Exclusive communities get expensive...

The dirty little secret that the NIMBY's either don't realize themselves, or would rather you not know is that a growing community costs the individual less money in taxes for public services.  Reduce the growth rate and watch your individual contributions to public services grow.

The chart on my last blog post shows clearly the direction the local community is headed.

I've documented the efforts of the no-growth folks to make the community more exclusive on this blog for many years.  I intimated that this day of reckoning was coming the whole time.  But, NIMBY's instead argued that folks like me were greedy... yep... their basic tenant was that anyone that supported growth was greedy, nothing more.

Now many of these same folks are up in arms regarding increased costs for public services and possible sales tax increases (which are more like probable sales tax increases... it would be the easy thing to do... and it has been done many times before).

In the Thursday edition of the KDMiner.com there is this article reporting on a conversation held during City Council meeting last week.  Some highlights and comments to follow...

KINGMAN - What was meant to be a brief budget update Tuesday evening quickly evolved into the City Council's first overt move toward raising the citywide sales tax for the upcoming fiscal year.

...

(Financial Services Director Coral) Loyd said that, due to more than $1.5 million in state cuts and falling gas tax returns over the past several years, the city has had to dip into the general fund in order to make up the difference. She warned that continuing to do so would eventually deplete the general fund balance to the point where it could begin to negatively impact the city's bond and credit ratings. She estimated that that would probably happen once the fund drops to somewhere between $5 and 6 million, which could happen in as little as two years at the current rate.

So here is the situation, the state government is broke and won't be sending road improvement money to the folks in Kingman anymore. This means the folks in Kingman will have to pick up that tab, that is if they want maintained streets. Really, who didn't see this coming a mile away??

More...

At that point, Mayor John Salem acknowledged that the city had already cut "to the bone" and that state-shared revenues were unlikely to return anytime soon. With few other realistic options available, Salem proposed raising the city sales tax .15 percent, which would bring the combined city, county and state sales tax to an even 9 percent from the current 8.85 rate.

"This is an ongoing problem, and I propose this to the Council right now - we're not in an emergency situation, but not to address this I think would be irresponsible," Salem said. "This is probably not very politically favorable on my part, but I think it would be more irresponsible if I were to not do anything."

Sucks to be the mayor right now as I know this is not the sort of thing he wants to do (as I doubt anyone elected to this Council would want to do either). But... choices they be a wee bit limited right now. The choice would be to have crappy roads to drive on in the city or to raise a tax to pay for maintenance of the crappy roads.

The mayor is right, something has to be done... but really something should have been done a long time ago. Kicking the can down the road didn't help the community then, and it certainly is not helping now.

More from the article...

Salem was met with immediate opposition from Vice Mayor Robin Gordon and Councilwoman Carole Young, who both agreed that a sales tax increase should be a last resort, and that the city should do everything it can to cut internal costs first.

"I don't think we've done that, and until I feel confident that everything's been done," Gordon said. "We heard a lot of suggestions at (last week's) town hall meeting, some may be viable, some may not, but I don't feel we've had that discussion yet, and until I feel confident that's been done, I would not be in favor of any kind of raise in the sales tax."

Young said she did not want to place an additional burden on Kingman's already hurting business sector. She added that the city has never taken the opportunity to hold its own brainstorming session on how else to raise new revenues, something she said the city should do soon.

I wasn't at the town hall meeting so I don't know what suggestions were made that could save the day, but reading through the comments at the KDMiner.com article sort of leads to clues (liquidate assets and lay off city employees, if you don't care to read the comments). Laying off more people in a local economy on the ropes will suck but likely will be done. Selling off assets in a depressed real estate market will equal a drop in the bucket for long term issues like road maintenance.

The two comments I copied above, though, basically amounts to more can kicking down the road. I'm not trying to be critical of the two ladies at all. They are in a tough position with limited options (raise taxes or fire people).

I am basically a Tea Party kind of person. I believe, like millions of others, that us Americans are taxed enough already. I don't care much for federal programs, or state programs, but I get it and pay my taxes accordingly. I'm a bit softer on local taxes and fees only because if properly administered the effects of my tax dollars are tangible. If I am driving around town on well maintained roads, I probably don't miss the fifteen cents for every $100 dollars I spend locally (if a new tax is implemented to pay for road maintenance).

More...

Councilwoman Janet Watson, however, agreed with Salem, saying that Council would be remiss in its duties if it did not create a permanent, reliable funding source for future street maintenance costs.

