are the most extreme of economic times.
Putting things on a referendum, for a majority vote, puts us under the "tyranny of the majority" which has been struck down by courts many times; which is why civil rights and women's right HAD to be solved by the courts, as the majority were, and many are, still biased. Today's overall national population would not vote us back into Jim Crow, but I'm sure a majority in some southern states would. The tyranny of the majority just took away gay marriage in California and the issue is headed for the courts where the rule of law will be applied, probably over-ruling the tyranny of a majority that was force-fed all sorts of spun-up rhetoric and fear.
That tyrant majority also voted in laws against bestiality. And against sale of child pornography. I, for one, am part of the majority that doesn't want to live in modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
In a referendum, a majority of voters will always vote against tax increases, always vote for tax reductions and always vote selfishly. I expect a majority will vote against item 2C EVEN if it hurts this city or some of our residents. So long as 2C reduces services to the OTHER guy and not to themselves, they'll vote selfishly. It sucks, but that's what we get with government by referendum.
Always, huh? Like the tax increase just voted in by D-20 voters for schools in the last special election? Do you suggest that D-20 became one of the best-funded school districts in the state because voters "always" vote "no" on the taxes that resource it? That sort of generalization is sensational poppycock, and it's a lie.
I'm fine without a city park near me. So a funding reduction affects me at least as much as the next guy. There are already plenty of parks in the city...in fact too many for our budget, it would seem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
We elected Rivera, if we don't like what he's done, then we vote him out next time during the primary, if he runs.
I don't think we are overrun with city services, gold plating or extravagance, we have a good city and I'd like to see it stay that way.
In the meantime we limit the damage the mayor and council can do by capping the budget. It's a great check and balance, particularly against people that don't understand the concept of limited resources.
The city has more services than its budget allows. The city can make do easily with services at a level in line with its budget without tripling taxes. The county shuts down offices on Fridays. Works for me with next to no impact. Why not some of our city offices as well?
public transport is definitely something our taxes should be paying for!
Even when it goes practically unused? Why??!
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckdoc
Police citing people for speeding is definitely something I back.
No problem with me there. I'm the guy driving 45 MPH in the 55 MPH zone on Powers. I have the time, and if you're behind me, you'd better too! yuk yuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckdoc
The full time jobs created by USOC are in excess of 800~ plus all the visitors and part time.
You say USOC provides over 800 full-time jobs in Colorado Springs? I'd like a source to back that one up. I don't believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckdoc
if bob from down south can prove that taxes will more than triple if 2c passes it would amaze me
Straight from the circular mailed out by the city clerk's office:
"Issue 2C proposes to: Increase the general property tax mill levy by 6.00 mills for 2009 and 1.00 mill each year thereafter for four years, at which time the general property mill levy tax in 2014 is estimated to be 14.279 mills"
So if it goes up to 14.279 mills after a 10 mill increase, what does 14.279/4.279 equal? That's a 333.7% increase in the city's property tax mill rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckdoc
Guess he wishes no police/fire/ambulance services were available to him
Really, why would you guess that? Because you can't be bothered to read or understand what I wrote?
I want the services our TABOR-capped budget allows. It's not like we are without police/fire/ambulance now...why do you suggest that I want to go to zero? This is like saying that if you took a 10% pay cut you'd stop eating altogether and starve to death. Not...very...credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckdoc
another method of finance would allow fire department to be private~ and charge for service like in unincorperated mericopa county, Az! Just do not need rural metro service~ it'll cost you!
Why would refusal to increase the budget beyond what's authorized now require that? It wouldn't.
I believe "It's A Wonderful Life" to live in COLO SPGS and I'll side with the "George Bailey" types that another $125/year is okay by me to keep it that way. Those who care to side with cynical old curmudgeons like "Mr. Potter" are welcome to their draconian world of economic darwinism, just a shame to inflict that on others.
Government is not a corporation, and though corporations can cut salaries by 10%, we cannot cut by 10% the number of homes to which the FD has to answer a call... cannot ignore 10% of the car wrecks which the PD and EMT's must respond to... cannot turn away 10% of the people who show up at Memorial Hospital's emergency room... cannot stop 10% of snowstorms that require plowing...
