Quote:
Originally Posted by dewilson58
I'm not sure if it was false promises or ignorance (they thought they could reverse the 25%).
Either way, the voters were ignorant to vote based on a promise with no funding plan.
|
You are mistaken. There was, and is, a definite funding plan:
>End the sweetheart impact fee,
>Impose reasonable impact fees to cover new county infrastructure resulting from development, and
>Roll back the property-tax increase in an amount equivalent to the increased revenue from impact fees.
The EMS team made that very clear when they were running for office. The Developer seems to have been effective in at least stalling the implementation of that plan, as I explained in my original post. Hopefully, the Developer will not be successful in killing it, thereby making permanent our 25% property-tax increase-- which I gather you are entirely in favor of.