- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: St. George keeps changing their budget.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:11 pm to hawkster
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:11 pm to hawkster
quote:I've already said I don't agree with the residency requirement, but you're an idiot if you think there is ZERO merit to the idea.
The motive of the Baton Rouge councilwomen is blatantly clear - political retaliation and intimidation. It officially proves they are unfit to govern,
If the SG people want their own city, why should SG residents be paid by Baton Rouge city taxpayers? SG is free to require the same for SG city employees, right?
See how this division shite is not good for our area? It's one of the reasons I oppose it. It will become "us against them" in short order, not just regarding taxes but for such things as economic development and bringing new businesses into our area. Where we would need to be cooperating, we'll be fighting each other.
Carry the idea out to its extreme and why not have every house be declared its own city? And all because a few people (yes, a few people...there are only 3 spokespersons driving the effort) want their own kingdom to rule over.
4
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:11 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
They can't get their numbers right, much less pin down their exact tax requirements, at this point when they're just trying to garner support. What makes anyone think it will magically fall into place if the vote passes and on that fateful day, they're on their own.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:16 pm to doubleb
quote:
I suspect if all the sales tax revenue from SG was captured by a new city then there would be more than enough revenue to run city govt. in the suburbs.
The proposed budget is very low with per capita expenses - suspiciously low. They are essentially claiming they will be the most economically efficient city government in the entire state from year one - which is an absurd claim to make.
See LSURussian's thread where he compares the per capita budgets of various cities in Louisiana to St. George. St. George is proposing about $550/person/year, while Louisiana cities fall typically in the $800-$1200 range.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:18 pm to LSURussian
Perhaps by giving my home location I misrepresented myself. I apologize for that but my troubles with parish services and 311 have been happening long before SG ever came into play. I don't believe I'm being discriminated against there.
I am glad that your complaints are met swiftly with action, but mine have not. In my experiences anything short of calling my councilman has been met with indifference on the part of DPW and the sheriff's office has had to fill the role of animal control, with the exception of when I have to ride out to the airport to get a trap.
I am glad that your complaints are met swiftly with action, but mine have not. In my experiences anything short of calling my councilman has been met with indifference on the part of DPW and the sheriff's office has had to fill the role of animal control, with the exception of when I have to ride out to the airport to get a trap.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:23 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If the SG people want their own city, why should SG residents be paid by Baton Rouge city taxpayers? SG is free to require the same for SG city employees, right?
They tried that up up here with the school district, and it pushed a lot of very qualified employees out out of the system.
They could do it.....I don't think they should and I doubt it ever happens. It seems to be hot air from a few council members.
The link below is an article about the residency status of BRPD employees. Like many employers, they hire people who commute from all over the metro. I'm sure it's a similar situation in various other parts of the city/parish government.
LINK
quote:
When it comes to policing the streets of Baton Rouge, a rather sizable percentage of the Baton Rouge Police Department drives into the city to perform the task—including nine who commute from Mississippi. More than a quarter of the department lives in Livingston Parish. In fact, just a little more than half of BRPD's employees reside in East Baton Rouge Parish, and not all of those live in the actual city where they enforce the laws. Some reside in Zachary, Baker, Central or the unincorporated parts of the parish.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
See LSURussian's thread where he compares the per capita budgets of various cities in Louisiana to St. George.
St. George's budget does not represent non-municipal taxes that will be paid by those residents and neither did Russian's analysis. A lot of local services in East Baton Rouge are provided via dedicated tax that won't change with incorporation....most notably, fire protection.
I'm not saying St. George's estimates are 100% spot on, nor do I expect them to be at this point....but there are a lot of services provided to all residents of East Baton Rouge that are not supported by municipal taxes that are not being considered in your argument.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:30 pm to LSURussian
quote:
You called me out for being involved in opposing SG when I don't live in the SG area. Are you going to do the same for Rainey or are you a hypocrite?
Didn't know where Rainey lived and couldn't could care less.
I haven't followed what either Rainey or white is saying or doing.
I've been trying to follow the issues.
But what is Rainey's role? Adviser? Does she have experience in these type things? Is she a buttinsky?? what?
