Increase in 2011 Property Tax Levy?
The Port of Port Angeles is considering whether or not to raise the 2011 property tax levy by one percent.
There will be a public hearing on Monday, November 8th at 10 a.m. for people to comment on the levy and the Port's preliminary budget.
There will be a public hearing on Monday, November 8th at 10 a.m. for people to comment on the levy and the Port's preliminary budget.
posted by Tom Harper at 7:53 PM
20 Comments:
What a fantasy! They think RAISING the property tax, based on the value of real estate in the area, is justified?
Maybe because they see raising taxes as a source of more income for them to burn through. Yeah, McEntire talks about how "Fiscally Responsible" he is.
But, can that raise be based on the actual realities here in Clallam County? Based upon actual market conditions? No way.
The Republicans are really great at hiring the professional ad folks to put a good spin on their platforms. Locally, McEntire claims to be "Fiscally Responsible" when his actual voting record shows he is a "tax and spend" politician. He spent unwisely on HarborWorks, and is supporting raising taxes on Port properties.
This reminds me of Ronald Reagan, and the national energy policy. If any of you are old enough to remember the campaign Reagan waged against Carter, you will remember how Reagan spoke about how America was weak under Carter, and how he would lead America to strength through independence.
But, the reality was different. Under Carters' policies, America reduced its' dependence on foreign oil by %50. From 8 billion barrels a year to around 4 billion. But once Reagan came to the presidency, the American reliance on foreign oil rose to 11 billion barrels per year.
Yep. The election year rhetoric sound swell. What we live with is a bit different.
Anon 9:34
WOW!!
I did not know anyone in the world thought Carter did anything at all, let alone anything good.
You need to smoke another bowl
"Fiscally responsible" as applied to Republicans is a long, tired joke. But it's one that the American voters always seem to want to hear, no matter what the facts are.
Yeah...go roll yourself another doobie Anon 9:34...you too 7:12. Liberalism/socialism fails everywhere it's tried...eventually you run out of other people's money.
Hey Sandy...Reagan and Bush drove up our debt, and Clinton had to come fix the problem. Then Bush the Second ran us back into deep debt with his (unnecessary) invasion of Iraq.
The Port let Dave Hagiwara go, paid him a big severance package - then hired him back for big bucks. They also wasted a bunch of taxpayer money on Harbor-Works. All under the watch of McIntire.
Are these some of the liberal/socialists your are so concerned about? Your argument, such as it is, is ridiculous. Just because you oppose these LYING, SPENDTHRIFT so-called conservatives does not automatically make you a liberal or a socialist. It just means you are paying attention to what is actually going on, and have some small degree of intelligence.
Anon 5:44 said "The Port let Dave Hagiwara go, paid him a big severance package - then hired him back for big bucks. They also wasted a bunch of taxpayer money on Harbor-Works. All under the watch of McIntire.
"While this is all true, it was not just on Mr. McIntire's watch, according to the PDN, he demanded that the previous Exec Director (Bob McChesney) do the firing, and when he refused, McIntire convinced one other Commissioner to join him in voting to suspended the Port Rules that said only the Exec Director could fire staff, and fired Mr. Hagawara himself. This caused the tremedous waste of taxpayer money (in excess of $200,000) paying the severance. Conservative, indeed...
"Yeah...go roll yourself another doobie Anon 9:34...you too 7:12. Liberalism/socialism fails everywhere it's tried...eventually you run out of other people's money.
10:46 PM, October 28, 2010"
I don't use any drugs, prescribed or otherwise.
But, I do subscribe to the Economist, the acknowledged mouthpiece of global capitalism.
Again, it is interesting to see that the "conservatives" that post comments here respond with knee-jerk rhetoric, insults and derisive jabs, instead of demonstrating ANY kind of actual knowledge of the issues being discussed.
No wonder this country is in such trouble!
Bush spent $800 Billion in 7 years, bad for him, bad for us.
Obama spent $1.3 trillion more in 18 months, bad for him, bad for us.
If both parties don't stop spending money we are all screwed.
