January 26, 2011

Taxing 4+ Units Commercially

Think everyone knows where I stand on this issue.   Bottom line it is a complete waste of time, file along with the street vendor and now sidewalk ordinance.  If this ever passed, which it will not, I would simply convert a 4 family unit to 4 condos for $2,000 remain paying the residential rate, thus avoiding the commerical rate.

What confuses me about this is that I hear everyone say that creating the dual tax rate in the first place was a big mistake, but can can not undo it now.  I agree with that 110%.   How does anyone think creating a triple rate system makes the dual tax rate situation better when we all know we should never have gotten rid of the single tax rate?     Why stop at three lets keep going lets have a 4th tax rate for people who own property in the City, but who dont reside in the City?     In fact I heard another person refer to this as rearranging seats on the Titanic.  I could not agree more. 

There are two things the City of Worcester needs to focus on:

  1. Cutting Expenses
  2. Creating more revenues
Cutting expenses is simple enough to understand.  Creating more revenues is ensuring things like the Gateway Cities legislation is passed, which has elements of the Philadelphia plan included.   Lets shelf this whole idea on focus on legislation,which is going to be voted on this year (GATEWAY CITIES).


Jahn said...

Bill the expenses are 99% of the problem.

I have said time & again the budget issues will not be solved until we get serious about City of Worc. Bankruptcy.

City has been bankrupt for decades given the unfunded retirement liabilies we have.

We'll prob get lucky agian this year if Obuma sends his pal Deval some more money that Deval will in turn pass most of off to the cities & towns.

If and when the cuts do come it will just be an across the board cut so no one group can complain. We'll still mnay city employees who do not work a full day for their keep.

T&G says this morning that Kate is concerned that when teh Meadowbrook side walks are not shoveled that it will be dangerous.
KaTE PLEASE, what about miles and miles of unshovled city owned sidewalks. Please see Bills photo above of teh sidewlAKS on Southgate St at the Pharmashere site. It's for the children a the Canterburty St elememntray school. TY

Bill Randell said...

Jahn I agree with you but expenses are not going to be cut. Something is simple as prvatization of the custodians will never happen.

That is why I focus on trying to expand revenue. If we don't, w will be taxed at the max levy within two years.

Jahn said...

Sadly, I have to agree with you re: expenses, that is why I say Chapter 9 (?) municipal b'ruptcy maybe the only cure....or the threat of municipal BK.

Look no further than 40 miles west to Spfld to what it took to even BEGIN to get expenses under control.

In Worc it could be easier to cut b/c the councilors can just blame Mike Obrien when cutting time comes. City employees may call to fire Obrien, but who is better to have in control of city finances, from the employees perspective, an indivdual who serves at the councils pleasure CM'er) or a state appointed receiver?

Jahn said...

James St bridge has to be reconstructed now....MMMMMMMM

To steal a phrase, is it just me or does anyone else see a nexus betweeen this supposed immediate URGENT need to re-consrtcut the bridge and CSX coming to Worc. in a big way.

The Bridge has deteriorated to the point work must be done "yesterday". Interesting timimng. I have heard nothign about the condition of this bridge until recently.....coinciding with CSX's planned move to Worc. Last I knew detoriation occurs over years and a bridge isnt deemed in need of replacement overnight.

T&G article mentiosn CSX in one sentence in the entire article citing CSX's need for teh bridge to be raised to accomodate double stacked containers.

Sorry but this is all too convenient. This is all part of teh CSX deal to move to Worcester and agian no one at teh T&G has asked any really probing questions. Wonder if tim murray mentioned this bridge closure back when the CSX deal was being formulated.

Wonder if CSX will at least pay for the 15 inch raising of the bridge? I doubt it. They proably told the state to raise the bridge of we will raise it ourselves and charge, you the state, $XX milliions more to buy our RR rights.

Doesnt the RR own these bridges? I was once told that When the electric compnay has to move a zillion ton transformer over a RR bridge, they have to get clearance from The RR re overweight issues?