It started as a rather generic concept, charge every property owner in the city a flat fee for "fire readiness" as a way to generate revenue to fill the city's budget gap. Calling it a "fire fee" is about as true as saying lottery money goes to education, its just a way of shifting money around within the budget, there will be no budget increases or added funding stability for the fire department if this fire fee is enacted. Nobody but virtual-co-Mayor Kennedy would admit to understanding it at first, and it has been changed at least a dozen times since it was first proposed.
First it was going to be a flat fee, then Foster talked about making it a graduated fee, bigger for expensive properties than lower appraised ones(although nowhere near as graduated as the general property tax is).
The Mayor started by saying that non-profits would not be exempt, and then he came out this week saying that they would be exempt.
He was against offering exemptions for the poor, then came up with a complex "deferral" idea that would involve putting a lien on the property and charging interest and recording fees on top of it. Maybe the Mayor should get into the car-title-loan business too, it's not much of a leap from there, and we are unsure how deferring a tax payment can help the yearly budget if you don't see the money for years, or even decades.
City Council has gone along for the ride, voting for approval of the fire fee along with the large payments for legal services to try to get approval for it without even knowing the specifics of how the fire fee would be implemented. It's time for them to stop the wobbling fire-fee-train and pin Foster down on the specifics before they allow it to move any further.
It's time to give up on the fire fee and vote it down. You're right about the deferral not bringing in any money. It would take years at best but may never pay the city back. Often the city just loses money when homes in very poor condition pile up liens for fines and unpaid taxes. Eventually they get demolished at public expanse and then we pay to mow and clean a vacant lot that can't be sold.
ReplyDeleteCouncil could ask for a plan and budget to screen residents for deferrals and find out how much we will lose, but with legal bills piling up its time to just say no.
Or we could give the police department the resources needed to suppress street crime and open air drug markets that depress property values and tax revenues. Making St. Pete a "Seamless City" is a better way to increase revenue from property taxes.
Please tell your readers about the petition drive to stop the fire fee.
ReplyDeletePetition http://signon.org/sign/stop-unfair-st-pete-fire-2
More information:
http://www.pennyforpinellas.net/2012/08/stop-unfair-st.html