Thurs. Press Conf.

Deuce · 03-17-2005, 09:45 AM

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.sltrib.com/realsaltlake/ci_2610339

AreliusII · 03-17-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.sltrib.com/realsaltlake/ci_2610339

“Bramble said he wanted to find an alternative source of funding for the stadium. He didn't want to use RDA funds because that siphons money away from public schools.”

Is this true?

bordelais7 · 03-17-2005, 10:16 AM

The truth is relative. And not quite that simple.

In any case, if RSL can use different tax sources that are less controversial, then it's all the same to me.

Deuce · 03-17-2005, 10:19 AM

Apparently the tax revenue generated by the stadium, that would be paid to local schools, would not go to schools because of tax breaks built into the RDA rules.
But it will not take money that is already allotted to schools, because the Stadium does not exist yet... so the tax revenue does not exist yet!

Aero and World ball were debating it and were explaining it very well! Over on the we have got to behave thread

Check it out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreliusII

“Bramble said he wanted to find an alternative source of funding for the stadium. He didn't want to use RDA funds because that siphons money away from public schools.”

Is this true?

AreliusII · 03-17-2005, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuce

Apparently the tax revenue generated by the stadium, that would be paid to local schools, would not go to schools because of tax breaks built into the RDA rules.
But it will not take money that is already allotted to schools, because the Stadium does not exist yet... so the tax revenue does not exist yet!

Aero and World ball were debating it and were explaining it very well! Over on the we have got to behave thread

Check it out!

So, if that is not exactly the case, why do we have this jack*** representing us in State government proposing all these bills that aren’t based on reality?

And not only that, but all the other state reps bought into the argument and passed the bill!

Deuce · 03-17-2005, 10:25 AM

Ask the folks in Provo!

anyway it is relative as Bordy7 says... technically it will "syphon" funds away as Bramble stated... but the money has to be generated in order to be "syphoned away."
So depending on your point of view Bramble is right and wrong!
Typical Politician!

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreliusII

So, if that is not exactly the case, why do we have this jack*** representing us in State government proposing all these bills that aren’t based on reality?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areliusII

nd not only that, but all the other state reps bought into the argument and passed the bill!

This is like I said in that thread because the politicians use the "It will hurt Education funding" argument as the trump card to get people on board.

Politicians are in a popularity contest... so to be seen to be against education funding is UN-Popular.
Politicians use this to there advantage by saying it will hurt funding... so everyone that is in this popularity contest buy into it!

AreliusII · 03-17-2005, 10:33 AM

So, if I understand this correctly, when there is a stadium, its property taxes (which generally are funneled to schools) are waived for a period of time. But, supposedly after such period of time those property taxes begin flowing.

On the other hand, if there is no stadium, there are no property taxes because there is no property! Is that right?

If so, that’s like saying, “I don’t want to go to work and make money, because then I’ll have to pay taxes on my income.”

So, if all of this is accurate, Bramble is saying, “Let’s not use RDA funds for a stadium, because the schools are not going to get the property taxes from that stadium for a time.”

However, could it be that undeveloped land (assuming no stadium is built on it) has to pay property taxes (which, in turn goes to schools)? If so, then this is the crux of Bramble’s argument.

Deuce · 03-17-2005, 10:38 AM

Don't you love Politics!?!
🙄

Remus · 03-17-2005, 10:43 AM

Isn't the amount of property tax you pay also determined by the structure on it?

So, you can either wave taxes for 10 years (hypothetical) and then get a big payment for year 11 on for a stadium (profitable of course), or you can get 10 years of taxes on a dirt lot and not equal the 1st years taxes for year 11 with the stadium. Nevermind the associated businesses which would come with it.... I don't get the logic.... or lack there of.

Deuce · 03-17-2005, 10:45 AM

No one ever said anything about logic (or reason for that matter)

Yes it would amount to more funding "over time" for schools BUT they don't tell you that part!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remus

Isn't the amount of property tax you pay also determined by the structure on it?

So, you can either wave taxes for 10 years (hypothetical) and then get a big payment for year 11 on for a stadium (profitable of course), or you can get 10 years of taxes on a dirt lot and not equal the 1st years taxes for year 11 with the stadium. Nevermind the associated businesses which would come with it.... I don't get the logic.... or lack there of.