« FRONT PAGE - Around the Town Week of July 11th | Main | High School Graduation Rates - Sumner & Robertson County »
July 13, 2007
What are the Answers
I’m going to work off an article that I read in July 4th's edition of the Portland Progressive written by Daniel Suddeath titled "We need answers not ideology" I found this article quite interesting and asked his permission to bring this up on the Blog, of which he approved.
Daniel noted “Portland has a great opportunity but early 20th century thinking will not bridge the gap between the city’s ambitions and her reality. Some people are more than happy to see Portland remain small but the need for revenue is not limited to a big city. Paving projects, sewer rehab and utility work cannot be accomplished without ample funding regardless of whether a city has a population of 30,000 or 13,000.”
Those opposed to LBTD won the latest battle for Portland because the pro crowd didn’t draw support from the fence riders on the issue.
Further Quotes:
So let’s put LBTD past us for a moment and concentrate on keeping the winning side to their word.
They said there were other ways of gaining revenue – so we want to see it.
They said Portland’s crime rate would rise if LBTD passed – so let’s see it drop now that it failed.
We were told that Portland is not big enough for LBTD yet!! so let’s ask the churches that organized against the issue to quit building huge expansions or maybe have a vote to apply taxes to their property and use the same excuse, that Portland just is not big enough to give tax exemption to the biggest buildings in the city.
Where are the other forms of revenue and the alternative methods to expansion politicians and leaders talked about when they were shaking their Bibles in opposition to LBTD and Sunday beer sales?
Where are the plans to bring in new buildings and features that we were told could happen without a tax increase? The latest budget features a dip into the rainy day funds, could this be a sign that the council is up against a no-win situation? Now that the smoke has cleared from last May's election the people of Portland have the right to kow what direction our city is headed towards. (End of Quotes)
I am asking you……..
What do you think?
Where do you see Portland in 2009 at the next election?
Will there be new revenue? if so, where will it come from?
While we welcome and encourage your thoughts and ideas we must ask that you refrain from the use of profanity and/or personal attacks, these are not acceptable and will be deleted by the administrators of this blog.
Posted by judy at July 13, 2007 03:35 PM
Comments
Nick, I think they key phrase in your comments is:
"if the city will try".
I don't believe the city wants retail. I think there's a story here somewhere....I think Portland is honestly only interested in the industrial area, for some reason. It seems to be what they are focused on.
As far as tax revenues -- KY has a lower sales tax than we do and a lot of people shop there to save money -- especially on food, where there is no tax. Being on the state line, it's easier for people to go up to KY to save money.
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 26, 2007 12:11 AM
Again I must say...this town can bring in retail development. Yes LBTD is important but Lowe's didn't move to Franklin just because of that. It is across from Wal-Mart which is a very busy place. I know it's not much but we are getting a Walgreen's and there is so much land going up for sale along HWY 52 West. If the city will try we can bring in retail development. Since we are in the middle of Franklin and White House we should try to bring in the competitors of the stores that those cities have. FOR EXAMPLE again......we could get a Home Depot and a Target those are the competitors for Lowe's and Wal-Mart. Personally for me I wouldn't mind giving those stores tax breaks because they will help more people move here and generate a huge amount of tax revenue from the sales tax. Also since Portland is on the state line we can get more sales tax revenue. Some people may look at this as a bad thing but in a way it can be good. We can bring in stores that aren't in Franklin or around this area at all and people will be attracted to those stores because they are new to this area and they will choose to shop there instead of going to Franklin.
Posted by: Nick at July 25, 2007 04:58 PM
Tim, I want to say "thank you", too for your comments. I always wondered why the industries did not have to pay impact fees. They certainly should be paying them.
I'm wondering what the technicality was that stopped it.
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 24, 2007 12:32 PM
Tim Coker
Thank you for your post below about Industries and how they DO NOT pay impact fees to the City of Portland.
Might I add that I am SHOCKED by this!! What are we gaining by this picture...... The only ones that are gaining are the folks that own the property the Industries purchase to build on!! We get the traffic, congestion, polution, and low wage jobs in return for what? I bet they get TAX BREAKS!! and we pay again!!
Posted by: Judy at July 24, 2007 08:49 AM
As this discussion progresses, it should be pointed out industries do not pay impact fees to the City of Portland. I fought hard, and actually got it in a year or so ago, but it was overridden on a technicality if some of you remember. Only new residences pay impact fees to the City. All other imapct fees are county fees.
Posted by: Tim Coker at July 24, 2007 01:29 AM
Double amen Daniel....