"When I think about how important it is that we not let our streets continue to deteriorate year after year and we know that the HURF money is going away and what's gone is not coming back, we have no way to cover that cost," she said. "None of us want to raise taxes, I know you don't. But to be realistic, I agree we would be remiss if we didn't put together some type of plan to say ... 'We can't let our streets just become full of potholes and dirt roads.'"

The same people bitching about a possible tax will be the same people that will bitch about the potholes and dirt roads (and yet for years I, and the people with similar views, are the ones being called greedy... go figure).

Last bit from the article...

While the street department estimates it will take about $1.5 million to bring the street repair schedule back up to date, Walker pondered how much that cost would increase if the city were to continue to neglect the streets for another year or two.

"There's never a good time to raise taxes," (Councilman Keith) Walker said. "But I agree if we don't do something to start replacing that HURF money, what's the financial burden going to be on the city long-term if we let these roads get away from us? It's astronomical how much it's going to cost us."

This is precisely what the NIMBY's either intentionally, or just by ignorance, fail to realize. The anti-growth crowd stated at public meetings and even in the local media that they wanted to put the brakes on growth in Kingman. They did it, and now they will have to pay for the exclusivity they demanded... unfortunately so will everyone else that saw this coming from a mile away.  The city government could be eliminated and costs would still continue to rise for the individual in the community.  Inflation is kicking in right now, those costs only get more onerous as we kick the can down the road.

The solution I've favored, and have been called greedy for, involves attracting more dollars to the community.  If anything, to spread those costs around so that public services don't become the burden they will become. 

Really, look at the chart from the previous post.  Realize that the data that is lagging by a year.  There was only a 0.01% rate of growth in the last report, I bet costs have risen more than that since... meaning that yes you will have to contribute more and the choices of either paying more in taxes or reducing public services aren't really choices.  Both will happen.

The short sighted and closed minded NIMBY's will look to blame everyone and everything else... but the wheels were set in motion a few election cycles ago.  They wanted it, they got it... and now they are shocked that they have to pay for it.

Meanwhile I laugh at their expense.

How banks are making big bucks on foreclosures

I was alerted to the video link below a few days ago and if you are interested in a bit of short sale and foreclosure scenarios that will make your blood boil... you may want to click on the link and give it a view.

Video Marketing and Mortgage News Designed for Mortgage and Real Estate Sales

Basically we are talking about big banks making big bucks off of foreclosed and distressed property... with tax payer dollars.  Yep, the government is giving big bucks to banks while our property values suffer.  Just watch the video.

The typical NIMBY reaction...

The water worry warts, a.k.a the NIMBY's are reacting to the Mayor's quote. See if you think they make any sense... (forwarded to me via email)

MAYOR OF KINGMAN CALLING CONCERNS OVER WATER AND ENVIRONMENT "RIDICULOUS" There are plenty of businesses out there that respect the general public and the environment. While the majority of business out there profit within the counties limited natural resources there are others that simply do not care about your future! The ones that promote their selves without concern for the peoples survival do not deserve our business! The solar plants that Salem caters to current day do NOT need to use the massive amount of water that they plan to produce their product with.......but they REFUSE to do so to increase their net profit by a small margin. Yes folks, the BILLIONS that they will make by destroying our water supply is not enough for them...they want more...and the mayor of Kingman and other elected officials plan to give it to them!

Just once I'd love to see something from this merry little band other than empty rhetoric. I just won't risk holding my breath until I see something.

So easy to refute... all the water worry warts have to do is pay attention. The solar project at Red Lake has approached the city of Kingman to look into using the waste water (i.e. not water from the aquifers) to use as the primary source of needed water to create energy (their 'product'). Ignoring that bit of information, which they constantly do, demeans their entire premise of the argument. These folks want to throw out millions of potential tax dollars that the solar plants would pay into the community.

Don't let them.

And just how hard did we fight??

You know folks, there's plenty of talk locally about the dire straights of 'our' water resources in this area. Have you cut back on watering your lawn?? (I haven't but I just wanted to see how much you have)

Face it, if you have fallen for the high pitched rhetoric you should be up in arms by the lack of effort the water worry warts have offered to bring much needed help to protect and/or develop water resources. The water worry warts have lobbied against economic development, but didn't bother to lobby the federal government or state government to spend at least some of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act here locally.

This lack of effort, or even caring in the slightest, only furthers my speculation that the water worry warts have little to no concern about 'our' water resources here in Mohave County.

Sure, some of the water worry warts are probably against huge federal spending programs in the same manner that I am, which is why I didn't lobby for any funds. But then again, I don't think there is an impending threat to 'our' water supply. Judging by their actions, they don't either.

Meanwhile in other parts of the country... other parts that don't take too kindly to federal dollars either...