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:33 pm to LSURussian
quote:
See how this division shite is not good for our area? It's one of the reasons I oppose it. It will become "us against them" in short order, not just regarding taxes but for such things as economic development and bringing new businesses into our area. Where we would need to be cooperating, we'll be fighting each other.
I haven't reached an ultimate decision as to where I stand on the issue. However in a very simplistic manner why MUST there be total cooperation between the two cites? Why could it not be a case where the services provided to the city of BR be funded primarily by the taxes collected in BR, while the services provided to the City of St. George be funded by the taxes collected in the City of St. George, then have the parish-wide taxes spread amongst the parish?
While I'm not naive enough to believe that the City of St. George would be this utopian mecca, nor that the organizers of the movement aren't failing to sufficiently point out the point out the potential downside of incorporation, the only argument I see from those opposing the movement and those living in BR's limits is that "it will tear BR apart!" Why should someone who doesn't live in the BR city limits be concerned if the city of BR is "torn apart"?
This idea incorporation isn't some novel concept specific to BR. It's being going on for several years in Atlanta. I would love one of the posters from Atlanta chime in and give us thier thoughts on the issue.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The proposed budget is very low with per capita expenses - suspiciously low. They are essentially claiming they will be the most economically efficient city government in the entire state from year one - which is an absurd claim to make. See LSURussian's thread where he compares the per capita budgets of various cities in Louisiana to St. George. St. George is proposing about $550/person/year, while Louisiana cities fall typically in the $800-$1200 range.
I quickly dismissed that "study" because Russian mixed apples and oranges and compared cities who were providing different services with St. George.
For instance the city of SG never intended to provide fire service, parks services, water services, and cities Russian looked at had many of these services for its citizens.
He was looking at apples and oranges there.
As much as you've followed this debate, you should know that.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:39 pm to Alt26
quote:
Why should someone who doesn't live in the BR city limits be concerned if the city of BR is "torn apart"?
The fact is the city of BR is real, the problem is most citizens couldn't find where it starts or where it stops.
But the border is real, and it would be an interesting study as to the differences in taxation.
I'd love to see the property tax bill of two identically assessed homes that are on opposite sides of the border.
I wonder which homeowner would pay the most taxes or which business would pay the most taxes. The ones in or out of the city????
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:39 pm to doubleb
quote:No, you dismissed it because you didn't like what the numbers showed. I specifically included Baker and Zachary in the comparison because both cities are in EBR and pay the same parish taxes as the rest of us.
I quickly dismissed that "study" because Russian mixed apples and oranges and compared cities who were providing different services with St. George.
You conveniently ignore that fact.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
No, you dismissed it because you didn't like what the numbers showed. I specifically included Baker and Zachary in the comparison because both cities are in EBR and pay the same parish taxes as the rest of us. You conveniently ignore that fact.
Wrong
For instance Zachary has a parks system, SG wouldn't. Zachary has a water and sewer dept. SG wouldn't. Zachary has a fire dept. SG wouldn't.
It wasn't apples and apples, that was pointed out and you ignored it to suit your own agenda.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:43 pm to doubleb
quote:Which is it, could or couldn't? In any case, you sure have seemed to care that I don't live in SG and therefore should shut up about it.
and couldn't could care less.
quote:Lionel Rainey is a HE. And HE wants contracts for his business from the new city. Just like Bodi White does. And it explains why HE doesn't live in the St George area but is one of the leading proponents of SG incorporating.
But what is Rainey's role? Adviser? Does she have experience in these type things? Is she a buttinsky?? what?
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:46 pm to doubleb
quote:There is a 13 =/- mills property tax that city residents pay that non-city residents don't pay.
I'd love to see the property tax bill of two identically assessed homes that are on opposite sides of the border.
I wonder which homeowner would pay the most taxes or which business would pay the most taxes.
Non-city residents pay a separate fire protection property tax which differs depending on the fire district they live in.
