Quote:
Originally Posted by Pturner
I don't like the bond arrangement either-- the high interest rate, the inability to pay it down, the only-partial transparency. We did figure the bond into the purchase price of our TV home; and it was one of many reasons we purchased a resale on the northside.
But the developer has nothing to do with our payment of school taxes. By state law, schools are funded by county property tax. You pay them no matter where you live.
BTW, the previous generation paid for my education. The next generation is paying my social security. Whether that's right or wrong is a different subject. However, if we don't want care about the next generation, I think we'll be the first generation in America to feel that way. At any rate, resent paying local school taxes or not, the developer has nothing to do with that.
|
I agree totally that the developer has nothing to do with school taxes. I did not say he did. I also have no problem paying school taxes as long as they are reasonably connected to need. I just don't see how an additional 40 million per year to this area in school taxes can be justified when none of those residents have anyone in school. Maybe that should be looked at.
It seems like the bond, the annual special assessment maintenance tax, and the school tax are examples of expenses that just need some attention.
TV is fantastic. Probably no better place in the world. That does not mean though that charges and expenses should not be clear and reasonable.