Texas Awarded $160 Million in Recovery Act Funds for Water Projects
Funds will go to the state’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program
July 13, 2009

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded over $160 million to the Texas Water Development Board. This new infusion of money provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will help the state and local governments finance many of the overdue improvements to water projects that are essential to protecting public health and the environment across the state.

“Investing in the economy and the environment is a win-win,” said EPA Acting Regional Administrator Lawrence E. Starfield. “These funds will not only help our economic recovery, but they will help provide safe, clean drinking water for communities throughout Texas.”

The Recovery Act funds will go to the state's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program provides low-interest loans for drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The program also emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. An unprecedented $2 billion dollars will be awarded to fund drinking water infrastructure projects across the country under the Recovery Act in the form of low-interest loans, principal forgiveness and grants. At least 20% of the funds provided under the Recovery Act are to be used for green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency improvements and other environmentally innovative projects.

Aid to protect 'our' water is available, but no one speaks on behalf of the local federal tax paying community. The water availability thingy must not be all that much of a big deal.

Tea time again...

Just as a friendly public service announcement, it is Tea Party time again here in the Kingman area. This event will be held at Centennial Park in Kingman on Saturday July 4th from 4:00pm to 7:00pm. Find more information here at this link.

A couple of days ago in Nashville Tennessee, I guess those folks just couldn't wait for their tea, check out the photo below...

Not bad, certainly a goodly amount of people.

Last time the Tea Party was held in Kingman, the local editor of the local daily wrote a column that basically called Tea Party attendees racists (for lack of a better word). I took him to task on this blog for his transgression here.

Attending the Nashville Tea Party...

and...

(all photos found at Instapundit.com)

... were just some of the great Americans that attended and let their thoughts be known.

And really that is what the Tea Parties are all about. Americans letting the government know they are on notice. This isn't about the skin color of the president. At this point, my criticism is mostly for the republicans in our state legislature and executive office for not cutting enough spending of money they simply don't have at the moment... basically for not being the fiscal conservatives that many say they are. The race thing though, just completely stupid and not even on the map as an important issue for the current times we face.

Yeah, you could say that I'm still kinda pissed off about what the editor wrote back in April... and he still owes great Americans an apology.

One prediction, there won't be any snow flurries on Saturday (like there was on April 15th), so dress accordingly -- I'll be taking photos with the intention of posting them on this blog.

For more reading about the local Tea Party, check out Loyd's blog (yeah, that Loyd) today.

Political example of efforts to induce economic development...

Link right here to a WSJ piece. I'm copying bits of it (more like all of it) below and adding some commentary...

At last, there's a place in America where tax cutting to promote growth and attract jobs is back in fashion. Who would have thought it would be Maine?

This month the Democratic legislature and Governor John Baldacci broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax reform that is almost, but not quite, a flat tax.

Dude... what has got into the dem's in Maine?? Sort the way I wonder what has gotten into the republican's here in Arizona... for the wrong and opposite reasons.

The new law junks the state's graduated income tax structure with a top rate of 8.5% and replaces it with a simple 6.5% flat rate tax on almost everyone. Those with earnings above $250,000 will pay a surtax rate of 0.35%, for a 6.85% rate. Maine's tax rate will fall to 20th from seventh highest among the states. To offset the lower rates and a larger family deduction, the plan cuts the state budget by some $300 million to $5.8 billion, closes tax loopholes and expands the 5% state sales tax to services that have been exempt, such as ski lift tickets.

Without even looking into the data, the exchange of reduced income tax for the ability of closing sales tax loopholes is an easy compromise. Throw in a healthy budget cut to boot... again brought to the residents of Maine by the 'left' side of the political aisle.

This is a big income tax cut, especially given that so many other states in the Northeast and East -- Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York -- have been increasing rates. "We're definitely going against the grain here," Mr. Baldacci tells us. "We hope these lower tax rates will encourage and reward work, and that the lower capital gains tax [of 6.85%] brings more investment into the state."

I may be switching my political affiliation, would be easier than moving to Maine (no offense Maine, I just like the western part of the lower 48 better).

These changes alone are hardly going to earn the Pine Tree State the reputation of "pro-business." Neighboring New Hampshire still has no income or sales tax. And last year Maine was ranked as having the third worst business climate for states by the Small Business Survival Committee. Still, no state has improved its economic attractiveness more than Maine has this year.

Political leaders of Arizona should be embarrassed.

Now for the money quote...

One question is how Democrats in Augusta were able to withstand the cries by interest groups of "tax cuts for the rich?" Mr. Baldacci's snappy reply: "Without employers, you don't have employees." He adds: "The best social services program is a job." Wise and timely advice for both Democrats and Republicans as the recession rolls on and budgets get squeezed.

