Comments on: Thwart analysis http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9396 I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:23:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cindy http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9396/comment-page-1#comment-25285 Cindy Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:00:27 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9396#comment-25285 I've seen more and more of the "vote no" signs springing up in various places, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it (beyond the "I want my penny back" point that I haven't actually heard anyone use). The whole thing seems rather odd and I'll definitely be voting for MAPS3 because the other side of the coin doesn't really appeal to me. I’ve seen more and more of the “vote no” signs springing up in various places, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument against it (beyond the “I want my penny back” point that I haven’t actually heard anyone use). The whole thing seems rather odd and I’ll definitely be voting for MAPS3 because the other side of the coin doesn’t really appeal to me.

]]> By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9396/comment-page-1#comment-25240 CGHill Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:37:07 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9396#comment-25240 The city has been loath to add new positions of late, lest the budget be busted; this fact has complicated the often-uneasy relationship between the city and the public-safety organizations, which argue, reasonably enough, that city growth requires at least <em>some</em> new personnel. Really, though, I think the opposition should have tried to sell it as a tax cut: once the already-approved stuff finishes its run, the additional penny of sales tax will perforce expire. I don't think they really wanted to do that, though: suppose the electorate actually <em>likes</em> lower taxes? In general, I approve of this sort of thing if it's done at the right level. These are city projects; they're paid for by people in the city, and by the occasional suburbanite who comes into town to shop. No county, state or Federal funds are required. Voters in the city must approve the imposition of any city-level sales tax. (The state imposes a flat 4.5 percent; cities and counties may approve taxes of their own. Current OKC sales-tax totals 8.375 percent; the current MAPS-y tax, now upgrading the Ford Center to NBA-competitive levels, expires March 31, 2010. The new package would continue that tax through the end of 2017. The original MAPS tax began in January 1994, so it's not like we've had to adjust.) The city has been loath to add new positions of late, lest the budget be busted; this fact has complicated the often-uneasy relationship between the city and the public-safety organizations, which argue, reasonably enough, that city growth requires at least some new personnel.

Really, though, I think the opposition should have tried to sell it as a tax cut: once the already-approved stuff finishes its run, the additional penny of sales tax will perforce expire. I don’t think they really wanted to do that, though: suppose the electorate actually likes lower taxes?

In general, I approve of this sort of thing if it’s done at the right level. These are city projects; they’re paid for by people in the city, and by the occasional suburbanite who comes into town to shop. No county, state or Federal funds are required. Voters in the city must approve the imposition of any city-level sales tax. (The state imposes a flat 4.5 percent; cities and counties may approve taxes of their own. Current OKC sales-tax totals 8.375 percent; the current MAPS-y tax, now upgrading the Ford Center to NBA-competitive levels, expires March 31, 2010. The new package would continue that tax through the end of 2017. The original MAPS tax began in January 1994, so it’s not like we’ve had to adjust.)

]]> By: McGehee http://www.dustbury.com/archives/9396/comment-page-1#comment-25237 McGehee Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:00:43 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=9396#comment-25237 There are certainly arguments that <i>could</i> be made, if one were so inclined and were qualified (by virtue of, say, residency) to state them, for turning down a bond issue for so-called non-essentials, during, let's say, a recession. Then again, as you've observed a few times lately OKC doesn't seem to be hurting as badly as other parts of the country. There are certainly arguments that could be made, if one were so inclined and were qualified (by virtue of, say, residency) to state them, for turning down a bond issue for so-called non-essentials, during, let’s say, a recession. Then again, as you’ve observed a few times lately OKC doesn’t seem to be hurting as badly as other parts of the country.

]]>