Fwd: annexation = higher taxes

[Ken Medlin <dev-plan@moscow.com>]

Subject:     annexation = higher taxes
Sent:        1/8/20 9:03 AM
Received:    1/7/00 5:36 AM
From:        Richard Dierks, rldierks@micron.net
To:          smartgro@onenw.org, smartgro@onenw.org

COPY for Visionaires -- is what is described below the direction the 
Palouse is going to go? If will do so unless we hold our elected 
officials accountable. Accountable to what? That's the $64 question, 
isn't it?


=====  A message from the 'smartgro' discussion list  =====

January 6, 2000

The history of cities does not support annexation as a means for
reducing or holding constant the taxes of city residents, regardless
population-based federal funding.  One has only to compare towns in a
given region to see that residents of larger towns pay higher personal
taxes than residents of smaller towns having the same public amenities.
One of the main reasons for these higher taxes is a point of contention
in this discussion regarding annexation, and it has little to do with
rural residents' choices or enjoyment of free services.

The largest body electorate in an area, in this case Boise, puts people
into office (city, county, highways) who use taxes to extend services
into the county, even when those services are currently unneeded or
unwanted by county residents.  These are taxes levied in excess of those
required to maintain existing services.  If the public investment in
growth was returned to the community, tax rates would not appreciably
rise.  The expansion of services in Ada County is mostly a subsidy to
growth speculators, and is seen as beneficial by the business sector
which traditionally controls local politics through said electorate.

If you are the average Boise voter, you vote with the chamber of
commerce and you are responsible for your tax situation, the "free"
services, the reductions in level of services, and the loss of air and
water quality.

Services can be provided for newcomers which are user funded and
maintained, the special property rights of speculators notwithstanding.
The Grass Valley, CA, vicinity (Nevada County, I think) has a simple
building permit system available equally to everyone which is based on
market pricing for services' demand:  as of several years ago it
consisted of about $20 thousand for permits to build a modest new
house.  Compare that to about $3500 in Ada County, or $6200 in the Boise
foothills, which is topographically similar to Nevada County.

A past Idaho State Legislature apparently set the stage for this
situation by allowing annexation without the approval of residents.
Accelerated growth at the expense of taxpayers might take a back seat to
planning if either the State Legislature or the courts were to decide
that people should be able to vote themselves into a municipality or
taxing district or not.  The possibility of county voters rejecting
annexation might cause city voters to think twice about electing people
who use taxes to create sprawl.  A further check on tax growth would be
city voters' separate approval.

I live near the SW section about to be undemocratically assimilated, and
we will be next.  I want to pay for what I need, whether through taxes
or user fees, but that does not include Boise's colonization of Ada
County.

thank you,

Richard Dierks





------------------------
William K. Medlin
Dev-plan associates
930 Kenneth Street
Moscow ID 83843
208/892-0148
dev-plan@moscow.com