The Franklin we see now is only a small piece of what it will be in about 3-5 years. It will be much like Bowling Green, with restaraunts, even more retail with stores like Goody's, Home Depot, and Target, and such. And EVERYONE from Portland will go there and shop. Kinda like they do now.
DeeAnna, Portland will definitely have to have new signs with a new slogan, because the only way it is a city on the GROW, is population wise. It's definitely not "Progressive" Portland...
Once Franklin and WH get even more established, potential retail and even new fast food places will be bypassing us to build in WH and Franklin. Wouldn't you, if you were the ones building the businesses?
Hey I now know the sign we can put up to lure people away from Franklin
"PORTLAND-WE HAVE AN ARBY'S!"
Posted by: Mack at July 24, 2007 12:01 AM
A big AMEN to Daniel.....I couldn't agree with you more.
I'm just waiting for Portland to propose a name change for the town.....
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 23, 2007 01:33 PM
The way Franklin is expanding pretty soon we will be left in the dirt. Something just irks me when religious people rally against a source of potential tax revenue that would help build things the city needs while at the same time they are building huge expansions and enjoying tax exemption within their church property.
Posted by: Daniel Suddeath at July 23, 2007 09:23 AM
I didn't know that WH was getting a Lowe's but it seems fitting. WH is a progressive town. Franklin is a progressive town. Portland is stuck in the horse and buggy ages. My water bill keeps getting higher and higher every month. Guess I got to foot the bill somehow since many of the anti-progressive/church crowd rallies against revenue being brought into the town.
When I see members of the anti-LBTD crowd shopping outside of Portland, you better believe I will post it on here. If you don't want it here, don't support it in our neighboring towns!!!!
Daniel's article was spot on a week or so ago. They claim we can be a successfull revenue city without LBTD, well, our butts are getting beat by our neighbors, and I don't just mean in football!!!
Posted by: Mack at July 22, 2007 02:08 AM
Since all we have here is industry and warehouses, seems fitting that the new City Hall building will be located in an industrial park !!
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 21, 2007 06:28 PM
I support LBTD. Every legal age person should be able to make their choice. However, Portland needs to work to make growth happen. For example....Lowe's comes to Franklin so Portland should go out and contact home depot for a store here (lowes is also building a store in white house) Most of the time stores like Home Depot bring in a "big box" retailer such as Target. Well the last time i checked there is plenty of commercial property for sale close to the interstate. This town is only focused on giant industrial warehouses. I think the shortage of commercial outlets can only be blamed on the leadership of the city. Portland is no different from Franklin or White House. Our town is just focused on industry.
Posted by: Nick at July 20, 2007 03:14 PM
Bredesen liberal? Yeah right...and you say when he (Bredesen) tries to force it (state tax) on us again? Hate to remind you, the state income tax was the baby of YOU GUYS' man, Mr. Don Sundquist, never has Bredesen pushed for it, or even mentioned it, so to "force it on us again" is impossible considering he has yet to ever even suggest it.
Posted by: Jerry L at July 18, 2007 08:42 PM
to the best of my knowledge, impact fees are one time, not sure about the tax breaks. There is not currently an impact fee on industries.
Posted by: Daniel Suddeath at July 18, 2007 08:05 PM
That would be very interesting to know.....but I have a feeling that the general public will never know that answer. The only way to know that would be a fly on the wall where the deals are made. I'm forever the skeptic...but that's what I think.
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 18, 2007 04:39 PM
It would be interesting to know the amount of the impact fees that are charged to the industries verses the amount of the tax breaks given. Are the impact fees a one time charge and the tax breaks for a period of years and how do they wash out? Anyone out there who may be able to answer please do so.
Posted by: Judy at July 17, 2007 09:45 PM
Judy,
You pose some interesting questions here. It will be interesting to see what everyones opinion is on this. As for LBTD, I wont get on that soapbox for long but for me it wasn't about the revenue or even the supposed morality issue. It's more about being treated like an adult and having choices in life. Its already available if you dont mind driving to get it, so make it available locally and draw the revenue as a bonus.
As for the crime rate, I beleive that it is driven more by population than by the availability of alcohol. That would be a question for the police chief I guess. But it seems that the city is always adding new officers so there must be something else driving the crime rate. Thats about all I have on this subject for now. I curious to see if anyone else has any suggestions for any of your other questions.
Posted by: Tim at July 17, 2007 01:49 PM
Digman, what do you think the solution is ?
What do you think is the means for providing for a city's budget ?
Where should the money come from ?
