Here's a comment that sparks interest.....
"I'm not sure of the "tax break" you mention. I hear that phrase bandied about quite a bit. As I understand it the "big box" will still have to pay full taxes and not receive any kind of rebate. Only the developer will get any benefit - and that only for streets and water and such that the city would have had to be a part of anyway - to create a full shopping center and draw in other retailers.
I could be wrong, but somebody should find out for sure."
If the developer/land owner gets to keep part of the property taxes that normally would be assessed, isn't that a tax break?
As far as the city having to build and/or finance streets and water for a shopping center, that simply is not true. That's the whole argument — how far does the city go in aiding this project. I don't remember the city paying for the turn lanes, the traffic signal and the parking lot of the Wal-Mart in either Winfield or Ark City. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
A novice's take on the local, state and national political scenes
Me
David Allen
- Politics 101
- All politics is local -Tip O'Neil
2 comments:
I'm a little curious about what the city might be responsible for too. Will the streets be widened? Will there be sidewalks and lighting? Will the city provide water and sewer out there? To what degree is the city responsible for providing those things?
And what do you mean that the developer gets to keep part of the money? Don't they have to spend it on construction? Are they making a profit off of the construction? Find out for us exactly where this money goes.
Another thing. I keep hearing the word "anchor" what does that mean? It would be nice to see more facts out in the paper.
Ummm.... Isn't their a water tower in that area, or does it belong solely to Creekstone. Couln't be too hard to run some pipes from there. I'm scratching my head on this one lately, cause I thought Ark City wanted economic development. Or should we take a step backwards and become another ghost town on the map?
Post a Comment