Only a 2x4 upside the head hits harder.

I wish Maine much success and fortune. Obviously I hope that the federal government takes notice, as well as the state of Arizona and most importantly that the elected leaders of Kingman take note of the fundamentals. Face it folks, 'Shop Here!' doesn't pack the same sort of wallop.

Visual evidence of the 'stimulus' bill has failed...

And just think it was a local newspaper editor that said the Tea Party attendees were simply racists.

Click here to see visual evidence of how the so called stimulus bill has failed to save or create (whatever that BS line was) jobs.

When bureaucrats attack...

It won't come as a shock when I say government equals bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy equals obstacles for free enterprise and personal responsibility.

Nationally, this country is in dire economic straights and many folks will be facing the prospect of pulling themselves up by their boot straps in hopes of providing goods or services that are worth the exchange of dollars in return. Dollars for things like food and rent for shelter.

Guess who will be standing in the way?? The government.

From this San Francisco Chronicle piece...

He sleeps under a bridge, washes in a public bathroom and was panhandling for booze money 11 months ago, but now Larry Moore is the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city. When he gets up from his cardboard mattress, he puts on a coat and tie. It's a reminder of how he has turned things around.

In fact, until last week it looked like Moore was going to have saved enough money to rent a room and get off the street for the first time in six years. But then, in a breathtakingly clueless move, an official for the Department of Public Works told Moore that he has to fork over the money he saved for his first month's rent to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit.

Read the whole thing, of course, and you will find that Mr. Moore has simply a great attitude about his plight. Others aren't so happy. While Mr. Moore will go on and placate the bureaucrats and find private shelter, the news of this will likely be a microcosm of things to come from governments top down. Too much government control over free enterprise and the pursuit of happiness.

Christine Falvey, spokeswoman for Public Works, said the department's contact with Moore was meant to be "educational."

"We certainly don't want to hamper anyone's ability to make a living," Falvey said. "Our education efforts are actually meant to support that effort by making our streets an enjoyable place for people to visit."

Really?? How about requiring a permit for the homeless that use the public streets in San Francisco as urinals??

Sounds like San Francisco is not all concerned about the homeless problem that is apparent in that city, cause if they were they would be promoting the free enterprise efforts of Mr. Moore, not penalizing them.

AZ state legislature is tackling 'impact fees'

There is a proposed amendment to SB 1035 that seems to be adding and editing quite a bit on what municipalities can or cannot do regarding development fees -- otherwise known as 'impact fees'. Yes... a touchy subject here in Kingman for the last few years, but it has been quiet on that front lately.

Click the link above to see the entire document. I just gazed at it quickly for the last five minutes but I thought I'd copy a few bits below (all added emphasis mine)...

Sec. 3. Section 9-463.05, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

9-463.05. Development fees; imposition by cities and towns; infrastructure improvements plan; annual report; limitation on actions; definitions

A. A municipality may assess development fees to offset costs to the municipality associated with providing necessary public services to a development. COSTS SHALL ONLY INCLUDE the costs of infrastructure, improvements, real property, engineering and architectural services, AND financing costs.

B. Development fees assessed by a municipality under this section MUST MEET the following requirements:

1. Development fees shall result in a beneficial use to the development.

2. The amount of the fee must be reasonably related and reasonably attributable to the development’s share of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the development.

3. The development fee shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the governmental entity in providing necessary services to development.

4. Costs for correction of existing defects in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee.

5. Costs for facilities made necessary by a development shall be based on the same level of service provided to existing residents in the municipality. to the extent that the infrastructure improvement plan requires facilities to be created or modified to improve the level of service provided to existing residents in the municipality, the costs of new or modified facilities shall be apportioned commensurately among development and existing residents.

6. The municipality shall calculate the development fee based on the infrastructure improvements plan, which must be adopted before the commencement of the development fee study.

Items 2 through 6 of subsection B are all proposed additions to this section. I cleaned up the wording in subsections A and B, be sure to click on the link to read how it is offered on the format document.

Skipping ahead to something else...

12. This section does not prohibit the municipality from supporting projects in the infrastructure improvements plan in whole or in part with revenues other than impact fees. A municipality may waive impact fees in whole or in part for a particular development but to the extent that it does so, it must provide that the amount of funds that would have been collected through the waived impact fee shall be replaced with other specified revenues.

Again, so far I've only skimmed through this document but this added item (item 12 under subsection B) is interesting to me so far.

This next one is even better...

