Comments
1 - 13 of 13 Comments Last updated Sep 18, 2009
taxpayer

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 15, 2009
 

Judged:

6

2

2

Scott Johnson has rightly called for the NRP to end by May 31.
EDC director Jeff Black says if property taxes on a piece of property are $10,000, and after improvements, the value goes to $12,000, the property owner gets a rebate of $1,900.
True. But more realistically, if a property pays taxes of $5,000, and after improvements the taxes are $100,000, the rebate is $90,250. Who makes up the difference to the taxing entities? You and I do.
Ben Kitchens also correctly says we should limit where the NRP is used. He said the I-70 corridor should be able to sell itself. No shit, Benny. Many of us have been saying that all along, starting with the original intent of the NRP. Dilapidated structures, poor infrastructure, vacant buildings. These were the areas the NRP was created to help. The Kansas Attorney General told us we were violating the intent of the program as soon as the City Commission began to use it along East Chestnut. But why let that be a factor?
Finally, the NRP has rarely been used as an incentive, as the EDC repeats like a Buddhist mantra. It has almost always been used as a reward to businesses whose plans would have rarely been affected by the absence of the NRP. And that is definitely the wrong use of our hardearned tax dollars.
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/...
Que

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 15, 2009
 

Judged:

4

1

1

taxpayer wrote:
Scott Johnson has rightly called for the NRP to end by May 31.
EDC director Jeff Black says if property taxes on a piece of property are $10,000, and after improvements, the value goes to $12,000, the property owner gets a rebate of $1,900.
True. But more realistically, if a property pays taxes of $5,000, and after improvements the taxes are $100,000, the rebate is $90,250. Who makes up the difference to the taxing entities? You and I do.
Ben Kitchens also correctly says we should limit where the NRP is used. He said the I-70 corridor should be able to sell itself. No shit, Benny. Many of us have been saying that all along, starting with the original intent of the NRP. Dilapidated structures, poor infrastructure, vacant buildings. These were the areas the NRP was created to help. The Kansas Attorney General told us we were violating the intent of the program as soon as the City Commission began to use it along East Chestnut. But why let that be a factor?
Finally, the NRP has rarely been used as an incentive, as the EDC repeats like a Buddhist mantra. It has almost always been used as a reward to businesses whose plans would have rarely been affected by the absence of the NRP. And that is definitely the wrong use of our hardearned tax dollars.
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/...
You are correct as far as misapplication of the NRP. As far as I recall, there were no old dilapidated buildings that needed to be revitalized on E. Chestnut. There was a house and acreage before all this started. This has all happened during the time that Mick Wunder and the wrecking crew were in charge.
ScottJohnsonDead intheHead

Dodge City, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The AG never made such a decision let alone reviewed the matter. If he had, he would have found the the property on Chestnut and Ash is below flood plain and thus, blighted. The AG HAS ruled on that in other cities.
You may not like it, but don't make things up to support your misguided view.
While we're at it, Scotty boy doesn't have the power to eliminate the program, or even send it to Black for review. Since when did he become the entire commission?
taxpayer

Junction City, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 16, 2009
 
NRP is good for Junction City.

It does not cost the taxpayer money.

It generates MORE revenue not less every year.

It cleans up neighborhoods.

It creates new jobs.

It rehabs old buildings.

It helps brings new businesses to town.

It increases property tax collections.

It increases sales tax collections.

It does go away if a business closes or if they dont pay their taxes on time.

It has been approved by the State of Kansas, Attorney General, school board, county commision, EDC and the city commision.

Can all of these independant thinking individuals be wrong?
taxpayer

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 16, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

taxpayer wrote:
NRP is good for Junction City.
It does not cost the taxpayer money.
It generates MORE revenue not less every year.
It cleans up neighborhoods.
It creates new jobs.
It rehabs old buildings.
It helps brings new businesses to town.
It increases property tax collections.
It increases sales tax collections.
It does go away if a business closes or if they dont pay their taxes on time.
It has been approved by the State of Kansas, Attorney General, school board, county commision, EDC and the city commision.
Can all of these independant thinking individuals be wrong?
Properly applied, it can be a good thing. Too bad that hasn't been the case in JC.
Ditto

Andover, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 16, 2009
 
NRP is good for Junction City.

It does not cost the taxpayer money.

It generates MORE revenue not less every year.

It cleans up neighborhoods.

It creates new jobs.

It rehabs old buildings.

It helps brings new businesses to town.

It increases property tax collections.

It increases sales tax collections.

It does go away if a business closes or if they dont pay their taxes on time.

It has been approved by the State of Kansas, Attorney General, school board, county commision, EDC and the city commision.