It's not a mystery. The EBR assessor's website has all that data spelled out in detail.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:47 pm to LSURussian
quote:
But what is Rainey's role? Adviser? Does she have experience in these type things? Is she a buttinsky?? what? Lionel Rainey is a HE. And HE wants contracts for his business from the new city. Just like Bodi White does. And it explains why HE doesn't live in the St George area but is one of the leading proponents of SG
So we can't vote for it because these people want future business from the city?
I don't think that is a deal breaker at all.
I'd want business from the new city as well as the old city. That's bidness.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:48 pm to LSURussian
quote:
It will become "us against them" in short order, not just regarding taxes but for such things as economic development and bringing new businesses into our area.
A lot of damage is being done on a local level right now....especially with this hot air from some council members.
The image of the capitol area was tarnished to outsiders when HuffPo uses the word "secede" in the title of their nationally publicized article about an unincorporated area seeking incorporation.
This post was edited on 2/6/14 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:49 pm to Alt26
quote:
I haven't reached an ultimate decision as to where I stand on the issue. However in a very simplistic manner why MUST there be total cooperation between the two cites? Why could it not be a case where the services provided to the city of BR be funded primarily by the taxes collected in BR, while the services provided to the City of St. George be funded by the taxes collected in the City of St. George, then have the parish-wide taxes spread amongst the parish?
While I'm not naive enough to believe that the City of St. George would be this utopian mecca, nor that the organizers of the movement aren't failing to sufficiently point out the point out the potential downside of incorporation, the only argument I see from those opposing the movement and those living in BR's limits is that "it will tear BR apart!" Why should someone who doesn't live in the BR city limits be concerned if the city of BR is "torn apart"?
This idea incorporation isn't some novel concept specific to BR. It's being going on for several years in Atlanta. I would love one of the posters from Atlanta chime in and give us thier thoughts on the issue.
It doesn't have to be, but it's easy to see how incentives would predispose people to act competitively.
A scenario: a retail chain has determined that they would do well in the Baton Rouge market. They just need to decide where in the Baton Rouge area they want to locate. There are a lot of factors involved such as access to transportation and other infrastructure, available land, access to customers in your target demographic, etc. Assume they get it down to 2 spots; one in the City of Baton Rouge and one in St. George.
Now generally offering economic incentives for retail is, well, let's call it 'not a best practice.' But on the other hand, who ever gets this retail store can get a lot of tax revenue to go with it. So as long as the incentives are less than what you would be collecting in new revenue, you are golden. Offering such incentives would, in fact be rational from either city's point of view.
However any incentive is more than what would have been offered before under a consolidated government that isn't worried about exactly where retail stores locate in the parish. Thus the parish, as a whole loses revenue.
Will it happen often? No.
Will it happen? Absolutely.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:51 pm to doubleb
quote:That's right. That's exactly my point.
So we can't vote for it because these people want future business from the city?
quote:So much for you caring who lives in SG and who supports or opposes it in spite of them not living in SG.
I don't think that is a deal breaker at all.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 1:58 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So much for you caring who lives in SG and who supports or opposes it in spite of them not living in SG.
No doubt these guys have an agenda just like you have.
I had guess White was looking for a bigger gig and perhaps his aiding and abetting SG could lead him to that. I had no clue who the Rainey character was. I still do not.
You on the other hand are a vocal opponent, but you have not stated exactly why. I don't think it's because you are just a concerned citizen. I can tell you have a vested interest in the outcome and I don't know exactly what that is, yet.
Me, I live in SG. I have a business in SG and I have children living in SG. I'm on the fence, but I hate seeing my kids spending thousands of dollars on private schools while they fund public schools that are average or below.
Posted on 2/6/14 at 2:07 pm to doubleb
quote:This is at least the fourth time you've claimed that and I have repeatedly written on this board why I oppose it. I can only assume your memory is very poor or you just chose to lie about it.
You on the other hand are a vocal opponent, but you have not stated exactly why.
quote:See above. I have zero financial interest in the issue.
I can tell you have a vested interest in the outcome and I don't know exactly what that is, yet.
But there is obviously no reason for me to repeat the detailed explanation I've provided three times. You'll just claim I've never explained my reasons the next time there is a St George thread.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News