Comments

Observer wrote on Aug 3, 2009 10:34 AM:

" Robert Wells is the ONLY Assemblyperson not providing a bio on the Borough website. How open and transparent. His Matanuska Creamery is about to become a "no buy zone" for my family and others. Cindy Bettine's ABC Travel Time is already in our "no fly zone". We all need to boycott the businesses of those in power who show open contempt for the people they serve. It is interesting that in the next borough meeting reconsideration of the Sales Tax veto is buried near the end of what promises to be a long meeting. That cuts down on public attendance. "




Not surprised 1 wrote on Aug 3, 2009 8:40 AM:

" A friend of mine wrote to Mr Wells concerning the varios impacts a sales tax would have on seniors and other middle to low income persons living in the valley. He invited Mr Wells to discuss the matter further and express how he arrived at his decision to vote yea last week.
To date he has ignored the message and didn't even acknowledge receiving it. Maybe he is too busy "milking" the public to be concerned about the very people he is suppose to represent.
He is treading on thin ice considering he wants to be re-elected in October. "




Circus Today Circus Everyday wrote on Aug 2, 2009 10:47 PM:

" Another big act under the Great White Big Top at the assembly meeting Tuesday at August 4, 6 PM. Will the five clowns continue to steal the show by overriding Mayor Colberg's veto? If so they will turn into tightrope acrobats come a windy election day and no voter safety nets in sight. Now there'e a show I'll certainly be attending. See you there. "




yes to SALES TAX wrote on Aug 2, 2009 12:55 PM:

" Control Borough employee growth. It is beurocracy reproduction. A very fertile bunch over there. Sales Tax yes only to replace the property tax!!! Renters send kids to school. It would be cool to survey kids to see exactly how many parents own their home or rent. "




Hogwash wrote on Aug 2, 2009 9:40 AM:

" Hey Meadow Lakes !
I am a landlord and I operate on a realistic budget that is BUDGET (not like the MSB). You bet my added costs will pass on to my tenants. I have no choice or maybe ration their water consumption and outside maintenance of their apartments.
It is a very basic rule of economics.
in fact I am already calculating how much their rent will have to go up ! It scares all of us!
Kill it before it goes any further. We need better things to be concerned about. "




To Ak Fish Angler wrote on Jul 30, 2009 7:02 PM:

" We never seen you at the public hearings only one of seventy five spoke in favor. You were most likely at home blogging. The math is just part of the problem with the sales tax, Take a person over 65 living on a fixed income in a home under $150,000 that was granted exemption from property tax from the state. If they are living on $1200 a month they will now be taxed on everything including heat, food, electric, gas,(9 cents a gallon) do the math. About $468 a year not counting city tax. Thanks Mark Ewing (my real name) "




Meadow_Lakes_Madman wrote on Jul 30, 2009 6:28 PM:

" The poor working class...hey wait a dog gone minute thats me and thousands like me. I for one as a working stiff and a farmer am sick of the property taxes as they are today. Talis...perhaps you need to burn whatever page you took from Obamas playbook. It's high time the renters and others to take and pay their share. And don't feed me a line that the cost is past onto them by their landlords.

It must be a political record for our new Borough Mayor to show his butt so soon. "




to akfangler wrote on Jul 30, 2009 2:06 AM:

" Replace them with some one better who actually listens to their constituents obviously. Is that too much to hope for? Oh and by the way there are only five bad apples, not seven. "




akfangler wrote on Jul 29, 2009 2:30 PM:

" "5. People are becoming more suspect of government. They are tired of not having their voices heard..."
The last time I checked, we've had legal elections for all of the positions mentioned. The "people" chose representation and leadership. Did the 'people' all choose wrongly? Did all of the those elected deceive the people of their true natures and intent? "Throw the bums out" and replace them with whom? "




akfangler wrote on Jul 29, 2009 12:10 PM:

" to Mark Ewing (or whomever says its him):
Destroy the poor? Seriously? That's what you see as the intention of the other people who sit on the Assembly with you? To be destroyers of the poor. If the numbers proposed are correct, the average tax payer's burden would increase $50 a year. That's less than $5 per month. Is that destroying the poor? If you are philosophically opposed to ANY increase in taxes or gov't spending, that's one thing. But to claim that FOUR DOLLARS and CHANGE a month is DESTROYING THE POOR is ridiculous. "




akfangler wrote on Jul 29, 2009 12:00 PM:

" What is all the outrage about? This was a vote to put an idea on an election ballot!! No tax was levied upon a single person. All the Assembly did was put an idea on the ballot to let the people decide by direct vote. Isn't that what "we" want - more chance to decide issues directly? If you don't like the proposal the way it's written, then don't vote against it, but what's the point of all the carrying-on? "




Big Lake wrote on Jul 29, 2009 9:44 AM:

" I was at the meeting and it was a circus. When a discussion on what to chage on the BALLOT was discussed I was shocked to realize it was already for the ballot before a vote. This is our government at it's best. Final version was first $20,000 primary residence exempt, 7.3 mil Borough property tax and 3% sales tax on everything upto $1,000.00. How many times did I hear "When assesments go up?" I lost count. These meetings need to be televised so the public can see for what really goes on. "




Us vs. Them wrote on Jul 29, 2009 8:43 AM:

" I love this Us versus Them mentality concerning the Borough Assembly and the Sales Tax. This whole discussion by the Assembly is about whether or not to put a Borough-wide sales tax implementation on the ballot for a vote by the people assuming the assembly feels the idea has merit or, absent of merit, should still be decided by the people. The Assembly has no power to create a sales tax. Their only role is to begin the initial discussion and decide whether or not to present the idea to the people. Darn them for having an open discussion! "




