SAY “NO” TO METRO
The senior editor of my local paper keeps pushing this “metro” government proposal. I’m sure it’s a great deal for city residents. For us folks in the county, all it would mean is that our tax bills would jump significantly.
I believe we fought a war in the 18th century over the issue of taxation without representation.
My email to him:
Columbus appears to have a single property tax rate for the entire “Metro” area. Are you seriously proposing that county residents should go for something like this? Undoubtedly, our tax bills would increase significantly with no concomitant increase in government services. Heck, down here in the extreme Southern portion of the county, a lot of our roads are still sand. We have no city water, no natural gas service, and no sewers. And none will be available for the foreseeable future.
OTOH, I do have to pay $14.50/month for twice-weekly curbside trash pickup. Can you guarantee that Metro government won’t increase my tax bill more than $174/year while still providing the same level of service? Didn’t think so.
So perhaps city residents might (over the long haul) see a bit of a tax break. County residents will merely be screwed.
Thanks but no thanks.
Daryl Cobranchi
Gray’s Creek
UPDATE: Interestingly, the saynotometro.com domain is owned by the Levi Strauss Co. I wonder what that’s about.
3 Responses to “SAY “NO” TO METRO”
 Comment by Kay Brooks June 10th, 2007 at 7:42 am |
Nashville has had a Metro government since the ’60’s. It turned out to be a great deal for the outlying areas. The inner core (Urban Zoning District) has been paying a higher tax rate supposedly because they receive more services. But the General Services District has slowly had their service level increased (police & fire specifically) with no additional increase in tax rate to cover it. They’ve been living on the UZD largess for decades. |
|
Comment by Kay Brooks June 10th, 2007 at 7:45 am |
RE: Levi Strauss being against Metro. Likely it would have impacted their tax rates. |
 Comment by Daryl Cobranchi June 10th, 2007 at 12:17 pm |
Well, since the model they’re looking at has a single tax rate, they’d have to choose– raise my rates or cut the city’s. Anyone want to give odds on which one they pick? And we really won’t have any city services down here for 15-20 years. At most they could promise to replace out volunteer fire department with paid staff. But since we have no fire hydrants I don’t see where that would be a huge advantage. It’s annexation by another name, that’s all. |