Why is it that city bigwigs must run off somewhere (other than here) to talk the big talk and plan the big plans? Is that because there'll not be very many citizens OF Dunwoody there? Of course the big, if not the biggest topic was how they take more of your money. Does greed know any limits?
Apparently not.
Their biggest debate wasn't whether to pilfer your purse or not, but rather how to do it. One proposal was to simply raise the millage rate by removing the current limit by ordinance, IE: without your vote. The other was to create "special" tax district, in an effort to disguise a tax as something else. One is what we're accustomed to, politicians raising taxes, and the other a bit more clever, raising taxes by adding a new mechanism, and allowing the political prevarication of staying under the millage limit. Wait until they disclose this is not either-or and they do both.
Unlike Atlanta where Dickens has asked for departments to report on the impact of 5%, 7.5% and 10% budget cuts, Dunwoody fixates on higher taxes. Clearly, city staffing, operational costs and mission has expanded without much in the way of restraint. And why should there be any restrain? Spending OPM is fun, and gives staffers increasingly valuable connections. And we, as voters, have been asleep at the wheel, electing promise-breakers who are addicted to spend-then-tax. Shame on them, but not without shame on us.
But there are other options, ones this city would consider their kryptonite, but should be up for discussion nonetheless. How about we stop giving enormous tax breaks to developers? After all we're sitting on some of the hottest property in the southeast, and they should be competing for the chance to build here. In fact, they should be paying. It's called "impact fees," and developers should be paying for the costs their, highly profitable, development imposes on existing taxpayers. Have you heard mayor or council suggest anything faintly resembling this? Didn't think so.
Posts
