INC NEWS - P.S.
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Mon Jul 16 22:54:28 EDT 2007
Excellent after thought and reply Melissa.
If you do the math, the gradual tax increases add up to much less impact on
anyone, than the one time hit by this sale tax. Must be considered from the
senior citizen's tax perspective also.
Let's confer off line and see if we find a happy balance.
Bill
In a message dated 7/16/2007 10:24:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:
An afterthought:
If Durham County/City can't impose transfer taxes,
won't senior home-owners have to pay (just like the
rest of us) anyway...through increased property taxes?
The money has to come somewhere.
I was just interested in your opinion on this...
Melissa
--- Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No worries, Bill.
>
> I totally understand your position. And I would
> definitely prefer an impact fee, solely on new
> developers, over a transfer tax on all property
> sales.
> But at this rate, all the land in Durham County will
> be developed before the state allows the counties to
> even impose an impact tax. This is the only reason I
> feel that we should take what we can get now, even
> if
> it means a 0.4% transfer tax. That's a pittance
> compared to the increase in property values that our
> senior citizens (all citizens) should have
> experienced
> over the last decade, particularly in the city.
>
> But I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this.
> I
> respect your experience, knowledge, and heart, and
> I'll always value your opinion/advice.
>
> Sincerely,
> Melissa
>
>
> --- TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I hate to disagree so strongly with one of my
> > favorite community activists,
> > but I must.
> >
> > In fact, after reading your Melissa's letter, I'd
> > suggest using the email
> > addresses below for exactly the opposite purpose,
> to
> > ask our representatives to
> > oppose this bill.
> >
> > Here's my reasoning:
> >
> > While the county's impact fee was recently over
> > ruled, I think it was well
> > aimed at new construction.
> > It is after all, the new families moving in that
> > create the new burdens on
> > our school systems and infrastructure. This tax
> has
> > a much greater effect on
> > the SELLER of property, than the newcomer moving
> in,
> > as it is passed to the
> > seller in the selling price of real estate.
> >
> > Even Melissa recognized this, with the exception
> she
> > tried to include of
> > historic properties. But it's an "all or nothing
> at
> > all" bill, and that
> > exception can not be incorporated. Sorry Melissa,
> > but would you still support this
> > bill if you knew that your friendly amendment
> can't
> > be incorporated?
> >
> > For that reason, far too much of this new burden
> > would be borne by senior
> > citizens selling their almost historic home they
> > built years ago, as they try
> > to raise the needed funds to move to a retirement
> > community, while they pass
> > their homes to up and coming families. Those new
> > families will renovate those
> > older homes, while they add to the burden. Their
> > entire neighborhoods will
> > experience great gains in property values as
> > multiple properties change hands
> > in this way, and in each case it will be the
> exiting
> > senior citizen who's once
> > again paid the toll. This time, it happens at the
> > time they can least afford
> > it, at the tail end of them paying their "share"
> of
> > the burden, thirty years
> > after their children stopped adding to it.
> >
> > No, I do NOT support this bill, and I hope others
> > will join me in
> > opposition.
> >
> > If Melissa's amendment could be included, then I'd
> > agree she's right on
> > target. Taxing new construction logically places
> the
> > burden where it's being
> > created, but as it is crafted, this bill unfairly
> > burdens our senior citizens,
> > and discourages renovation and revitalization of
> > areas of North Carolina, such
> > as East Durham.
> >
> > Let's not discourage the private sector from
> > undertaking the expensive and
> > risky investment they've shown willingness to
> make,
> > in the most historic
> > sections of Durham, while we unfairly whack our
> > elders with the expenses of folks
> > who've noticed that our city tops a lot of lists
> as
> > a smart place to live.
> > Let the incoming plants pay for the new top soil
> > required.
> >
> > Join me in opposition and let our representatives
> > know how you feel.
> >
> > Bill Anderson
> > (apologies to Melissa)
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 7/16/2007 8:36:49 P.M. Eastern
> > Daylight Time,
> > mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > Please see the forwarded message below. And
> please
> > write your legislators regarding the right of
> local
> > governments to impose transfer taxes and/or
> impact
> > fees.
> >
> > I have also attached the letter I sent to the
> > members
> > of the General Assembly who represent Durham
> County
> > --
> > in case you need some help to get started.
> >
> > The email addresses for Durham County
> > Representatives
> > are:
> >
> > Larryh at ncleg.net, Paull at ncleg.net,
> > Mickeym at ncleg.net,
> > Winkiew at ncleg.net, Boba at ncleg.net,
> Floydm at ncleg.net
> >
> > Thank you for caring :)
> > Melissa
> >
> > Melissa Rooney
> > mmr121570 at yahoo.com
> >
> > Note: forwarded message attached.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> > ______
> > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
> > with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
______________________________________________________________________________
> > ______
> > Be a PS3 game guru.
> > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and
>
> > previews at Yahoo! Games.
> >
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
> >
> > X-Apparently-To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com via
> > 209.191.68.144;
> > Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:06:20 -0700
> > X-Originating-IP: [4.79.194.36]
> > Authentication-Results: mta371.mail.re4.yahoo.com
>
> > from=capstrat.com;
> > domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
> > Received: from 4.79.194.36 (EHLO
> > outbound.mailmanager.net) (4.79.194.36)
> > by mta371.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 16
> Jul
> > 2007 16:06:19 -0700
> > Received: from mail.mailmanager.net
> > (mail.mailmanager.net [4.79.194.37])
> > by outbound.mailmanager.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id
>
=== message truncated ===
______________________________________________________________________________
______
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20070716/fe180a92/attachment.htm
More information about the INC-list
mailing list