So if I pick up my kids play phone and pretend to talk on it (cause you know they call everyone and want you to talk to them) and an officer THINKS I was on my phone I can get a ticket?
quote:Benham's the only one worth keeping around.
Mayor and Places 2, 3 and 4 are up for election in November.
Filing period is underway and ends Aug. 22.
quote:
I'll rely on my personal experience over a study. My observations of the reckless behavior are entirely too frequent. Thanks.
quote:Hmmm, having a vivid imagination is usually a positive trait, but I would think telling an officer of the law you were only pretending might stretch your credibility. Real criminals have tried that with not so good results.
So if I pick up my kids play phone and pretend to talk on it (cause you know they call everyone and want you to talk to them) and an officer THINKS I was on my phone I can get a ticket?
quote:The issue is that they're already a law for this. It's already illegal:
I'm not sure of the exact statistics,but it seems I've heard that distracted driving is as bad or worse than drunk driving. That said, clearly seems prudent to enact a law to discourage a dangerous practice.
quote:
Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by:
(1) a fine not to exceed $200;
(2) confinement in county jail for not more than 30 days; or
(3) both the fine and the confinement.
quote:No, and the example you gave is also a no.
The issue is that they're already a law for this. It's already illegal:
quote:
Another pointless law passed by Kollege Station. Ranks up there with their more expensive utilities and property taxes. It will be useless, but will likely add revenue to the city coffers.
quote:
I can say I am absolutely happy they passed this.
quote:
Another pointless law passed by Kollege Station. But will add revenue to the city coffers.
quote:Yup. One thing that has remained consistent over the years, regardless of who is on council, is a desire to soak the college students.
If this were about saving lives they would be better served making certain drivers got on the bypass at the correct speed and to make certain drivers on said bypass drive the correct speed. This will hit a whole bunch of college kids in the pocketbook.
quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
quote:Wait, none of the thousands of apartment complexes, duplexes, townhomes, mobile homes, and single family homes rented out to students (or owned by students' parents) receive a property tax bill? That's what CoCS believes?quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
quote:quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
quote:I know and I agree. But that's what the man said.quote:quote:The big one is the surcharge on the rates at CSU that go back to the general fund. One of the CMs stated this made sure students who don't pay property tax contributed their fair share to the city.
What other examples of the CSCC "soaking" college students have you witnessed, techno?
That's ignorant. Student pay property tax in the form of rent.
quote:
quote:
In the Chamber forum he only pointed out that since students rent so many residential units in town, they make a significant contribution to the general fund through the return on investment charge that is included in their utility bill.
It seemed to me that he thought renters don't pay property taxes, so this was a way for renters to pay their fair share. I am pretty sure that property owners don't 'eat' the property tax. Things are a lot different now than they were in the 90s-- money is very tight. Whether he meant it or not, he sounded like he thought they should pay more...very confusing.
quote:Good discussion, thanks for commenting. I'm curious, what did I say about property taxes that I'm wrong on?
To Techno...while our utility rates are high, our property tax rate is ridiculously low for the amount of services this city offers. It's the main reason our city government is in the shape it is financially with most city departments paying 10-15% less than comparable cities....while providing a higher level of service.
The income from utilities is by and far only going to CSU per state law. It doesn't effect the rest of the city departments.
Look at Bryan for instance. Their effective tax rate is some 20 cents per $100 valuation higher.
Side tangent, I know. But when I saw your comment about our property tax well, you're wrong. Sadly, we're funding a badly needed Police building through a negligable tax increases because of the false notion that our city government is loaded. It's sad that there's no way a bond election would pass, so it's coming to that. Our town has grown accustom suburbia luxury on rural income.
Oh yeah...and the new ordinance. Hypocritical. I in no way agree with an ordinance that asks officers to enforce something that they are required to do themselves. I also agree with Coucilman Benham's belief that it's a cultural issue that needs to be addressed another way.