Some of our bloggers have asked how to compute the property tax impact on them of the Naranja Town Site boondoggle. The way the town presents it--well, you would wonder what all the fuss is about. What's 48 cents per hundred. Sounds small.
WRONG.
And just another example of how the town is bamboozling us on this deal.
Your property tax will go up at least 5%...probably 10% on just this one item.
Check out the numbers.
Big bucks? You bet. Especially for a luxury. Especially in hard times. Especially for something most of us will never use.
And this is a permanent increase in your property tax. If the bond for this deal last 25 years, the cost to you, of this park, is 25 times the annual property tax cost shown above.
Ouch.
For a Park.
Are we nuts?
13 comments:
My better half puts it this way,
If you don't want a property tax, then Vote NO. If you want a property tax then vote YES"
If I understand correctly the town is not freezing the home value for calculations; SO..if the home value goes up for the next 25 years - than the tax will increase too!
I say vote NO!
Here we are spending lots of OV taxpayer money for a regional park. If I were in the market today for a house and I had a choice between a house with no property tax and the ability to use a Glittzy regional park for a small nominal fee and one with a large never ending property tax supporting the Glittzy park - which house would I buy?? Buyers don't want to pay taxes.
raindancer
The chart appears to be accurate. That's a good thing. Now everyone knows what his or her cost will be. Of course, these will change based on the assessed value of your property, but that's the way the system works.
If home values rise, it may be possible to call and pay off the bonds early. There's no downside to that scenario--happens all the time. Or if interest rates fall, the Town could renegotiate the bonds' rates by calling them and re-issuing newer bonds at a lower rate.
The Town has no authority to "freeze" home values. That is the role of the County, RD, so don't spend your time barking up that tree. The tax is not never-ending. The bonds are issued for a time specific. If you look at your property tax statement, you'll see that bonds come and go--schools, libraries, roads--they drop on or off your tax bill each year as they're retired or paid off.
I don't think the installation of ballfields and a basic infrastructure (roads, parking, electricity, plumbing) falls under the heading of "Glittzy."
Ms. C. is right--either vote yes or no. If you vote yes, you'll get the things I just noted above. No glitz there. Only future votes (if any are taken) will determine how much more of the plan gets added to the park. So, this is the first baby step.
Please don't step on the baby.
Boobie-baby,
You said you don't think ballfields and the basic infrastructure could be considered glitzy. Well, not when you put it THAT way.
But when you look at the number of ballfields and courts, that's when the glitz-factor comes in.
Why in the world do we NEED 12 tennis courts, 9 basketball courts, 5 volleyball courts, 4 baseball fields, 3 soccer fields and a partridge in a pear tree??!!
Another question about the park ?
Say the voters say Yes, there is nothing that binds the town or town council to this exact plan, correct?
Housing prices go in cycles and you can probably count on that happening again in the next 25 years.
I don't think it is out of the ballpark that a house worth 400,000 today could be worth
over a million in say 7 to 10 years.
I have several concerns about this park.
One thing that people should seriously think about is that in all probability we will have a property tax in OV.
None of us will be happy with that but most will understand that we have to fund services.
But when that happens and if we are already paying a secondary property tax for the park, I think
most will be angry as ----.
Just my thoughts
Everybody's thoughts here are the same kinds of concerns that are always expressed when bond issues come up for election. That's a good thing.
What if the value of my house changes? What if I don't like all the things in the bond package? What if the Town's credit rating should change? How will the Operations and Maintenance be paid for?
These are all good and legitimate questions--not specific to Naranja Town Site, but to any bond package. This is the first time that I recall that the Town has put bonds on the ballot, so we'll be making history with this vote. Other improvements have come from our share of County bonds (e.g., the purchase of the Steam Pump Ranch property) or from assessment districts (e.g., First and Oracle).
Stay tuned. The results will be interesting. One person's glitz is another person's basic amenity.
Boobie-baby,
Thought I'd leave this message here to make it easier to find even though it's about OVM and the last message you left under the "OVM Genius" postings.
You said,"The implication here is that you have been harmed (personally) by the vote of the people on OVM. So far, I can't see any harm to you. The potential exists for your bank account to be harmed if the stores don't get built and occupied."
"No sales tax = probable property tax for the community."
My response:
Harm comes in more ways than a lowering of my bank account. More crime and more auto pollution are more harmful in my estimation than what's in my bank account.
And as Art keeps trying to tell everyone, if your biggest concern is generating sales tax for the town, thereby avoiding a property tax, then it makes more sense to shop where the ENTIRE sales tax goes to the town than to shop where only half of it will.
That's why the sales tax/property tax argument doesn't hold water.
VC,
I acknowledge and understand your point.
But I hope that you will also acknowledge that an empty regional shopping center also doesn't do any good to anyone and may, in the long run, harm your pocketbook even more if it leads to the imposition of a primary property tax.
To wish and take action designed to lead to the failure of Wal-Mart and the mid-level stores announced for OVM doesn't seem logical to me. The last thing this town needs is a huge, empty commercial center.
So, I hope that you'll agree with me on that point in reciprocity for my agreement with you re. your point.