Maybe we can do what DC did years ago, put an employment tax on people who worked in DC but chose to live out in the lower tax counties, now that might raise the funds needed .... or we can grow up and make El Paso County and COLO SPGS into ONE political entity and ONE tax district with EQUAL rates for all, then we'd balance our budgets just fine. The crap of moving retail stores and housing just over the city line to save a few bucks is a major chunk of the current problem. Then too, I'm sure TABOR has a lot to do with this mess, it's a mean-spirited effort of government-haters to wreck government disguised in a Trojan Horse of keeping government in check. Any good government will have a rainy day fund to smooth out these period fluctuations in revenues, but I'd bet TABOR doesn't allow that either.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
True, but it hits another nerve with me, which is the disparity between tax rates from city to county; you can cross a street and be in another "jurisdiction" with either higher or lower tax rates, depending on direction of travel.
Truth is, we're all here because of COLO SPGS, not because of El Paso County. The CITY is the magnet, the anchor, the reason for the region. It's a simple accident of map drawing that people live outside the city boundary lines, even though their livelihood is derived either directly from working in the city itself or by being in proximity to the city. Most everyone in El Paso County comes into the city to avail themselves of city attractions, either their daily jobs or to visit businesses or attractions in the city.
If I had my way, the entire area of El Paso County and City of COLO SPGS would be ONE single political jurisdiction, with ONE tax rate for ALL. Then the developers couldn't play the city against the county, nor build stuff over the line in the county without regard for how it impacts costs in the city, i.e., a game played all over the country known as "beggar thy neighbor."
Making all this area into ONE jurisdiction, with ONE set of zoning rules should reduce sprawl by making it less attractive, should increase the use of infill space, and stop the nonsense of shopping around for a lower tax area to place businesses and homes, i.e., rationalize the decision making process instead of making it an insane mess that it is today all over the country.
Instead of looking to balance budgets on the backs of public employees, people should be asking WHY are we paying for two sets of government functions (one City and one County) and WHY do we need FIFTY school districts. FIFTY!!! Back in Fairfax County, VA, a single jurisdiction with a MILLION citizens, we had ONE school board, not FIFTY! If we want to cut costs, lets combine all the districts into a max of 3-4, but not fifty. Fifty sets of administrators, overhead, rules, lawyers and all the rest. Good Grief.
That's the biggest load of manure I've heard in a while. The city is the reason for the region?!?
The front range cities were established as trading posts to serve the region rather than the other way around. People moved to the region, and the cities followed the people. After the cities grew big enough to influence the region (through the tyranny of the masses that you rail against), they've managed to steal the water and other resources which made those lands productive, and in doing so, managed to steal the employment opportunities from the region as well. People still want to move to Colorado for the region, but the monopoly established by Colorado Springs, Inc. has made it nearly impossible to do so without having to live and/or work in the city.
That corporation will grow without limits if allowed to do so, and the ignorant masses will cheer all the while that they're destroying the region which attracted them in the first place.
If you want to force people like me to pay city taxes, I for one would be happy to do so as long as I'm provided with the same services as the rest of the city residents. I want to build a house on some land that the city has stolen the water from, and I'll need the city to bring water to the curb so I can have a big green lawn, and some curb and gutter installed for drainage in case I overwater it. You'll need to pave the street because dirt roads in a city just won't do, and street lights would be good too. My septic system is inconvenient at times, and I'll expect my taxes to shift that responsibility onto the city's shoulders. I'd also like to know where you're going to put my sewer treatment plant. It should probably be close, but not close enough that I'd have a reason to cry NIMBY. I'll need a guarantee that you can provide me with similar emergency response times as the rest of the city too. That would probably mean you'd need to put in quite a few more firehouses, but that's your problem. When the firemen pull up to the house, they'll need a fire hydrant, so please make sure to install a 4 inch line all the way out to my house in the middle of nowhere. It would also be unfair to the rural city residents to put all the museums, etc. right in the middle of the city, so we'll need cultural amenities within a reasonable driving distance. I don't care whether you just build more museums or make one big facility 20-30 miles out of the core of the city so we could meet halfway. Don't forget that I'll need a park within walking distance, so maybe it would be best to run a 12 inch line so the city can water it....and you'll also need to make sure that my road is plowed and sanded as often as rest of the city streets are.
