Wishful thinking won't cut it.
A bank would not lend anyone $30 million dollars if all you showed them was a 20-year-old business plan, no estimated date of completion, no disclosure of any possible operating expenses, and some pretty pictures. Why should you?
Opposing Argument
This bond amounts to a property tax increase of about 21% As a consequence, voters must carefully consider if their Municipal Government has shown adequate reasons for your consent to engage in speculative commercial development and expose the tax payers to sizeable risk in order to redevelop the Hillside Plaza. Namely, has the city:
1) Demonstrated responsibility?
2) Fully accepted accountability?
3) Presented an honest narrative?
The argument in favor of this bond minimizes the fiscal risk, impact, and size of the tax increase residents of the city will incur if the measure is approved by the voters. They claim that the increase is only an insignificant amount of $11 or $12 dollars per month obscures the fact that this is a sizeable property tax increase. If the city’s intent was truly honest, they would clarify that these figures amount to approximately 21.5% increase to the city receipts of $8.28 million dollars of property taxes.
The math is as follows: $12 x 12 months x 12,361 households in CH = $1.78 million dollars/yr. $1.78 million dollars/$8.28million current receipts = 21.5% increase in taxes.
Further, the city’s rhetoric makes mention that ‘The Heights’ is likely to produce additional revenues to the tune of $2 million/yr. from rents and sales taxes. What they fail to mention is that the city, as proprietors of this asset, will also incur long-term maintenance and replacement obligations (costs). The failure to acknowledge these costs is deliberately misleading and stands as proof that the city is unable or unwilling to recognize its fiscal accountability and properly inform tax payers about the burden of ownership.
Last, the city cannot claim to be acting responsibly when its actions are following an old and long-expired guiding document. The supportive argument claims that the city is following the intent of the city’s General Plan, which was crafted and adopted in January of 2005. What the proponents of this bond fail to mention is that the plan states in chapter 1 that this plan has a life of about 5 years and it should be updated regularly. 20 years later, the proponents of this bond remain stuck in the past, unable and unwilling to discard a dusty old plan, cast their eyes forward, and craft a new vision that embraces with confidence our community’s vision of tomorrow. We acknowledge that the last administration of Mayor Mike Peterson began the process for making the necessary updates to this plan, and strongly disapprove the current administration’s action to shelve it.
We are not repudiating the idea of a town center; there is an obvious desire for this project among many individuals in our community. However, it is clear that the Supportive Argument has found it necessary to resort to rhetoric and pretty renderings to expedite a desired outcome at the expense of upholding the city’s obligation to act with responsibility, accountability, and honesty; fundamental requirements for an entity that seeks permission to take out a loan of $30 million dollars.
The opposition trusts that the good, honest, and responsible citizens of the great city of Cottonwood Heights will hold their representatives accountable, demand honest narratives that demonstrate responsible management of our trust.
Create Your Own Website With Webador