’86 tax may be put to new uses
Restaurant tax to fund coliseum projects could soon aid downtown
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/16670487.htm
From the article:
"Becker also stressed the proposal is not intended solely to fund downtown redevelopment in general, or the $120 million Harrison Square project in particular. Food and beverage tax revenues are not intended for the Harrison Square project, which includes a new baseball stadium, hotel, condominiums, shops and other features."
What do you think about expanding the food and beverage tax for uses other than the Coliseum?
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Food And Drink For Downtown?
Posted by scott spaulding at 2/10/2007 09:12:00 AM
Labels: Downtown development, Harrison Square, Mark Becker, Nelson Peters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think it would be criminal to be honest with you.
The Food and Beverage Tax was passed in order to build the Exhibition Hall and to pay the bonds on the Exhibition Hall AND NOTHING MORE.
This tax was supposed to be temporary and was supposed to pay off bonds for ONE project.
This is an AWFUL idea.
Mike Sylvester
Thanks for the post Mike. From reading the article it seems that the tax has already been changed once already in order to pay for ongoing Coliseum projects such as the recent roof expansion. That amendment was added because someone had the same argument as you and even filed suit because the scope was being changed from the original expo hall project. It will be interesting to see how the legislature vote pans out for this latest change to the tax.
Scott:
You are correct it has been changed... It was not changed locally; it was changed in INDIANPOLIS.
You are correct about the lawsuit as well. That lawsuit came from the "Hall" family in Fort Wayne...
You never said how you feel Scott?
Do you think it is ok to pass a tax with SEVERE limitations and then extend it and change the parameters WITHOUT consulting the voters?
Mike Sylvester
Mike, I was 2 years old in '86 and I was still in high school when the amendment was passed. My point is that I don't know enough about the background and circumstances surrounding the whole ordeal. It would be easy to say "I don't think it's ok to change the law book". What I don't understand is that the Coliseum eats up a certain amount of money each year and there's more than enough in the fund, leaving some left over. Why isn't all of the money being used? It seems that local politicians just want to be able to allocate the extra to other things, although it doesn't seem that the extra allocation would stop once the Coliseum projects are paid off. If the plan is to keep the food and beverage tax after the Coliseum is paid off then the need and purpose for the money should be explained. It seems that the only recourse for the citizenry, for which there is already a track record on this issue, would be another lawsuit to stop the change.
Scott:
All of the money is NOT being used because it cannot all legally be used. Even with the modifications to the law they still cannot use the money on items not on Colisuem property...
I have not crunched the numbers; however, I would guess that if all of the money were put towards the bonds they would all be nearly paid off..
Mike Sylvester
Post a Comment