Comments on: Amendment 3

By: Bantam

Bantam — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:53:31 +0000

What if you’re authorizing the government to put more options in the hands of private industry?
This amendment seems to be about new development paying for itself, rather than burdening an already struggling rural tax base with the costs of new infrastructure.
The academic paper was pretty helpful, dispite a handful of irritating typos.

By: Taft Republican

Taft Republican — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:56:12 +0000

Anything that says “To authorize the creation of” ANYTHING by government deserves a NO.

PERIOD.

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:21:00 +0000

Generally speaking the past few years these guys don’t “decentralize” in the traditional government sense unless they’ve already “centralized” via Wall Street. Beware of pre-packaged solutions.

By: griftdrift

griftdrift — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:36:23 +0000

Bill, this actually isn’t the government creating jobs. If its like CDDs in Florida is allows a developer to float bonds just like a local government and then collect fees from residents and businesses within the district to pay back those bonds.

I want to research it more but I’m for it in the philosophical sense.

By: GOP Girl

GOP Girl — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:31:53 +0000

I’m sorry. All that infastructure wording just reminds me of an old SNL skit using the ending “istification” one too many times…..

By: Bill Simon

Bill Simon — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:48:12 +0000

Clint,

“How can anyone possibly shoot down another tool to promote jobs and economic activity in these times?

All this does is allow a local government to use this if they want to…”

Since when is it the responsibility of government to “promote” or even create jobs?

By: Romegaguy

Romegaguy — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:26:53 +0000

I vote no every year on every constitutional ammendment. It’s the only safe thing to do

By: LoyaltyIsMyHonor

LoyaltyIsMyHonor — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:51:53 +0000

People will vote for it for the simple reason that they don’t understand the amendment or think “Well it must be helpful because it’s a proposed Consititutional amendment and the Constitution is a ‘good’ thing.”

Look, most of us on here work in governemnt, politics, or follow things very closely. The average person has no idea the implication of this and other amendents. They especially don’t realize when they vote to give some special interest or a sector of the economy a sizebale tax break, they’re voting to increase their own tax burden. All they see is ‘tax credit/deduction’ and think, oh that must be good.

By: Tea Party

Tea Party — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:20:34 +0000

The paper posted by Thomas Wheatley certainly does address ‘governing bodies’ as a potential downside to IDD’s. Florida, which has CDD’s similar to IDD’s, has seen governing bodies not following the law, leading to problems.

The paper lays out recommendations to avoid such issues.

This is a really technical bill, way beyond what any average citizen would have been able to study up on. I suspect people will dismiss IDD’s as they are hard to understand, therefore must be bad.

Frankly, they could be helpful, if we learn from Florida/other areas. If interested, that paper should help anyone decide, thanks!

By: Three Jack

Three Jack — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:34:12 +0000

are local governing bodies prevented from doing infrastructure improvements? no.

vote no!

By: thomaswheatley

thomaswheatley — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:52:51 +0000

Tea Party, Here's a good — and rather lengthy — paper on IDDs in Georgia. (Warning: PDF) Click here.

By: Tea Party

Tea Party — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:53:58 +0000

I dunno, I have studyed this one and so far, cannot find anything wrong with it. It is essentially a ‘condominium structure’ that taxes business/residents in the IDD area. Those folks choose to go to the IDD area or vote on it and benefit from the proceeds.

Where else are IDD’s being misused?

By: Joeventures

Joeventures — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:38:20 +0000

… and by “governing body” they don’t mean an elected body.

By: LoyaltyIsMyHonor

LoyaltyIsMyHonor — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:28:55 +0000

“governing bodies will be able to impose and collect fees and assessments within each district”

By: AtlConservative

AtlConservative — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:15:00 +0000

NO!

By: Joeventures

Joeventures — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:00:12 +0000

This has already been tried in other states, and it is not turning out to be a tool to promote jobs and economic activity.

If you think overextending our economy with sub-prime and variable rate balloon mortgages is a bad idea, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

By: Clint Austin

Clint Austin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:37:48 +0000

How can anyone possibly shoot down another tool to promote jobs and economic activity in these times?

All this does is allow a local government to use this if they want to…

By: Game Fan

Game Fan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:15:36 +0000

No clue. “The devil’s in the details”. Whenever you say “yes” to politicians and change you better have some Vaseline® on standby.

By: Tinkerhell

Tinkerhell — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:56:49 +0000

NO.