What study did you use to come to that conclusion?
Give me hard figures.
You can't - and you know you can't, produce any figures to justify that statement.
Again and again Chuck you fail to answer the question. Instead your provide incoherent ramblings about see you in 2014 etc etc etc
Why not spout off about how you asked the County Commissioners to increase tax rates county wide so they could be a part of the stadium deal? Its in the minutes of the county commissioners meeting I think dated may 21. More specifically you said in another forum that you asked for $2/month increase in county property taxes.
So I take it since you represented Port City Baseball at those meetings that officially that group is now calling for both city AND county tax increases to pay for the stadium?
I don't belong to any group Chuck. I'm just an old property tax payer who doesn't see the need for ALL property taxpayers to fund this stadium. AS you said in another forum we have a low tax rate when compared to other NC cities and we got poor schools, poor roads and other "poor" things to show for that low tax rate. I see the need for all taxpayers to fund those things Chuck - it's called infrastructure, and although I no longer have kids in county schools I support them with my tax dollars. I drive the roads, I use the water and generate sewerage. The majority of city residents will NOT go to the games, and will not use the stadium for any purpose whatsoever. Thats why revenue bonds would have been the better deal for the pro baseball crowd.
Trust me, I'm not anti baseball. I am however, vehemently opposed to using property taxes to fund this stadium - be they city or county property taxes.
I support the stadium so long as revenue bonds are used AND there's is no way to transfer property tax revenues to cover losses if they occur. This stadium should be self sustaining if all your estimates are true. Funny how you think the revenue bonds are too risky for this eh? Funny how Port City Baseball couldn't convince the city it's numbers were strong enough to justify the use revenue bonds.
You have a lot of convincing to do no mater how "sweet" the deal is
More information about formatting options