Some rare cases? Are you serious? What do you call "rare"?I concede that demolition may be a regrettable necessity is some rare cases.
That distinction is somewhat arbitrary don't you think? You have to pay for the investments and maintenance somehow. What difference does it make whether the city does so with revenue bonds or from tax revenue? With bonds they'll get the $180m (minus costs) in a lump sum and can put that money to work right away. Without bonding the money will trickle in over a course of decades, precluding major investments in important areas of the City that need serious attention right now.vollum wrote:I think just about all of this stuff should be in the operating budget of a city. Not in a long range capital budget that would logically be something a city would consider bonding for. Raise taxes if you want to do more of these short term things.
Rubbish. I just know the difference between Quixotic pursuits and things that are real. Anyone thinking that the bulk of demolitions carried out in the city of St. Louis are not necessary is simply not being serious.I know NN. You don't believe in the long term benefits of historic preservation. I will not hash this out with you ad nauseum.
The bond issue does raise revenues to pay for itself - through increased property taxes. That is "a higher level of maintenance" paid for by raising revenue (taxes).vollum wrote:If you need to provide a higher level of maintenance or service you should raise your revenue (taxes) to pay for it.
Exactly!dredger wrote:To me, the distinction of financing with a bond versus say a sales tax or property tax increase is that a bond is paying for the improvement or addition of an defineable asset(S) for the community that has a high upfront cost but a long life cycle in which the elected officials should have some degree of confidence that the budget can accommodate the yearly payment. Say a structure, city streets or major park upgrade investments. I believe St. Charles residents have pool/aquatic facilitys upgrades on their ballot
The best example I can give and if I recall correctly, few years back I voted in favor of a bond that paid for Shrewsbury to replace one or two fire trucks and pool upgrades because it was an asset to the community, both had an high up front cost but both were going to have a relatively long cycle. The key was the bonds were specific to the fire equipment/trucks and pool instead of lumping on a bunch of vehicles for the city and or maintenance of aquatic facilities. To me, A bond Is like my mortgage on my house where my budget includes that cost as well as to maintain it. I spend to much on one thing, My family either has to cut back somewhere else and or find a way to work more or generate more revenues because the mortgage payment is now fixed into my budget.