K. Notwithstanding any other law, beginning June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2012, a municipality shall not impose or assess any development fees pursuant to this section. Beginning June 1, 2012, a municipality may impose a development fee or modify an existing development fee pursuant to this section.

I'm no legislator or anything, but this looks like a moratorium on 'impact fees' for the time period described above. Get your preliminary plats ready!!

Here is another...

Sec. 5. Title 9, chapter 7, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 9-805, to read:

9-805. Building code moratorium on residential and commercial buildings

Beginning June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2012, any new or modified residential or commercial building code or other related code that is adopted by a municipality does not apply to a residential or commercial building that received a final site plan or subdivision plat, planned area development or similar approval by a municipality before May 1, 2009. This section does not prohibit any code changes to the extent and duration required to comply with conditions for federal stimulus funding.

Looks like somebody has been successful with their lobbying attempts lately. Yet I think that this is probably a good deal. Many developments have been put on hold because of the economy and it is possible that a municipality could change codes and ordinances in the next few years that could be quite costly to developers to abide by... ultimately raising costs on the consumer.

Unless of course there is federal stimulus money on the line for the state... that is.

Maybe this is why it has been quite on the local 'impact fee' resistance scene lately. To me, it looks like these changes favor the development community a bit over the local municipality.

More new potential taxes in the works...

Ah... the state of Arizona this time. The following is copied from a newsletter I get called the Capitol Insider.

Currently Arizona imposes a retail sales tax on all tangible items, except
those specifically exempted by law. Services are generally not subject to the sales tax.

However the state is now considering extending the sales tax to include services as the state grapples with its severe fiscal crisis.

This week Tom Farley, AAR’s CEO and Chief Lobbyist, has been down at the Capitol lobbying against a tax on services.

He reports that it has been a frustrating process to say the least! To cut to the chase, the mantra of broaden the base and lower the sales tax rate has moved from a slogan to a very real potential tax policy.

And the strongest proponent of taxing services – a Republican REALTOR® who is the Chairman of a powerful committee in the state legislature!

If this new tax passes a number of services used when property transfers ownership, all of which are already paying income taxes, would again be taxed including the services provided by the REALTOR®, the title company, the home inspector, the surveyor, the escrow company, the real estate appraiser, the marketing materials and advertisements created by the printers, the home décor staging vendors, the lending institution mortgage, etc.

In this type of economy, the services people use from the business sector are necessary, not optional. Just think of all the services that would be affected by this new tax—health services, child care, elder care, child tutoring, auto repair, funeral services, plumbing repairs, etc.

There are some who believe that by taxing services and getting rid of business taxes, they will create new jobs here in Arizona. All taxing services will accomplish is increase the tax load on Arizona’s citizens because even more consumer purchases will be taxed.

Unbelievable. The problems we face are due to overspending, not under-collecting.

Just like old times, perhaps??

It was just a couple of short years ago where one could find incredible entertainment events here in Kingman a couple of times a month, these events were also known as City Council meetings.

I remember getting to the small meeting room about a half and hour early just to get a seat to view the festivities. As the meeting room would fill up one could feel the temperature rise to the point where you'd wish they'd turn on the misting system (oh... they don't have that in that room, my bad). As the gavel fell at the six o'clock hour the room would be packed to standing room only status, with many others standing outside the meeting area as well.

At that point an attendee knew it was just a few mere moments until cries of "crooks", "back room deals", "show me the emails", "don't sell the well sites", and "free fruit flavored slushies for everyone" would fill the chambers (okay, I'm joking about the last quoted inclusion).

Well entertainment like this may be appearing again tonight at the City Council meeting room. On the agenda are topics that include increasing taxes (sales taxes and room taxes), city employee raises, and perhaps another important issue or two.

See these articles from the Kingman Daily Miner here and here. Some good comments appear at the bottom of the first link (probably be some doozies on the latter as well as the day moves along).

I won't be there to take a seat a half hour before the meeting. Instead I think that I'll be live blogging the meeting right here at MOCO instead (unless the hockey games on TV are really good). But I do expect a good showing in turnout, and can't wait for both the public imput as well as the comments by the elected leaders. This sure is a difficult time and many difficult decisions are in the offing.

One bit of advice if you are planning to attend in person, bring a personal misting system and a fan. Looks like it might be a warm day which will turn up the heat inside the chambers. To say nothing about all the hot air that might likely be exchanged during the meeting.

Don't forget about the Tea-Party on Wednesday...

See this website for more information as to the when and the where's...

But I guess I should warn the folks that are thinking of attending. You see a comment appeared in the Sunday edition of the Kingman Daily Miner... an ugly one at that. I'll get to that comment in a second.