Can all of these independant thinking individuals be wrong?

overrated

Junction City, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

That is what Scott Johnson and all his ideas are...overrated. He sounds like an idiot when he ties to talk about "anything" at the commission meetings. He needs to take his inherited money and move to another town. The majority of JC DOES NOT support him or his views. Please sit quietly...don't talk...because you don't think before you speak.
taxpayer

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 16, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

Ditto wrote:
NRP is good for Junction City.
It does not cost the taxpayer money.
It generates MORE revenue not less every year.
It cleans up neighborhoods.
It creates new jobs.
It rehabs old buildings.
It helps brings new businesses to town.
It increases property tax collections.
It increases sales tax collections.
It does go away if a business closes or if they dont pay their taxes on time.
It has been approved by the State of Kansas, Attorney General, school board, county commision, EDC and the city commision.
Can all of these independant thinking individuals be wrong?
Rod Barnes, is that you?
an actual taxpayer

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 16, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

2

taxpayer wrote:
NRP is good for Junction City.
It does not cost the taxpayer money.
It generates MORE revenue not less every year.
It cleans up neighborhoods.
It creates new jobs.
It rehabs old buildings.
It helps brings new businesses to town.
It increases property tax collections.
It increases sales tax collections.
It does go away if a business closes or if they dont pay their taxes on time.
It has been approved by the State of Kansas, Attorney General, school board, county commision, EDC and the city commision.
Can all of these independant thinking individuals be wrong?
How is it good for average taxpayers?
I have to make up the difference to the taxing entities.
Revenue not paid is revenue lost.
Hasn't cleaned up any neighborhoods yet- hasn't even been used in a neighborhood yet.
Show me the jobs!
Really has been used for new construction- not old buildings.
Those businesses were coming anyway- just gave them tax dollars as a reward, not incentive.
Property taxes not paid but owed are charged to property owners without NRP.
Like the sales taxes on the new truck wash? How much will those amount to?
If it's so great, why would the businesses leave?
Lastly, not many average tax payers have any faith in the city commission, school board, or the EDC. They're the ones who got us $200,000,000 in debt to begin with.
Independant? That bunch is a group of deep thinkers about as much as Wunder and Big D were. More like monkey see, monkey do.
tin man

Milan, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 17, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I read in the DU last night that the EDC had recommended the $50.000 for Godfrey's indoor shooting range and was waiting for the commissioner's vote. I think the NRP could be a viable option for this business. However, does the EDC and Commmisssioner's just approve it because Godfrey is a good ole boy and a police officer,or do they do any investigative work to see what these type of shooting ranges can generate as income for the city? It wasn't that long ago that the EDC was about to give Amarillo Bioscience a crapload of money until, I believe a concerned citizen did some investigating and discovered that this company only had about $1600.00 in its bank account and was on the verge of bankruptcy! I also remember a few years back when the owner of Santa Fe pawn and Gun wanted to open an indoor shooting range and the city wouldn't approve it. I even think he was going to do it with his own money without city help. Maybe he should have asked for tax abatement. The NRP can be a good thing, but it needs to be used with common sense, which there seems to be a shortage of here lately.
Tom

Spring Hill, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 17, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

A shooting range is a bad idea where it is located. Right in between the bars? Come on. I say let him make it on his own. Not enough jobs in this business to give the NRP. We need to be very selective with this program. Make these businesses give guarantees of jobs and YEARS in business, if they don't meet the promises, have options in place to get paid back.
To All

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 17, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tom wrote:
A shooting range is a bad idea where it is located. Right in between the bars? Come on. I say let him make it on his own. Not enough jobs in this business to give the NRP. We need to be very selective with this program. Make these businesses give guarantees of jobs and YEARS in business, if they don't meet the promises, have options in place to get paid back.
OK, perhaps the owner should make his case before the city commissioners- 1. How many people will be hired? 2. Realistic expectations of 'tax' revenue to the city (Yes it will be very expensive on the owners part to install.)? Now what due diligence has been done by the EDC (Hopefully not like Amarillo Bioscience- we all know what came out of that 'blessing' from the EDC.). What due dilgence will the city do or not do? Here's a couple of thoughts- 1. What OSHA/Envirnonmental/EPA guidelines need to be adhered(Does the Codes Inspector have the correct guidelines/experience to ensure compliance prior to opening or even approval of the $50K requested?)to and what will the impact be if not adhered to by the owner? Sure he'll be fined but what might be passed on to the city to 'fix' if owner does not comply? 2. Are there any ordinances or laws that might prevent a indoor shooting range at this location? 3. What assurances does the city have that this location will 'be safe' to prevent any accidental bullets leaving the 'walls' of this range? 4. What will be stored in the building- guns and ammunition? What requirements are needed to be met as far as fire/alarm system for security purposes? 5. Any 'city restrictions' on having an indoor pistol range near bars? This not an all inclusive list but rather a thought provoking brainstorming session. If you agree, contact your city comissioner's and voice your concerns (Hopefully it won't be a 3-2 vote.)
taxpayer

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 18, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Since the Neighborhood Revitalization Program is back in the news, I thought about what could have been.
If we had used the NRP as originally designed, we could have rebuilt North Washington. The area has long needed redevelopment from at least 10th Street to the north. Rehabilitating that area with the resources that were squandered along the I-70 corridor could have truly transformed the city.
We also could have tied the development to the concept of a 'living wage'. This would have guaranteed a higher standard of living, giving people more money to spend and stimulate our local economy, creating more reason for businesses to choose Junction City. That would have encouraged more people to spend their money here in JC.
Virtually every average employee job on East Chestnut is at or close to minimum wage, most with less than 40 hours per week. These folks are not making the big ticket purchases that lift a local economy. They just pay their bills- good for walmart, but doesn't do much to encourage businesses to move to Junction City.
I think Scott Johnson is right. Property owners are being saddled with the debt created by businesses not paying their share of their taxes. The benefit to us is minimal at best. If we really want people to choose JC to shop or locate their business here, attract them by having some of the lowest sales and property taxes in Kansas. That is a proven way to make a city or county a desirable location to set up a home or business.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Junction City Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Junction City Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Junction City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Junction City News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Junction City
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••