The brief fizzle from a potential fiasco came in a little article in the Times the other day. I have to agree with many naysayers that are not in favor of any action to raise taxes for the Davenport Promise program. I will follow that statement, with the fact that I am not for using tax funds for this program and it should be privately funded.
It appears the mayor is testing the waters, along with Joe Seng, on options to fund this project, that has potential to have more of an economic impact on the area than most anything we have done in the past. I am thinking that simply testing the waters was the undercurrent of this whole legislative attempt, but I could be wrong. In this case, the undercurrent may have turned into a riptide when the idea of raising taxes was mentioned. After all, as I recall, most of the anti-Gluba sentiment was the “He’s just going to raise my taxes” argument, and that may or may not be true. I was pleasantly surprised to see the budget float through so seamlessly, with no additional taxes. I am hoping that this flow continues.
Now on to the Times article. In reading the comments, I think everyone that made the aforementioned tax statement came out of the woodwork to beat the ‘I told you so’ drum. Well, to those people I would ask them to wake up. Look at what actually happened…
Gluba lobbied, a.k.a. asked his friend Joe Seng, to take to a committee to discuss and see how a bill would do at the state level that would allow a sales tax increase. Both of them admit that this bill would likely not pass, and all the bill would do is send this issue to voters, yet another likely definite thumbs down from the voters of Davenport. Gluba doesn’t seem to want to raise taxes, but I would question whether or not there is an alternative motive. Why would Gluba want to test the water with this type of bill? My only thoughts on that are, does he want to actually raise taxes in the future, or does he want to leave the impression that he is doing everything he can to ensure the Promise Program gets off the ground. I don’t know, but I think there are many other ways he could show his support.
The other fun thing about this is the guy that pointed it out, our little pitbull Hamerlinck. Another one of the misguided comments in the Times column points this out. It seems he may be a little jaded since he got slapped by the mayor for the last little stunt about putting police in college classrooms. I think Hamerlinck may have gotten a small token of revenge here, but I really think these two situations are very different. Remember, this was going to a committee to be discussed, the way the process is supposed to work. The last Hamerlinck stunt was an attempt at circumventing committees and bringing an issue that appeared to be totally disorganized.
Speaking of that, can someone tell me what happened to the police in the college classrooms by the way? It appears to have just disappeared.
4-3-08 Bill would give city ability to ask for tax increase to fund Davenport Promise
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think that Alderman Hammerlink forgot to check with the colleges to see if they were willing to give free educations to police.
Alderman Hammerlink has a way of jumping with his mouth before he thinks things through or does any research.
On the other subject I must disagree with you.
I believe that in the long run this can be funded privately, but initially it must be with money that is a sure thing for the promise.
We need to start looking long range instead of 2 years at a time. This city isn't growing and we need to do something about it now.
I for one hope this moves ahead. Thanks to Joe Seng, the voters might have a chance to actually have a voice in this.
I agree, we need to look at this with an open mind. What is good for the city for the future? What will support the tax base in 10 years from now when the boat is gone? Why would anyone come to the city that offers little more than what they already have at their present home town? Will the program bring better educated folks to Davenport like maybe a highly qualified city administrator and future councilmen?
These are pondering questions that make me feel that a little cash now means a hell of an investment for the future.
Lets give these folks something other than a weekend festival to look forward to.
I hear what you two are talking about, but I'm not sure that raising sales tax by a percentage point is the wisest idea the way the economy is right now. It would make sense, in a time of when the economy is stable and there aren't problems with mortgages, job cuts, etc, to consider a boost to the growth of the area. But currently, I think that this may drive a wedge into the local economy, as other area cities would benefit from the increased business. We see what a cigarette tax does to the behavior of buyers, I couldn't imagine what a higher tax on everything would do. I think until we can get a handle on energy prices and the country gets into a post-war economy, which typically booms, we should not be considering new taxes. In addition, I think that if it does come to passing an extra percentage, the hope that it would be temporary would be a bit of a pipe dream. Once the tax is there, regardless of its initial intent, I doubt it will go away.
In the mean time, you are absolutely right, I think we may have to put something forward to start this, but I'm not so sure we can't get more aggressive with area business and generate enough revenue to get this off the ground.
Agreed, this "Promise" will float like a lead balloon to the closed minded folks with little or no education background. It would only be right to try to get businesses to support and only then go to the public. But I am not against monetary support of some form. I do feel that going to the people too soon will spell "doomsday" for the idea like Hammerhead's half-assed attempt at putting cops in classrooms.
The idea that increasing the cigarette tax would lead to less revenue is just wrong. The estimate was $100 million in new revenue. The actual was $113 million. I have actually seen people at the grocery store put back food so they could affford to buy their cigarettes. It is very addictive. Some people have gone out of state to go buy their cigs, but as gas quickly approaces $4.00 a gallon it soon won't save any money to do so.
A nice side benefit of the whole thing is that the quit-smoking-hot-line calls have skyrocketed. I really wouldn't care if we received no tax revenue from the tax down the road (i.e. people would quit smoking). The increased productivity and decrease in Medicaid would dwarf the amount of tax revenue we receive.
Regarding the additional sales tax, let the people vote. People voted for the library levy. That doesn't make it Charlie's tax. It's for the people. If the people vote for it, it isn't Gluba's tax or Seng's. It's for the kids and the community.
What happened to the last thread???
I've been an outspoken supporter of the Promise for some time, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% in favor of raising taxes for it. It would be great if we could get it done with all private donations, but I think that is unreasonable, at least at the beginning. It would take something like a $300 million endowment. Not even Kalamazoo has that. Right now, they have anonymous folks who are donating just enough for 1 year at a time.
Two ideas I've floated on my blog:
1. If/when Davenport ever gets a new deal negiotiated with the casino, the city will be in line for some increased gambling revenue. Why not use that money to help kick-start the Promise?
2. Why not offer "matching" public funds, similar to what they did with River Renaissance? In other words, "X" amount of public funds *could* go to the Promise, but only if the private sector also coughs up some money for it.
If the sales tax or any other public fund were framed as a matching fund like this instead of a 100% source for the Promise, I think it would have an excellent chance of passing.
Post a Comment