Petition to Oppose Parks and Recreation Service Tax District

You can put the definition of " nigger" out there too, but it still isn't proper to call folks that.

 

That comment will do wonders for your movement.

 

All facts aside, let me ask an ethical question. This is coming from someone who would likely benefit from the park too, having a family that would enjoy it.

What message are we sending to our kids if we steal from our neighbors to provide a place for them (the kids) to have fun?

I like the idea of a park and agree with many of the advantages; but I can't get over this ethical hurdle. What if instead of a park reliant on taxes we make it a paid entry park? Sports teams that utilize it will help pay for it through membership fees. Individual families that want access could pay daily or yearly memberships.

Bear with me, I just got the notification in the mail and that was the first I heard of this project; so I'm still trying to find out which side I fall on. However, while I could be willing to part with the 0.04% tax increase...why should I force that increase on those that disagree or would not use the park?

 

The ethics should be fairly clear. Will more people receive a benefit from the parks than not? This includes those increases in property values associated with green spaces and recreational opportunities. Much like the local roads upon which only a portion of the people are using but all are paying to build, maintain, and improve. Or like schools which only those with children might have a reason to use but everyone who owns property pays to build and operate as an investment in the community and its future. These are the basis for the ethics of building parks and recreation land using funds from all of the community rather than those which may use them.

 

Will more people receive a benefit from the parks than not? Maybe, but even so why should the majority steal from the minority? What right do we have to force a benefit on them? (I actually just debated this with my wife, we agreed it would be really nice to have)

This includes those increases in property values associated with green spaces and recreational opportunities. Agreed, property values would increase and this would help younger people like myself who will probably move at least one more time. However, it would also raise the cost of living for the whole area; this would hurt some. For an example, I'll use the example put forth on the website: 0.04% of $200,000 is $80. However, the next year that house is worth $210,000 because of the park that tax become $84. Which is minuscule, but adds up over time (and since we do 8 year property re-evaluation periods, could hit families hard all at once). This cost of living increase could eventually cause people to leave if new income sources do not manifest. To me, this is a neutral aspect of the park because communities change. Yet, we should consider who we might lose over time.

Much like the local roads upon which only a portion of the people are using but all are paying to build, maintain, and improve. I see the similarity, but I'm pretty sure everyone uses roads; while you and I may not use the same one we both put money towards the one we do use, so it balances out. With this park, it would be simply taking from those that don't use it; leaving them at a net loss.

Or like schools which only those with children might have a reason to use but everyone who owns property pays to build and operate as an investment in the community and its future. As someone that home-schools out of medical necessity and get's taxed doubly for doing so (property tax and sales tax on the curriculum/materials), I have an axe to grind with schools. I see their value in the community and could possibly see a valid argument that people without children should pay for them, but why don't home-school-ers or private-school-ers get a reprieve? Sorry I got side-tracked, topic hits close to home, I don't mean to deter from the topic of parks...so I digress

My daughter would love the chance to try different sports, my son would love to wander and adventure there, my wife would use it for photography, and I'd probably use it as an excuse to buy a drone to fly around. Yet, my moral dilemma is still there; is it worth stealing from our neighbours?

 

Why should any of our taxes be spent in ways which we may disagree or do not directly benefit? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, to paraphrase Spock.

Yes, and who might consider who might be gained over that same period of time? More people means more services and that should give more and better opportunities, but the future is only known by it becoming the past.

That would only be the case if all roads one used had the same cost as all of the roads another used, which is not the case. Those who use more roads and more expensive roads than others get a clear benefit. Nothing is completely fair, but again it is the numbers of benefits compared to the cost and to the lack of benefit to some.

I believe that it is the total benefit to the community which comes to play. The next generation of doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. are being educated as we speak and it is the benefit to the community to educate the next generation to the best of our ability for the future benefit of the community.

That is a decision which only you can reach, but given your educational situation, it would seem that it is more of an evening of the expenses rather than stealing from your neighbors. I think you will find this is the moral basis of which I initially spoke.

 

I think that eloquently highlights the dilemma, this is a park...something recreational by definition cannot be a need. As for your first question, I ask that all the time and cannot deduct an ethical answer other than this metaphor: there is a difference between a man stealing bread to feed his starving family and a man that steals a Rolex because he likes the style.

I just think this park would be more moral if we charged admission or through memberships in lieu of taxes. This would also solve another issue I saw in the comments (but don't see as a major issue), people from other counties would also be charged; thus paying their due. Of course, numbers would have to be run on how to make admission reasonable and keep the park desirable.

 

There is strength in numbers and weakness in low numbers. You ever thought about raising a million and a half dollars $5 at the time? Pay to use simply isn't a feasible idea on a community project this large.

 

Yes, that was the basis and The Constitution allows local governments to do as they see fit. No argument. I just don't see how forcibly taking a percentage of anything from our neighbour under threat of arrest is a justified means to build an attraction for our children. Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

 

But shouldn't there be a more ethical means to create numbers other than by mandate? $5 at a time might work if you combine it with use fees of the leagues/teams using it...as I said, the number would have to be ran.