Boobie-baby,
As you know from my previous posts, I'm all about "reciprocity."
So yes, I can understand that an empty retail center would not be good for the town, but from everything I've read, a Wal-Mart is not good for a town either.
At this point, it's hard to say which one would be worse since they would each cause a distinctly different set of problems. It's kind of like being asked to choose if you'd rather have your town destroyed by a flood or a tornado.
So, as you keep saying, we'll just have to sit back and wait and see what transpires.
VC--
Finally, we agree on something! Someone alert the press.
I expect that somewhere, someone will step in with an anti-bond issue campaign. It could even be someone who regularly posts on this blog site.
Their reasons could be one of many: Let's punish the Town for its decision about OVM; we don't need no more stinkin' parks (apologies to Walter Huston--The Treasure of the Sierra Madre); we're on fixed incomes and can't pay anymore; the price tag is too high for something that I'll never use. Or any combination of the above.
Of course, the bond vote will be buried under the Presidential, Congressional, State Legislature, County Supervisor, and state initiatives and referenda. Will people take the time to search out this particular issue to vote? Hard to say.
And it will be a polling-place vote, too, since the ballot contains more than just OV elections or issues. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how each side motivates its voters to go to the polls when there's so much other "stuff" on the ballot.
I had petitions to put an proposition on the ballot to freeze our property tax at 2004 rates - something similar to California's Prop 13.
I wrote a note to Art asking that he put my contact info on this site, assuming that he was concerned about maintaining a reasonable property tax in Oro Valley and Arizona. Art never responded to my email.
I hate jumping to conclusions but it leads me to believe that Art, and LOVE, is more about NIMBY than tax rates. Am I wrong? What say you, Art?
We missed putting the proposition on the ballot by 50k signatures, so it's a moot point, but it clarified some things for me.
Az Vicki--- Inasmuch as you choose to use a pseudonym, I don't know who you are. I will say this to you. If you sent me an email, I never got it, as I respond to all emails I receive that ask a question, make a comment, or request information.
Do you recognize the name Tom Jenney,Director Az Federation of Taxpayers?
Do you recognize the name Marc Goldstone, Chairman of Az Tax Revolt?
Do you recognize the name Mary Schuh,Treasurer of Pima Assoc of Taxpayers?
I did any number of postings endorsing these organizations. Fortunately, you can go to the blog and click on the issue "taxes" to verify this.
A couple of examples of postings---
"Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Bill Needs Our Support"
I wrote:
"Tom Jenney who is fighting on behalf of Arizona citizens, asks that we take a couple of minutes to support the cause. Let's not allow the lobbyists to stop SCR 1009 Bill."
Art
Arizona Tax Revolt Needs Your Help---To Help You
I wrote:
"If anyone has the time, this might be a good way of helping all Az tax payers. The following is a plea from Marc Goldstone, Chairman, Az Tax Revolt"
Art
Kudos To Mary Schuh & Pima Association of Taxpayers
I wrote:
"We just received the Pima Assoc. of Taxpayers First Edition Newsletter written by their Treasurer & Editor, Mary Schuh.
We are proud to have Mary as a friend, and whether you know it or not, she may be the best friend any of us have who call Pima County our home."
Why not log on and read ALL my postings in an attempt to help these organizations publicize their efforts on OUR BEHALF!
I hope I responded to your statement:
"I hate jumping to conclusions but it leads me to believe that Art, and LOVE, is more about NIMBY than tax rates. Am I wrong? What say you, Art?
Frankly, as in other communities, there are other ways to accomodate the 'need' for ball parks, tennis courts, soccer fields, in short, a sports complex. Many Towns/Cities incorporate these needs within school campus facilities; that we might have a central location, to me, has a very real downside. Neighborhood accessability is more user friendly. To attempt to justify this entity by deeming it a REGIONAL 'center', doesn't justify the cost to ME a simple, local person. It appears that there are those who think that Oro Valley is the center of the universe; it is not. When I was in Raleigh, North Carolina, at one time the County Commissioners and Town 'powers' thought Raleigh/Wake County was the center of the universe (and some still do), too, so they built a lot of fields of dreams and nobody came and they had to keep doling out more and more money because nothing paid for itself.
Now, that said, if this bond issue IS approved and the complex moves ahead (Phase 1) as planned, then there is no question in my mind but that it should be a 1st class venue. 1st class and glitzy really are 2 different things.
As I understand it this bond submission does have a cap and the property tax is based on that cap and based on present home values.
As presented I do not see how a rise in property values can necessarily mean a rise in taxes as the cap would seemingly remain in place. Anyone?
Prior to the appearance on the ballot, as I previously pointed to in prior posts, it appears that an information packet MUST be mailed to each and every voter in Oro Valley outlining virtually every monetary question involved in this endeavor. Most of you read these posts regularly; have you captured this AZ revised Statute as WRITTEN?
Lastly, I am opposed to this project, not just for the above stated questions, but because, as noted in background, the submissions as to how this park should be utilized were taken so many years ago. [Times have changed sayeth the Town staff, the Council and the developers, and we need to 'tweak' the established guidelines]; well times have changed for the people, too, and perhaps we need to 'tweak' the park (to be?).
Post a Comment