Cool. The deal is dead, Regency walked out on it. Kudos to the five that walked out. Your tactics worked, and you have saved the taxpayers a lot of cash.
This just doesn't make sense to me. Againsters are actually happy that we've scared away a developer. How about compromise and discussion or looking for alternate funding sources? Nope, we're just against it. Turns out some people are just against everything.
13 comments:
The againsters aren't against everything. I'm against getting lied to about this stupid stormwater run-off tax. I'm against a seventy-eight cent per thousand raise in my taxes, a 9% jump in commercial property taxes, the raise in the garbage fee; and all for less services. If these jokers down at city hall think surrounding cities will respond to our fires they should be committed.
They should get rid of Ms. Howard, the queen of denial, Malin, the pencil pusher, and Barnhill. Instead of laying off the low guys on the pay scale, fire half the managers and see if there's a decline in service. When the budget gets a little closer to balanced, with all services included, then and only then should Markets and such be discussed.
That's like saying we'll worry about sowing seeds once the crops have come up.
QCI - As of 4:30 pm, the developer wsa still in. So unless something happened between now and then, it's SOLO bunck. (Like Centro's closing and going to Moline).
But the developer is angry, because a majority of alderman told them they were supportive in closed session.
If five or six of the alderman didn't want this, they should have said so. I am sure the investor has other alternatives in communities that are supported by a elected board that is honest.
Let the freakin developer operate his business on money he can finagle from _private_ for-profit sources. If a project is worth doing the money will be lined up squabbling amongst itself over who gets a piece of the pie. In other words, crap or get off the pot.
There's so much money out there to be invested; Middle-Eastern, East Asian, foul-mouthed dick sheeney's cronies, that We The People shouldn't even be asked to.
Ok Sally, give me one real instance where all this spending has done anything positive involving my taxes. Population is dropping and business is building all around, not in, Davenport. If you build it and they don't come, is it still an attraction?
I certainly hope that is wrong.
The corporate wefare for the Whittys is BS!
Actually, Charlie Brown would say "Uggg" rather than "Argh". We used to be on the same baseball team. He couldn't pitch worth a darn.
This is an againster who agrees with SS that I don't understand planning et al, but I darn-well understand free-enterprise and accordingly fully expect Business to operate itself on its own two feet with no welfare from any level of government, and to pay its fair share of the cost of operating our National and local infrastructures. "Free-enterprise as The American Way" seems to have degenerated into a hypocritical sham.
That would certainly be an ideal situation. Too bad it doesn't exist.
So we can sit around saying how businesses don't need incentives or handouts, while other cities give them incentives and handouts. Where do you think a business would prefer to locate?
QCI, if you were a parent you would not accept such an answer from your offspring; your answer is tantamount to, "Jimmy's dad gives him cigarettes so you should give me one."
That's not even a remotely good comparison. I was trying to explain that it would put us at a competitive disadvantage to refuse all incentives to businesses. Its more like an employer expecting people to work for free when the business next store is paying $50,000 a year. It only makes business sense to go where they're willing to pay.
What about the corporate welfare in Iowa where HyVee and WalMart employees are disproportionately on Medicaid? Good thing we have two WalMarts and three(?) HyVee's to take our tax dollars.
None of that justifies letting Larry Whitty off the hook.
Post a Comment