Mark Ewing Assembly Distric 4 wrote on Jul 29, 2009 7:03 AM:

" It sad to see the public pour out their hearts about how this tax will hurt them then watch 5 members of the Assembly vote to distroy the poor. The only people that will gain from this tax are the rick property owner many that don't live or shop here and joe six pack will be picking up the bill. God help the shop owners whom have started this Valley and stuck it out even during the lean years. The voters will need to show those Assembly members just how far out of touch they are with the community "




to property owner wrote on Jul 29, 2009 12:35 AM:

" I must disagree...I own 3 properties in the MSB and can clearly see EVERYONE here will pay much higher taxes soon. I attended 4 MSB meetings on this proposal. I have sadly come to the conclusion that the majority of the assembly do not merit the trust or respect of the people and will quickly stab us in the back on the Sales Tax. Don't drink the kool aid!!! Vote the bums out. "




Circus Today Cicus Everyday wrote on Jul 29, 2009 12:22 AM:

" And what a circus it was tonight under the Big Top at the borough assembly meeting. Revenue and tax figures from smoke and mirrors and rapid fire ammendments that the sponsors didn't seem to fully grasp themselves, a superb if astonishing show. The clowns stole the show by passing the Sales Tax measure 5-2 . Ewing and Kluberton refused to go along with the majority and voted NO TAX. They are the good guys on this issue. As for the 5 clowns that jumped through the hoop of more taxes and bigger government, they need to go. "




Lee wrote on Jul 28, 2009 8:06 PM:

" half of these services did not exist 30+ years ago, they sure dont need to now...I want to see cuts, and the borough and its employees would be a good place to start, just maybe then they would find ways to better manage there flow of existing revenue,,,$3600 a year in prop taxes for a Ranch standard house in a sub neighborhood that maybe gets graded twice a year is not impressive..this state as a whole has pathetic management and is living well beyond its means. "




Wow wrote on Jul 28, 2009 3:08 PM:

" the Borough really took this article to heart....they closed tonight's meeting.....suspect of gov't....I'd say! "




propertyowner wrote on Jul 28, 2009 2:17 PM:

" I am sick of paying for everyones services. Renters don't pay property taxes so why not level that playing field? Everyone would pay their share if there was a sales tax including visitors to our state! Come on, use your heads for more than a hat rack. Some one has to pay for services because they just don't happen! So with the share the burden we can all benefit. Including our schools. "




Power Wagon wrote on Jul 28, 2009 9:33 AM:

" sheesh...because there's no other alternative regarding available services than to tax, tax, tax.. right? By gosh, what a great idea...let's be just like several places in the lower 48 and create a sales-tax that we can then ramp up every couple years. And while we're at it, let's create special taxes on vehicles. A sin tax on liquor and cigarettes. Maybe like Seattle, we can have a special tax on coffee. And the more they tax, the more they'll spend, which means they'll need more tax, etc etc.

Or we can cut the nonsense right now, before it starts. "




Fed Up wrote on Jul 28, 2009 8:51 AM:

" Your editorial sums up the feelings of our valley residents quite accurately. Reason 5 is the whole thing in a nut shell. Many of us have seen this type of scheme elsewhere. It always ends up in massive tax increases and new infastructure that demand higher and higher taxes forever. Houston and Bettine owe us an apology for even proposing this fraud. Cindy and Pete please go back to where you came from. You will fit in better. "




Big Lake wrote on Jul 28, 2009 8:38 AM:

" Your property tax will be at 7.8 mil and the first $10,000. will be exempt. This does not include, non-areawide, fire service area, road service area or flood control.

For this you get to pay 3% sales tax on food, rent, telephone, electric, cable, gas/diesel, water, sewer, lawyers, accountants, carpenters, mechanics the list goes on.

Read the Ordiance; Serial No. 09-055 at the Borough web site.

IF this passes it will into effect on Jan.1st.; do we pay our property tax in Aug and Feb. or do we only pay Aug.? "




Fixed Income Senior Who Votes wrote on Jul 28, 2009 8:31 AM:

" Palmer, Wasilla, Houston, the Frontiersman and probably 75% or more of the people oppose this new and oppresive Sales Tax. Will the Assembly actually be up for the angry wrath of the voters if this goes on the ballot? You are our friends and neighbors and should understand times are tough in the economy for many of us. To put this on the ballot will hurt our small businsses and cause job loss. Shopping will shift to Anchoage and our valley cities will suffer a loss of revenue. Please consider the damage this tax will do before you vote tonight. "




Big Lake wrote on Jul 28, 2009 8:19 AM:

" According to borough estimates, the average homeowner would see about $540 cut from his or her yearly property tax bill. But the same resident would pay about $600 each year in sales taxes, meaning he or she would pay about $60 more in taxes each year. Houston and Bettine said they plan to find a way to make that number even.

Houston & Wasilla's sales tax is on $500.00, this sales tax will be for $1,000.00. Voice your opinion at the meeting tonight. "




Alternate solution wrote on Jul 28, 2009 1:19 AM:

" Would a sales tax be acceptable if it were applied to unincorporated portions of the Valley? This would definitly level the playing field all around, based on your example. Better yet, why not let the incorporated cities of the borough levy and retain their own sales and property taxes and let the borough collect on all of the rest? This would then give cities more autonomy right? Unfortunately, you are probably against any new form of tax compromise or not, and the first to complain when you have limited or no services. "