Last edited by sterlinggirl; 10-31-2009 at 04:27 PM..
County people get to use all the city parks all they want...let them pay the level of taxes that city residents pay; same for all the services and attractions that are supported by city infrastructure but used or enjoyed by everyone. Lots of people up in Woodland Park commute to jobs in the city, the jobs are here because of the city. Those lines on a map mean nothing other than we have set up arbitrary jurisdictions that cause more problems then they solve.
The city IS the reason for the suburbs in El Paso County that ring the city, same for virtually every city in the nation. Make it all one jurisdiction, same tax rate for all, then get on with things that really matter.
If you want a fire hydrant in front of your house, pay the level of taxes to provide that infrastructure. I do; and I don't whine about it.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
County people get to use all the city parks all they want...let them pay the level of taxes that city residents pay; same for all the services and attractions that are supported by city infrastructure but used or enjoyed by everyone. Lots of people up in Woodland Park commute to jobs in the city, the jobs are here because of the city. Those lines on a map mean nothing other than we have set up arbitrary jurisdictions that cause more problems then they solve.
The city IS the reason for the suburbs in El Paso County that ring the city, same for virtually every city in the nation. Make it all one jurisdiction, same tax rate for all, then get on with things that really matter.
If you want a fire hydrant in front of your house, pay the level of taxes to provide that infrastructure. I do; and I don't whine about it.
You seem to be (intentionally?) ignoring the fact that the city doesn't provide essential services to county residents although you're trying to use the city's tyranny of masses to tax them for it.
If you want to tax the county residents, you're going to have to spend the money to build a county-wide infrastructure and water rights to provide them with the city services you want to charge them for.
Last edited by sterlinggirl; 10-31-2009 at 05:01 PM..
wrong on all counts, there is no tyranny of the masses involved
- the bifurcation of the land mass into "city" and "county" is not valid; in most places, especially in the L.A. area, you drive from one jurisdiction through another and another and it all looks the same, there is no need to have all those jurisdictions. Same here, we need one jurisdiction, one tax rate, all sharing the costs equally to live in the COLO SPGS metro area.
- city water, sewerage and fire hydrant infrastructure will get built out to more distant areas as those areas grow. that's normal. until then current methods work fine; Calhan can do fine with a VFD and pumper truck. if they are way outside of the defined metro area, we can have a second tier of rates, no problem, but all of this inner metro area, to include Falcon, Fountain, Monument, Manitou, the Powers and Marksheffel corridors, et al, should be in one COLO SPGS jurisdiction, we are one metro area.
We aren't going to change anyone's opinions on the matter, we can argue all we want, what will be will be.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
wrong on all counts, there is no tyranny of the masses involved
Sure there is. That's what allows the cities to take water away from agriculture. The needs of your many take precedence over the needs of our few.
Quote:
- the bifurcation of the land mass into "city" and "county" is not valid; in most places, especially in the L.A. area, you drive from one jurisdiction through another and another and it all looks the same, there is no need to have all those jurisdictions. Same here, we need one jurisdiction, one tax rate, all sharing the costs equally to live in the COLO SPGS metro area.
If you value your independence as an American this is flawed logic. By your reasoning, a global bureaucracy should replace all of our levels of government, and the needs of arctic seals may outweigh your need for a museum.
Quote:
- city water, sewerage and fire hydrant infrastructure will get built out to more distant areas as those areas grow. that's normal. until then current methods work fine; Calhan can do fine with a VFD and pumper truck. if they are way outside of the defined metro area, we can have a second tier of rates, no problem, but all of this inner metro area, to include Falcon, Fountain, Monument, Manitou, the Powers and Marksheffel corridors, et al, should be in one COLO SPGS jurisdiction, we are one metro area.
You're forgetting that federal regulations won't let a city incorporate (notice that word?) an area without first having enough water rights for every acre of it's ground. Since you've already stolen the water rights from your outlying areas, you'll have to find some other way to get them. If this sort of bureaucratic interference is depressing to you, refer back to your assertion that there isn't a need for local rule.
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.
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.
