One of the reasons that I am glad Nischke lost
This is part of the text of a letter to the editor that I was going to send to the Freeman but decided not to:
The Waukesha Taxpayers League is touting the fact that Mayoral candidate Ann Nischke signed their “Pledge To Taxpayers” and Larry Nelson did not. A closer inspection of this pledge reveals that Ann Nischke agreed to “support efforts to require a referendum for borrowing requests greater than $1,000,000.” While this may seem like a great idea in theory, in reality such a requirement would put the City of Waukesha at a huge disadvantage with other Cities when competing for business. The biggest impact would be on Tax Incremental Financing projects. If the City had to hold a referendum whenever they borrowed 1,000,000 it would essentially require a referendum for the creation or expansion of any large TIF districts. If a business owner has a choice between a community whose elected officials has the authority to approve a TIF or a community where any TIF borrowing in excess of $1,000,000 requires an extremely lengthy referendum process with no guarantee it would even be approved, what community do you think they would choose do relocate to? Do you even think they would consider Waukesha? Do you think the taxpayers would benefit from this?
posted by Jeff @ 6:21 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Welcome to Waukesha blogging. Obviously, we're going to be on opposite political sides most of the time but it's all in good fun. Don't take any of it personally. There is another left-wing blogger like yourself in Waukesha. Check out http://www.twoheroes.blogspot.com/
Just a note from an old guy with old eyes is that the black template is kind of hard to read.
One more thing. You might want to turn on your commment verification otherwise the spammers will soon find you.
TIF Districts are not corporate welfare when used correctly. They are also a fact of life when competing for businesses and tax dollars. A City's financial house is only as strong as its business base and without TIF as a business attraction and retention tool, the foundation of that house becomes weakened. If you think that a 1 million dollar cap on public spending is good public policy, that is fine but it will end up costing the City in the long run.
I come from the perspective that, regardless of the rules, spending is going to remain unchanged. The council can either raise property taxes in a straight-forward way or be forced to pay the bills via referendum. I realize this is contrary to the experience of Colorado in which spending was curtailed and services disabled. I cannot expect that that will occur in Wisconsin.
Welcome to the "blogosphere." I wonder. Why has only James commented on my site?
Post a Comment
<< Home