|
![]() |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Published May 8, 2008, 1:22pm
(Updated May 8, 2008, 1:36pm)
I have to disagree with comments made by Mike Busse, but that’s what political opponents do, right?
His startling conclusion that the county and city will be “just fine” with a revenue loss of 1% is shortsighted. The monthly 1% loss is actually $2.5 million (February actual receipts), and that to me is a substantial amount. In dollars, with a range from $2.5 million to $3 million per month, this is a worst-case scenario total of $30+ million lost and not recoverable through next April. In terms of what we citizens will not get are our libraries, fire station and road extension that enables a proposed upscale mall project, not to mention dozens of intersection improvements and other transportation improvements that we need right now.
Without the SPLOST revenue, we can’t issue the general obligation debt to get the cash to move forward. And circumstantially, due to the economy, letting projects for bid right now is advantageous to the county.
Secondly, in attempting to negotiate, the parties are not disrespecting the “will of the people,” quite the opposite. While the voters did indeed vote for a specific referendum that called for a particular split, the larger perspective here is that folks approved an extension of a 1% sales tax to fund many things, mainly transportation. It is regrettable that Plaintiff felt that the form of the referendum was so flawed that 70% of the voters’ will must be denied.
Lastly, my opponent’s legal analysis concluding that the county should “appeal(s) this measure in the courts” presumes that the county is dissatisfied with the ruling on all aspects. I would call readers’ attention to the fact that there are some elements of the ruling that affirm future SPLOST positions that significantly benefit the county. That being said, as a lay person, I am reluctant to offer too much comment on the merits of accepting the ruling or attempting to appeal it.
I think a more measured approach is required here instead of writing off $30 million, basing everything upon the outcome of an appeal which will take many months, and refusing to change any terms, just to make a point, all bad ideas proposed above by Mike Busse. And just maybe, if the Chairman and other county folks are as creative and smart as I bet they are at working through this, we just may end up with some good side deals.
Charlie Smith
Republican Candidate, Forsyth County Commission
Comments
9 comment(s) on this page. Add your own comment below.
Oh, please. The problem with government is NEVER that it lacks enough money. All this means is a delay in these capital projects. If they are so critical as to not wait the few months required to respect the terms that the voters approved, then perhaps we should take another look at our county budget and find the money elsewhere.
Frankly, I'm a little bothered by yet another politician such as Mr. Smith telling me that he doesn't mind thwarting the will of the people. The people approved SPLOST VI on a 4.39% split for the city. If we go monkeying around with that split now, who's to say that the voters would still have approved it? Perhaps they only approved it because they knew that they weren't going to get screwed by the city the way they had been for the last generation.
No thanks to the "doom-and-gloom" of Mr. Smith.
With all due respect, Tax Saver, SPLOST has passed in Forsyth County by a number somewhere around 70%-30% for years and years even when the city was getting 15% of the split. Even when the savior was pushing hard for the voters to reject the school SPLOST and SPLOST votes being pushed by former commissioners. The fact is, SPLOST has and always will pass in Forsyth County by around 70%-30%. It is up to our elected officials to make sure the voters are not disenfranchised by bitterness. Statesmanship is very much needed in government.
"Disenfranchised".
Spoken like the true liberal Democrat that you are, chris. Keep using the buzzwords that will get your boy Bell booted faster than the mayor can sue the county.
Liberal Democrat??? Never been called that one. Actually, far from it but lets talk about you. What is your view on abortion, MR. REPUBLICAN??? OPPS! What is your view on legalization of drugs?????
But let’s look up “disenfranchised” shall we? (I learned how to do that in college while you were marking down slacks at the outlet mall.) To be disenfranchised is to have not been given the chance to vote or your vote deemed invaluable. Seems that your, and other’s, lack of leadership has led my vote to become moot. Thanks! Also, what the heck does “graduated in the required number of years” mean? Seems quite an odd way of describing how you graduated high school. Fill us in.
Chris,
Your comments are right on point. Statesmanship is a term foreign to Dave Richard. He is incapable of having an intelligent conversation devoid of his usual insults and name calling. You can read it later today at www.teambell.org
By the way, he has flip flopped again on the lawsuit. He sent Patrick Bell an email yesterday that said the county WOULD appeal to the state Supreme Court. I believe that is his third position on the issue in the last week.
Charlie, I disagree with you. The county should stand firm. The court case is just some more city mischief. The city has too long used a position of advantage to receive more sales tax funds than it deserved. The county can now stand up for what is right and end the long period of city funds injustice.
I do not understand why Forsyth County would give the city more SPLOST VI funds than the state required population percentage ($4.29%). I do not see the city’s needs being more important to Forsyth County citizens than the identified county needs.
This may cost the county some sales tax dollars, but it would also reduce the tax load on Forsyth County Citizens for the same period of time.
During past years the only way to be get along with the city was to give the city what it demanded. The price has been much too high.
I have to side with Mr. Smith on this and disagree with Mr. Busse and Comm. Richard. Why risk everything on an appeal that the county has no assurance of winning?
If the county looses an appeal -- and the odds are it will -- it also looses tens of thousands in legal fees, millions in tax revenue and the $1 billion Taubman Center.
David Richard may be willing to risk that in hopes of salvaging his dying campaign hopes, but thankfully, people like Mr. Smith and four of our county commissioners are not.
The vote made by the citizens of FC was for the City of Cumming to received EXACTLY 4.29% of collected SPLOST funds.
Mr. Smith, I disagree with you and your opinion. You've made my decision of whom to vote for much easier. It will not be you.
Nor will I place my vote for Brian Tam who voted in favor of altering the amount of money the city would receive.
I am shocked and disappointed by Jim and Charlies votes.
Shame on the 4 Commissioners who voted for this appeasment. Thank you Dave Richard for standing up or the folks that elected you and all who voted or the 4.29% maximum or the City.
Thank you, srpirkle, for standing up for what is right.
Add a Comment
Please be civil.