Our houses are overvalued (like 2x to 3x in some cases) and we have all sorts of "special levies" It's insane and assinine to think that we can afford more property taxes.
We have 20+% unemployment. Those of us with jobs have had our incomes slashed.
Screw the local government if they think that this isn't the straw that will break the camels back.
"Bush spent $800 Billion in 7 years, bad for him, bad for us.
Obama spent $1.3 trillion more in 18 months, bad for him, bad for us.
If both parties don't stop spending money we are all screwed."
Let us not forget what Obama "inherited". Let's remember that in the '08 election cycle, the Republican candidate "Maverick" McCain suspended his election campaign to rush back to Washington to use his powers of influence to get the bail-out bills passed.
If he had been elected, instead of Obama, how much less do you think would have been spent? Do you think he would have let the auto companies fail, taking the approx. 3 million direct and indirect jobs with them? For example. Shall we keep going?
I do agree with your comments about spending. So, does the country "spend" it's way out of recession, or "save" it's way out? Care to defend either view?
Bush spent $800 Billion in 7 years, bad for him, bad for us.
Obama spent $1.3 trillion more in 18 months, bad for him, bad for us.
These numbers are of course , FAKE. We know Mr. bush entered office with a 150 billion surplus and left office with a 1.2 trillion deficit. (CATO Institute - a pretty darn conservative source)
If both parties don't stop spending money we are all screwed.
Actually, the key to deficit reduction is a reduction of spending coupled with an increase in taxes. Never in the modern era have we seen ANY administration even attempt to do what we all know is the “right thing “.
But all this is secondary to the point here, which is the Port’s proposed tax increase. Our “port” isn’t really a port at all. Six log ships in 15 years (and nothing inbound) hardly justifies the use of the term. In actuality the Port of Port Angeles is a real estate holding company. Here’s their mission statement:
The Port's Mission is to be the primary leader in economic development in Clallam County by marketing and developing properties and facilities for the long-term benefit of our stakeholders while fulfilling the Port's environmental stewardship role. (from their website)
See anything about actually running a port? Me either.
Anon 12:06
We must save our way out:
how?
STOP SPENDING
REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT
the rest takes care of itself
WTF
You are correct, the Port is a joke.
Although expanding its Industrial facilitiesat the Airport is the best thing I've heard of them doing for years.
Hopefully they don't fuck it up and price themselves out of the Landlord business.
"Anon 12:06
We must save our way out:
how?
STOP SPENDING
REDUCE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT
the rest takes care of itself
10:50 AM, October 30, 2010"
This response hardly qualifies as a valid answer to my question:"Care to defend either view?"
If you think reducing the size of government is the answer, describe how that will actually happen. You seem so sure with your statement:"the rest takes care of itself". Really?
I don't pretend to know the answers you seem so sure about. For example, in saying "Reduce the size of Government", are you taking into account that the government has contracts for virtually all it's labor? How do you propose to break those contracts without incurring lots of lawsuits? How do you propose doing this, without incurring even more costs, without any certain outcomes, to the taxpayer?
And, as the thousands of government workers you propose to fire file for unemployment benefits, where will those funds come from? What impact will all those fired people have on the US economy(Assuming you can legally fire them without justifiable "cause")?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the status quo... but I also am not so ignorant as to think you or I can unilaterally fire thousands of good people based on nothing but political rhetoric.
I wouldn't have to pay property taxes if I didn't want to, there is a loophole I can use to avoid it. But I pay mine cuz it's one of the few ways I support this stupid society here.
Although I question my sanity for doing so.
you pay your property taxes with other tax payers money,
nice
anon 7:45am
Good one
you pay your property taxes with other tax payers money,
nice
You're so full of shit, I've always carried my own weight through this life. Ya fucking idiot.
right, BBC
"And, as the thousands of government workers you propose to fire file for unemployment benefits, where will those funds come from?"
Well that's simple, he doesn't want there to be unemployment benefits. See? No worries there! Everything will work itself out!
Post a Comment
<< Home