The Tea-Party movement has taken place all across this country in a very organic and mostly spontaneous way. From my reading and understanding, there is very little organization going into the protests. The first Tea-Parties saw a couple of hundred folks show up in large cities holding informal demonstrations complete with homemade signs. Now I am seeing reports of thousands of people showing up in larger cities and hundreds more in smaller locations.



These are not republican or democrat demonstrations. They are not backed by wealthy individual political activists (like a George Soros backed MoveOn.org deal). The republican party is not sponsoring or organizing these events, in fact republican party leader Michael Steele was asked NOT to show up at a recent Tea-Party event.

Here in Kingman on April 1 there was a Tea-Party and now later this week (Wednesday) there will be another one -- just one of many hundreds and maybe even thousands that will be held on 'tax day', if you will.

Hmmm... 'tax day'... hundreds or maybe even thousands of Tea-Party protests all over the country... what, I say, what just might be the theme of these protests??

Well the editor of the Kingman Daily Miner believes that these events have one common theme...

As if we didn't have enough problems with our government trying to give us the shaft, we now have a growing group of tea-baggers intent on making sure every American is scared crazy about pretty much everything. I would love to be there when these Henny Pennys discover that they really don't have much in common except that they all hate the fact that a black man is running (ruining!) the country.

That is right, he believes that if you are attending any Tea-Party anywhere across this country you have a problem with a black man running the country. Way to play the preemptive race card there pal. Disgusting.

In reality, if you were to read the rest of his column, you'd see that the editor is a fine candidate to join the folks at the Tea-Party. No... not because he himself is a racist because I doubt he is (I really don't know the man other than I know he is a Denver Broncos fan) and I would never call him a racist preemptively the way he just called hundreds of thousands of Americans. Actually why he would do well at this protest is because he is fed up with the decisions the governments (national on down to local) are making with our tax money...

... which is the entire point and theme of the Tea-Party movement.

Well I won't be holding my breath waiting for an apology from the editor of our local paper, but he should man up and offer one... at the Tea-Party on Wednesday (it's doubtful he'd even send a photographer or a reporter to cover the event even).

No matter though, the event is about us US citizens and our not feeling so swell with how the governments are spending money they don't have now and asking future generations to pay off these enormous debts.

I hope my schedule affords me the time to be at our local Tea-Party, and hopefully you can make it there too if you have some disagreement with how government is using our money at this time.

You can find contact information for the editor of the Miner here.

New tax credits... homes related

The TaxProf Blog has an interesting set of links worth checking out including info on the $8,000 first time home buyer credit and various credits for energy efficient home improvement things.

Including...

They include up to $1,500 in tax credits for adding qualifying windows, doors, insulation, roofs, heating and cooling equipment, water heaters and even wood and pellet stoves to your house in 2009 and 2010. Perks for installing pricier solar technology, small wind-energy systems or a geothermal-well system include a tax credit of 30% of qualifying expenditures with no upper limit through 2016.

Is happening.

The government or you??

I hope to see more vid's like this... and I'll post them here if I do.

Updated 2/13/09

Happy shopping day...

I know that today is called 'Black Friday' but to me that doesn't sound all that great this year. I realize the reference is for the prospects of merchants--retailers being in the 'black' for the year (you know, turning a profit).

But with the endless media reports of the next Great (I've never understood what was so 'Great' about it) Depression accumulating in my RSS feed readers and such, I've decided to call this day simply 'shopping' day. So enjoy yourselves out there, and be safe.

Also, the three local municipalities have launched a shop local campaign... click here to read all about it from MohaveBusiness.com.

Welcome, Californians

According to this article, folks in California may be faced with huge increases in taxes (income or otherwise).

Home prices here are back down towards 2004 levels and rents are still very inexpensive. Sure could use some great new neighbors and we are only one state over. We also just passed a change to the Constitution that won't allow for taxes on property transfers.

Hope to see you soon!!

Taxes, incentives for alternative energy, national politics

While I have my opinions on 'national' politics, I try to refrain from writing about such things.

I'm not looking forward to the presidential election as of yet. Neither major party candidate has earned my support or vote as of yet (but I am leaning in one direction).

I'm a simple dude when it comes to taxes. I pay them. I just don't want to pay for more of them.

In keeping with the alternative energy theme to some degree I found this blog article that caught my eye today about the Obama's choice for VP and his record on raising taxes (or attempting to raise taxes).

Here is what I didn't like and how it applied to alternative energy...

Biden has reliably backed Democratic initiatives such as an end to IRS contracts with private debt collection agencies, tighter basis reporting requirements for securities transactions, and incentives promoting renewable energy production.

