Castro Endorses Nirenberg (Dallas, San Antonio, Anton: rental, taxi, property tax)

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by Azure110

It is my understanding that areas not annexed by SA are covered by BCSD, not SAPD.

Correct.

My example is if you come inside the city limits for whatever reason.
You need police services, who do you think pays for that?

Double edged sword. You would expect those services to be provided, but who exactly is supposed to pay for it? The system as we have it now relies upon taxes from property owners to pay for those services largely.

If you have no annexation and you have more and more commerce and people entering the city, you would ***** if something happened to you and there were no protection for you.

[rynetwo]

We have to pay for trash services on our CPS bills.

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by sapphire

City trash is paid on the water bill, I thought. Or is it CPS? Tax, fee, charge, whatever they call it, citizens pay for that specific service. We pay Republic Services for our trash pickup in the county.

Like I said, not covered by taxes.

I lived within the ciry limits for about 25 years. If I decide to visit a city park, well, I'm not going to feel guilty about it.

Ok. And I assume the same applies to the roadways and any sidewalks you might travel upon as well?

Have to be paid and maintained somehow.

[dastexan]

Oh and complaining about the land bridge is about as comical as those getting up in arms over funding cuts for say National Endowment for the Arts nationally.

They both contribute so little to the bigger picture that its a fun item to get angry about.

[sapphire]

Originally Posted by dastexan

Like I said, not covered by taxes.



Ok. And I assume the same applies to the roadways and any sidewalks you might travel upon as well?

Have to be paid and maintained somehow.

Yes, but if it makes you feel better, we both work outside the city limits and don't go into San Antonio much. When we do, though, we typically spend money supporting SA businesses who in turn pay taxes on top of any they may collect from us. I mean, we can go back and forth all night.

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by sapphire

Yes, but if it makes you feel better, we both work outside the city limits and don't go into San Antonio much. When we do, though, we typically spend money supporting SA businesses who in turn pay taxes on top of any they may collect from us. I mean, we can go back and forth all night.

I dont care really, its just the other side of the sword.

To dismiss city taxes as some cost that is a who cares fee and all dont benefit from that use the items taxes are paid for is slightly the wrong way to go about it.

I mean we all want lower (or no) taxes.

Unfortunately thats not reality if you still want x,y or z.

[sapphire]

Originally Posted by dastexan

I dont care really, its just the other side of the sword.

To dismiss city taxes as some cost that is a who cares fee and all dont benefit from that use the items taxes are paid for is slightly the wrong way to go about it.

I mean we all want lower (or no) taxes.

Unfortunately thats not reality if you still want x,y or z.

Except we specifically bought outside the city limits, due to our jobs mostly but we like the area. I just don't agree with the city being allowed to say "Oh, look, a new income stream over here!" We pay a significant amount of school taxes and we no longer have children attending public school, but we agree with paying that. There's a brand new high school right down the road and a new elementary school going up nearby. So your slam about not benefiting from the items taxes pay for is just a wrong assumption on your part.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by dastexan

I dont care really, its just the other side of the sword.

To dismiss city taxes as some cost that is a who cares fee and all dont benefit from that use the items taxes are paid for is slightly the wrong way to go about it.

I mean we all want lower (or no) taxes.

Unfortunately thats not reality if you still want x,y or z.

I recall a few years ago, Castle Hills tried to bill someone who had a fender bender within their city limits because he or she was not a resident.... the cost of cleaning up the accident by the fire department. They got upset and used the argument of supporting CH businesses and shouldn't have to pay for it. Castle Hills admitted they wouldn't bill their own local residents in the same scenario...just "outsiders".

Imagine if SA did the same, lots of people would be very angry.

[Bo]

Originally Posted by Azure110

I recall a few years ago, Castle Hills tried to bill someone who had a fender bender within their city limits because he or she was not a resident.... the cost of cleaning up the accident by the fire department. They got upset and used the argument of supporting CH businesses and shouldn't have to pay for it. Castle Hills admitted they wouldn't bill their own local residents in the same scenario...just "outsiders".

Imagine if SA did the same, lots of people would be very angry.

But none of those people who live outside the city can register their outrage at the ballot box by voting against the mayor or the council, so it seems workable politically. We residents and non-residents have to pay the city for EMS calls, so why not pay for accident aftermath cleanup?

[prim8]

Originally Posted by dastexan

Correct.

My example is if you come inside the city limits for whatever reason.
You need police services, who do you think pays for that?

Double edged sword. You would expect those services to be provided, but who exactly is supposed to pay for it? The system as we have it now relies upon taxes from property owners to pay for those services largely.

If you have no annexation and you have more and more commerce and people entering the city, you would ***** if something happened to you and there were no protection for you.

What if I was from Dallas and visiting SA? Should I have to pay property taxes in SA to pay for the police services and the parks, infrastructure? No, there are other taxes for that stuff already.

They don't need to annex because all of the people visiting, or driving from outside the city to work or play or whatever.
They need to annex to balance the budget because they haven't been spending it wisely. It isn't because of all those outside the city costing the city so much money.
It is no different than them raising the tax rate because they keep spending too much. Cut spending on frivolous programs and balance your budget. Some of you pro annex people were probably the same ones hoping the Raiders would move here too, so the city could spend even more money it didn't have.