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 16, 2007 06:24 PM
raising taxes is never the answer.
the mayor is right, it is illegal in this state because we dont have a state tax and hopefully
when the liberal bredesen tries to force it on us again we can defeat it again.this town is not going to have much of anything as long as progress is stifiled. raising taxes just rewards the stupidity of corrupt government officials.
by the way, just who is it that gets to count the votes? would be interesting to know.
Posted by: digman at July 16, 2007 03:51 PM
John....I took my information from the Bowling Green website. Here's the quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are City Occupational License Taxes used for?
These taxes provide over 60% of the City’s General Fund revenues, which provide the majority of City services that the public utilizes, such as police and fire protection.
No, it doesen't make any difference ...but thought it was interesting to see what a difference it could make, if we could.
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 16, 2007 09:25 AM
Not sure it makes any difference if TN cities can't have one, but the Bowling Green KY Occupational Tax rate is 1.85% and it makes up approx. 39% of their annual operating budget, not 60%.
Posted by: John at July 16, 2007 07:43 AM
Hey everyone, I meant to post the post below in the Headlines section. My bad....
Posted by: Mack at July 15, 2007 11:04 PM
Did anyone see this in today's Tennessean? I would like to see the administrator make an entire new blog about this, if so, please include all of the below:
2006 High School Graduation rates (I just included Sumner and Robertson County schools)
Hendersonville High: 96%
East Robertson High: 94.4%
Station Camp High: 90.2%
White House High: 90.2%
Beech High:89.5%
WH-Heritage High: 86.2%
Jo Burns School: 86%
Westmoreland High: 85%
Greenbrier High: 82.2%
Gallatin High: 79.9%
Portland High: 79.5%
Springfield High: 69.6%
That's right folks, Portland according to this is last in the county and next to last in both counties...The highest Mid-state grad rate was Hume-Fogg at 98.5% and the lowest was Maplewood High 42.6%. What's everyone's opinions?
Go to data.tennessean.com for more details, including rates for previous years and levels of improvement.
Posted by: Mack at July 15, 2007 10:57 PM
Bowling Green, Ky has an Occupational Tax --
I believe it's about 1 percent.
60% of the cities' general fund money, used to support the police & fire dept.etc. comes from this tax.
It's too bad Portland can't have such a tax to generate revenue for our citie's services.
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 15, 2007 10:38 AM
I approached Mayor Wilbur about an employment fee/payroll tax for workers from other cities and was told that it was not an option because of state regulations.
Posted by: Terry George at July 14, 2007 02:48 PM
Daniel,
I really don't understand what you mean when you say Payroll Tax. Are you refering to a state income tax? Please explain.
Posted by: Jazzy3 at July 14, 2007 02:38 PM
Industries are usually given tax breaks but they have to pay impact fees. I think something that would help would be a payroll tax because most of the workers come from out of town and don't spend a dime in Portland but profit from having a small amount of taxes taken out of their check.
Posted by: Daniel Suddeath at July 14, 2007 12:05 PM
I'm happy to see this topic get put on the blog.
I think there should be some very interesting comments to come from this one. I thought there were some very good comments in that editorial.
I'm "just a housewife", and I don't know much about the city budget, but I do have a question about where revenue comes from for the city. Is it sales tax, property tax, sewer fees, impact fees, traffic tickets ( ??? )...etc. ?? If it is, then I would imagine all of those will be increased in the future. Prices never come down, do they??
My question is....... when an industry comes to Portland...like all the manufacturing plants, do they get tax breaks to entice them to come here??
I've always wondered about that. Are they paying their fair share or are they getting all the breaks ??
Seems to me, the only things that the city can raise would be fees and the city property taxes.
Raising the property tax really puts a burden on the people on Social Security or fixed incomes, especially.
I don't see Portland being any different in 2009, than it is now. I see it being caught between Franklin, KY and White House. With the new Lowes in Franklin, and a new Wal-Mart and lots of other new things in White House.....how can Portland expect to compete with that ?
I think Portland will remain the city of the schools, the churches, the park, and fast food places...etc.
There's not even a real restaurant in Portland to get an evening meal !! When you want to take someone out to eat...you have to go to Gallatin or farther away.
I don't see how LBTD has hurt Gallatin, or Hendersonville or anywhere else...so I don't see why it's such a big issue to ban it. Seems the revenue would be welcomed. It's not like Porltand is an alcohol-free town, after all...so there's no room for patting on the back about that. Beer flows all over town...LOL.
There really is going to have to be some very creative money management or else figure out a way to pay for the things a city needs to operate in the future.
It's too bad they can't tax every truck that comes through town...LOL LOL...
Posted by: DeeAnna at July 13, 2007 10:51 PM