I'm not sharing this to start some national political debate, but I find it a bit awkward that the democrats like to say such things as we must 'take' money from one provider of energy (oil companies) and perhaps use that money to offer incentives for renewable forms of cleaner energy sources. This doesn't add up... and it is a reason why I detest national politics.

Update:

I may have read that wrong. The article that I read about VP Candidate Biden's tax policy record basically had a theme of rolling back tax cuts and other issues I feel that I am against. What I emphasized above does not actually state that Biden is against 'ending' incentives promoting renewable energy production... but I admit that when I first read the article... that is how I interpreted it.

I am in favor of offering some sort of tax credit to people that invest in renewable power (i.e. wind turbines) as a way to help establish a market for those products.

I've decided to leave the post anyway. I'm sure I can find other reasons not to be excited about the democratic ticket before November.

RE blogger ticks off government official

Back on December 12th, fellow Realtor and blogger, Danilo Bogdanovic, posted this on his blog. This was basically a 'heads up' about a potential issue between assessed values on real property in relation to market value for the same thing.

Everyone knows that Loudoun County real estate property values have gone down significantly over the last several years, including 2007. For everyone's sake, I hope that the Loudoun County Tax Assessor realizes this as well when computing 2008 tax assessments. Everyone we've talked to in Loudoun County is upset about their assessed value and most are worried that their 2008 tax assessments will not be in line with their fair market value. The people who are even more upset are those who appealed their tax assessments earlier this year and were completely shot down without a good, if any explanation.

Yes, they're upset because they've lost market value. But why are they really upset? Because 2007 assessed values are up to 30 percent higher than current market values (non-foreclosures or short-sales) and they think that the Tax Assessor doesn't care. That means that Loudoun County residents are paying up to 30 percent more in taxes than they should.

In response, the Loudoun County Tax Assessor has thrown a fit and has threatened action against the blogger (see the threats here on this post). This whole thing is getting plenty of attention throughout the RE blogosphere because of the attack on free speech. Rightfully so.

Here is one of the best responses from another blogger towards the Louden County official.

One of the main reasons as to why I 'blog' is to attract some attention towards certain aspects buyers and sellers should consider when transacting business. It is likely that I would say the very same things to a potential client in person in my office (for example) that I say on this blog. This blog allows my thoughts to be shared in a very informal manner, a reader might stop by and use the information that is posted at his or her own convenience. I'm always striving towards sharing information so that others can decide.

There may be times when my thoughts that I share are incorrect, and by blogging, it has allowed readers and others to comment and maybe help me correct whatever it is that I am trying to communicate. And maybe this is what Danilo should have faced instead of the threats he received from the county official in Virginia. If the assessor would have instead posted on Danilo's blog in an effort to correct the information then everything would have turned out different. Instead the bloggers free speech was attacked... and most likely because Danilo wasn't wrong about anything.

Another 'Development Agreement' in the works...

This time in Marana Arizona, just north of Tucson. Our good buddy Donna sent me a heads up on this opinion piece from the Arizona Daily Star. Please read the whole thing.

I am going to highlight a couple of bits from the opinion...

In a region growing as rapidly as Pima County, the town of Marana and private developers may be breaking new ground in a partnership agreement that demonstrates how major road-construction projects can be built without state funds.

A group of private developers agreed to finance roughly $40 million to design and build a major interchange at Interstate 10 north of the existing Tangerine Road exit. The new exit and accompanying loop road will provide access to a huge retail and commercial development planned for the area.

State money for such projects is scarce because construction costs have increased and too many road projects are competing for attention from the Arizona Department of Transportation's finite budget.

(my emphasis)

My guess is Marana has a similar financial situation that Kingman has. No ability to fund needed infrastructure projects as needed, and maybe a community of voters that don't necessarily like to vote to increase their bills they pay to the government (i.e. taxes).

I'm now aware of development agreement projects in various stages throughout Arizona that include the communities of Marana, Gilbert, Queen Creek, and Lake Havasu City. I bet there are others... and if you know of any more please add them in the comments.

Here is more from the Daily Star...

Some critics will see Marana's decision as a needless subsidy of private development. The land along Interstate 10 is extremely valuable for retail trade, they will say, and businesses would be attracted to it with or without help from the town.

While there is some truth to that, it ignores a fundamental fact of life in Marana. A former agricultural town that's rapidly developing into a suburb of Tucson, Marana has 34,000 people, all of whom demand services but want no part of a property tax.

The town lives and dies on the strength of impact fees for new construction, and sales taxes. The huge development along I-10 near Tangerine Road, which will be much larger than the Arizona Pavilions shopping center at Cortaro Road and I-10, is expected to generate around $3 million a year in sales taxes.

