re: How many times do we have to say no?

I'll vote yes once we rip St George from BR's hands. In the meantime, this administration has shown they're not responsible enough for anymore tax revenue.

Lot of various real estate developers stand to profit by having new thru ways built or existing side roads expanded giving their lots new commercial frontage.

quote:

---

quote:
It’s either pay this tax, or pay in gas sitting in traffic over a period of time.


Hahaha you are a dumb arse. When can you ever recall a tax being voted in and you actually saw a finished product from what that tax was publicly intended for.

---

He’ll be paying for both.

quote:

---

Unintentional Bazinga. Why should the residents of EBRP pay the Lion's share of cost to improve commutes for people from LP and AP, among others. Particularly given that those are state/federal highways

---

Way to confirm my question while shifting the argument. Did you complain when the interstates were widened? Should all major roads stop at the Parish line? If you are considering a regional approach would you not tie into THE REGION?!

quote:

---

That will be given to “diversity” companies with contracts that require “diversity” goals that will line certain people’s pockets and cost the taxpayers a fortune

---

Bingo, you understand how it works.
Broome's agenda is clear. She's pushed this racial divide and she's certainly going to push quotas and goals and her people will be rewarded whether they are qualified or not.

quote:

---

Funny how the said that says no to tax revenue us the same side that cries about "crumbling infrastructure" and "American carnage."

---

cause there is no way to maintain, fix, or build anything with better management of existing revenue?

How bout our government solve its budget issues the same way most responsible tax payers do- by living within their means?

quote:

---

All the major plants pay beans amount of property tax when they should be paying hundreds of Billions

---

First things first, hundreds of billions? You don't math very well do you?

Next, let's really dig deep into why ITEP is needed. Baton Rouge is such a shite place to work, live, raise children, educate people in general when you compare it to Texas. No wonder companies don't like coming here.

It's only saving grace is the infrastructure it has for the chemical industry which, fun fact, Texas has as well. ITEP provides a competitive edge to bring business to the state. The exemptions also sunset after 8 years.

So by your argument, you would not have a new business come to your area because for the first 8 years they would pay no property tax. Let's just gloss over the number of other taxes the business and it's employees pay. Taxes they pay with the money they make from the highest average wages an industry has to offer in the state.

So you would rather the business not come at all. Because at this rate, if you remove ITEP, they will not come. Guaranteed.

So at this point, you have decided that instead of increasing property tax revenue in 8 years and growing the LA economy, that you will not grow the economy at all.

Yep. That's intelligent.

quote:

---

That video has been circulating a lot lately. It was produced by a left wing propaganda group.

---

And that's why you politely, yet firmly, lay out facts and lie in wait for whatever shenanigans follow.

quote:

---

Way to confirm my question while shifting the argument. Did you complain when the interstates were widened? Should all major roads stop at the Parish line? If you are considering a regional approach would you not tie into THE REGION?!

---

Let me help you to understand.

State and federal roadway improvements are costs we share when funded by state and federal dollars. Taxing one parish, as MoveBR proposes, to fix regional problems caused mainly by people who have already left the parish is asinine. It's not hard to understand.