agrab86 said:
cavscout96 said:
southerner said:
The delivery of utilities and roadways to land within the city limits should hardly be called a "subsidy". This is a word that the anti-growth segment uses to frame its case.
If the city annexes property and zones it anything other than 'rural', the owner of that property should have the reasonable expectation that the city will provide them with the services typically needed to meet the entitled use.
Rational people can disagree on the need for impact fees or even the policy of rezoning property entirely, but to say that developers are getting a "subsidy" is inaccurate.
Another perspective. If I live on the same piece of property and it IS rural, I have to bear the burden of installing the utility infrastructure required to run my ag operation. The I'm not sure subisdized by taxpayers.
Except for your property tax ag exemption as well as fuel tax and selected sales tax exemptions. I don't begrudge you those exemptions - they make more sense than the senior tax freeze. But every time someone gets any kind of exemption, it increases the burden on everyone else and, at least on this board, creates a subsidy paid by other taxpayers.
first, you've pulled a bait and switch. You are talking about exemption from sales tax as opposed to receiving millions of dollars in infrastructure construction. Apples and lawn mowers comparison.
second, sales tax exemptions on feed and fuel are minuscule in comparison to the actual construction costs that are incurred during development.
lastly, ag valuation, as it relates to property taxes, is not an exemption, it's a reclassification of land use and value. Tax rate remains unchanged.
I agree that parts of an ag operation are exempt from sales taxes, but no one is
providing me something at no cost to me and paid for by my fellow tax payers thus allowing me to pocket truckloads of cash while creating increasing infrastructure burdens on the taxing entity.