[Advogado]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

[Stu from NYC]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

[Bill14564]

"The Estep-Miller-Search tax increase" I lost count of how many times this phrase was used. It looks like even the author got tired of using it!

Is this a case of, "if you say it enough it becomes true" or was this supposed to be part of a drinking game?

I'm surprised no one from the paper/developer/business side has attempted to challenge the study that established the levels of the impact fees. Their only argument seems to be that they like their 60% discount and will take their toys and go home if they don't get to keep it.

[LuvtheVillages]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I guess you don't know that the Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It is owned by The Developer and its sole purpose is to sell more homes. It does not pretend to be journalism, much less responsible journalism.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by LuvtheVillages

I guess you don't know that the Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It is owned by The Developer and its sole purpose is to sell more homes. It does not pretend to be journalism, much less responsible journalism.

Actually I do know this but silly me thinks that something that represents itself as a newspaper should have at least a little bit of a journalistic standard.

Have never seen a paper before that does not have an editorial page or a regular page of letters to the editor (but than again the paper does not appear to have a living breathing editor) or news article that are totally written from the authors opinion of what the facts should be not what they are.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

Maybe you've heard about the document called the US Constitution and the Supreme Court who opines on its meanings, including the right to a free press-

Can a newspaper refuse to run a letter or advertisement? | Freedom Forum Institute

The Court wrote:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

[LeeM]

The Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It's propaganda for the developer. And the descriptions they use of Miller, Search and Estep are disgraceful. It's pretty obvious our new elected officials have gotten under the developer's skin. I'm very pleased the attempts to rig the election by making it so Democrats couldn't vote, shoveling money at the old candidates, hiring a consultant, propaganda in the paper, etc. didn't work! So pleased that our new commissioners are working for US and not the developer. And that's as it should be!

[JohnN]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

responsible journalism

well Stu, responsible journalism has gone the way of honest government and jumbo shrimp

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Should they believe YOUR distortion of the facts instead?????

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Should they believe YOUR distortion of the facts instead?????

I’m always glad to be educated. Please tell me what I have distorted.

[Taltarzac725]

There are a lot of other sources for Villages' news. Try Facebook, for instance. Google "The Villages" with "Facebook".

He that owns the press has the power but then along came the Internet.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I’m always glad to be educated. Please tell me what I have distorted.

You constantly state that the "developer" should pay the impact fees----when in reality the developer will just pass the cost on to the buyer. You have stated that the developer won't be able to do that, but in this market he most certainly can.

If your argument was that the new home buyers should bear the impact fee because they are creating the cost, it would have a bit more merit. But then you'd have to change your tagline to "the new homeowner's sweetheart impact fee deal"

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

Maybe you've heard about the document called the US Constitution and the Supreme Court who opines on its meanings, including the right to a free press-

Can a newspaper refuse to run a letter or advertisement? | Freedom Forum Institute

The Court wrote:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

They have the right to pretty much publish whatever they want.

I have the right to my opinion that what they publish is not responsible journalism.

[PennBF]

I have an Uncle who farmed his whole life and was as knowledgeable as anyone I ever knew. One time an Insurance Company tried to get him to make a one time settlement on an Insurance Claim rather than the monthly payments. His response has stayed with me as it represented what I should always remember. His response was, "if it is good for you then it must not be good for me!" Thus the Developer's proposal!!

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I am not surprised. When you are talking to a car salesman do you expect them to list the faults and vulnerabilities of the car they are selling? I don’t. But then I am used to propaganda for manipulation purposes in many areas.