The town gets to keep 100 percent of those sales taxes after its part of the infrastructure cost is paid off, in 15 years, Reuwsaat said.

For a town that's heavily dependent on sales taxes, making an accommodation for a new development that will include a large outdoor mall, possibly two hotels and an autoplex on some 1,500 acres is a wise long-term investment. By investing a portion of its sales taxes toward repaying the infrastructure costs today, it speeds up construction of a badly needed interchange at I-10 and opens a new cash flow to the town's general fund. Sales tax dollars are the blood in Marana's veins.

Wow... how amazingly similar the situation there as the one we face here in Kingman, uncanny.

Impact Fees

When my wife was visiting this week, we were in the vehicle together traveling on Stockton Hill and she noticed a new building going up near the Super Wal-Mart entrance and asked me if I knew what business was going in. I wasn't sure at the moment, for whatever reason, but I thought I had heard that is was going to be a new Panda Express Chinese food restaurant.

Turns out I was right and maybe the Kingman Daily Miner was reading my mind because in today's edition there is an article about it. The article was informative, but the following was the most interesting...

"The permit process went quite smoothly and efficiently," Pittman said.

The Panda Restaurant Group paid $32,381.91 to the city in fees, including what is commonly referred to as impact fees.

"The attractiveness of the city outweighed" the fees, Pittman said.

The company recognized the new growth in the area, Pittman said. Kingman has the core density they are looking for, he added.

"Even without future growth, we can be successful there," Pittman said, "but we're excited about future growth."

(emphasis mine)

First of all this wasn't shared to say development or 'impact' fees are a good or bad thing. I included it because as of right now the 'impact' fees are a revenue source for the city and it appears that business interests... successful business interests... are willing to pay those fees.

It has been said at recent city council meetings that these 'impact' fees are killing the economy in Kingman. I don't wholeheartedly agree.

There are 'impact' fees imposed on new commercial AND residential projects and the these fees are collected up front.

I'm finding out that our 'impact' fees are reasonable as compared to other communities in Arizona. Keep in mind that in Kingman the city does not collect property tax dollars on either commercial or residential property... and beyond state allocated funds, the only other normal revenue streams are sales tax dollars and these darned 'impact' fees.

I know that the local builders association was making an effort to delay the payment of 'impact' fees until the close of escrow or at the time the certification of occupancy was issued to help defer the added risk on the builder, as of right now I am not sure how that resolution is going. However it does go, we all know that in the end the end user is the one that actually pays the cost of those fees.

If I am first in line at Panda Express, some of the revenue they collect from my beef and broccoli order (however microscopic it may be) will go towards the development fee that Panda Express paid. Likewise, I know that the next time I buy a home in Kingman that I'll be paying back the builder for the residential development fees.

We've had recent discussions about living in an area of Kingman where an 'improvement district' is formed because the residents in that area want some kind of improvement (sidewalks and gutters, water lines, sewer lines, etc.), and together they all agree to pay back the cost of those improvements to the city. Usually in the form of an assessment that could be in the thousands of dollars. This has to be done because in the past there seemed to have been times when things like sidewalks and sewer lines were not required as part of the permitting, or if there were requirements -- they were waived for whatever reason.

Some folks in those improvement district do not realize that they may have a difficult time selling their home, if they had to for some reason, unless the assessment amount is paid off. Now it can be paid off from the proceeds at the close of escrow... but in our current market there is no guarantee that enough proceeds are collected so that the seller doesn't have to come out of pocket and pay the assessment themselves.

This is where I believe the 'impact' fees could benefit home buyers in the long run. First off, I'll bet that if the person that pulls the permit to build a residential property or commercial property and pays the 'impact' fee and once the property is finished in the construction stage it probably isn't likely that the a property owner at any time in the future will ever be in a situation where an improvement district would even need to be called for. Also, the cost of improving today will no doubt be less expensive than it would be sometime in the future. It also offers more uniformity in the overall area.

If you do drive through some side streets in Kingman you may find some streets with curbs and gutters but on the next block you won't find curbs and gutters. Some streets are paved, while one particular street is not. I've even seen some streets that are half paved (one lane is paved while the lane going the other direction is not). Homes are connected to sewer on this block, but not the next. The list goes on.

The development or 'impact' fees will prevent that from happening in the new growth areas.

We may not like paying the fees. The fees may have come as some kind of culture shock when they went into effect. We may all decide to work together to adjust the fees. But at this point I believe that these fees will provide needed benefits to the growth of the city.

And the new money, the new investment coming into the city appears to be willing to pay those fees.