Reason number 622 why the Town of Claremont is financially insane.
The Town of Claremont wants to increase taxes (or have a bond measure) to pay for their school system, but they don't want to attract businesses that'll pay for them? Instead, they'd rather forgo the $12,000 to $21,000 annual sales tax revenue from a 7-Eleven, thanks to the Planning Commission's 6-1 no vote on a 7-Eleven at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and Mills. (hat tip: Claremont Insider.)
The grounds for their no vote seems the height of NIMBYism.
I quote from The Daily Bulletin:
Commissioner Jeff Hammill said one of the letters he received was against the project because it would bring people who drink alcohol, eat junk food and smoke cigarettes.Gasp! You mean, college students?! (My bet, this being Claremont, what the letter writer really meant was low-class people and we absolutely cannot have any of those dirty, dirty low-class people in this town, can we?)
Of course, do remember, you tax things that are inelastic (i.e. addictive goods) because the burden of it will fall more heavily on the consumers, than the producers, meaning a more stable tax revenue for the town of Claremont, than say, expensive dinners or Yogurtland. (Which, by the way, is more addictive than cigarettes.)
3 comments:
How much does it cost to educate a child in the Claremont school system?
How much revenue would the tax rate increase generate?
I saw a letter in the Courier about this a while back in which the author was going on about how 7-Elevens attract undesirables etc. But I think it was more of a race issue because they were insinuating uneducated patrons with a "gang mentality." Not quite sure I get the connection, but this town has some real whack-jobs in it, so doesn't shock me at all.
the neighborhood doesn't want a 24-hour store located a few houses down from them. That is their right; & the representative commission decided to vote how the residents wanted. They pay taxes in this town & they have a right to what they want. Why should they have to sacrifice the tranquility of their neighborhood? For the purpose of more sales tax is not a reasonable trade-off.
Part of the reason the schools have a budget problem is because of projects like this. The city spends lots of money on redevelopment. Then any increase in property goes back to the agency, not to the schools or city. In many cases, private development would likely enter the location anyways.
It is not fair for you to criticize the citizens because they want to keep their neighborhood a certain way. Although 7-11 may be convenient for students, their needs are not necessarily more important than the desires of the neighborhood.
I hope that you will spend more time investigating the issues of Claremont in more detail.
Trying to explain the district's budget problems with the cities is problematic as well, since they have two separate budgets.
Besides, I think local sales tax might not even go to the district; so the foregone sales tax may not effect the district.
The district gets less income because so much of the city is redevelopment land; meaning that all of the property tax increase goes to the redevelopment agency, not schools or city.
Like the village west.
They're more financially troubled because they spend a lot on employee salaries; & they spend a lot on redevelopment.
So lots of city money has been spent on this 7-11 deal. This is one project in which the city should not get involved. Do you think the government's job is to be trying to get a 7-11 here? I thought conservatives liked smaller government & don't want government to interfere in the market......or do you just believe in not putting any restrictions at all on market forces & letting any store or company operate wherever they want? Where does local citizen fit into your plan? Do they get any voice in their neighborhood?
Post a Comment