 

I'm not attempting to incite fear nor rejecting American values in the slightest. Quite the opposite. My point is if the majority does want the park; as proposed it is the minority that will have something (money in this case) forcibly taken from them under threat of arrest...otherwise known as stolen.

I am all for the park, my family would use the heck out of it. I just don't think that my desire for a park should force someone else to surrender money for it. I want to pay my own way/portion for it.

I fully support our system of government; I just find it ethically challenging to justify putting a tax (that affects dissenters) for something that is a luxury to a vote.

 

In that vein roads, schools, libraries, and the like are not needs and should not be funded unless everyone agrees, which would never happen because a complete consensus will never happen.

Except a park is neither case. That is the grayness of ethics in the real world. The recreation facilities are closer to the former than the latter though.

True, but it would never be built. You cannot pay for what you cannot use and the costs needed to take in the fees and account for them increases the operating costs. Without a guaranteed income stream no money can be borrowed to build the parks in order to be able to charge a use fee. Use fees are an uncertain income stream especially for a park which has not been built, so it remains a pipe dream.

It would not matter as there would be no money to build it. Even a bond has to show the clear ability to pay it off and there is no data to support any payoff.

 

How can you say you support our system of government when you view taxes voted in place by the majority of the community for community projects as theft? That seems to be in direct opposition to our system of government and how it funds its operations.

 

More like they say they love pie as long as heat is not involved .....or crust .... or filling .... or topping

 

FFS, people! Methinks it is being over-thought when we start pulling out constitutional arguments and debates about the human condition. Cripes!

Most anti-parks arguments stand on one leg...no new taxes. There is not other argument to be had. Meanwhile, the pro-stance has a number of valid points.

Any...I repeat...ANY successful and vibrant community has their share of open space, parks, etc. These places sink money into community projects like firehouses, parks, street projects, etc. Ask yourself what you'd rather be a part of. The slow decay into suburban choked mess, or....

 

Uggh...damn, man. Points 1 and 6 are in direct conflict with each other making you a hypocrite. Point 2 is false and fear mongering. Your taxes did not go up 40-50%, this is a lie. Points 3 and 4 are uninformed at best considering all organization are non-profit and volunteer based (before you complain, have you volunteered to help). Point 5 is just...I can't even...do you mind paying taxes for volunteer fire dept? Has your house ever been on fire? No? Good. Then you just paid for something you didn't use, but still benefits the community. Point 7 is just dumb. Political? Grow up.

You do not support having to pay $40-$80 a year which means you do NOT love this community. Plain and simple. Making silly argument to save a little money proves my point. There is no good reason other than selfishness. Many people give this to their church every year, why not their community?

 

There must first be a park in which to charge admission to. Joco isn't/can't loan that kind of money, I'm guessing, can they?

Exactly. What would we be paying $5 at the time for? Nobody has said that groups who use this facility won't pay for usage as well...I can almost guarantee they will.

 

How many local parks has anyone on this thread been to that require an admission fee? Strange concept. I get that there are shelter rentals, boat rentals, event rentals, and other usage fees but I have never seen a local park that requires a damn cover charge. Who pays the guy standing at the gate collecting money from this park that no one (supposedly) is going to use? This is another silly argument from those who oppose ANY tax, community be damned.

I cannot imagine the outcry if the fire department or EMS charged before use of their services. Taxes pay for them and they support the ENTIRE COMMUNITY. Ever wonder why the volunteer fire department has to have fund drives and they sell those family picture packages? Because they don't have enough money. From taxes. That's why. I'd rather they have the money and spend time training rather than selling crap door to door. The community has outgrown itself and the fire department needs new equipment on the regular.

The community has outgrown itself and needs recreational facilities. Period.

CHALLENGE:
Recreational soccer will start soon. Games probably do not start until after all of this will be decided, but win or lose I challenge anyone to head over to the GCAA sports complex on any given Saturday and see the absolute mess it is from parking, bathrooms, etc. Especially when there is a softball tournament and regular soccer games going on. Or even just practice nights when JCC Cleveland Campus also has an event. Maybe you have already. Maybe you have just tried to drive by on Cleveland School Rd when this is happening. It is complete chaos. Why? Our community has outgrown itself.

 

Oh, and by the way. There is a total **** of a person is out there stealing 4forparks.com signs. If you oppose the park, make your own signs and put them up. Residents who are in favor of the park have mobilized and are using their own money to do this so...

 

One last thing before I head home...Raleigh leaders approve the master plan for Dix Park.

If you question the process, I highly recommend you take a look. Raleigh bought the park from the state, held public meetings and gathered feedback from residents on what the park should have, incorporated that feedback into a master plan, and have now voted to adopt it. For those who keep saying no one know what the park will look like yet...this is how the process works. I highly recommend downloading the master plan and taking a look. Of course, this is a GRAND scale in comparison to what Cleveland can accomplish but the general concept is the same.