GilfordGrok

Update:  Since the Budget Committee is discussing this topic now, I thought it would be timely to bump it up to now since the original 10/11/06 posting.

======================================================= 

I was reading the comments about spreading the tax burden, and have several thoughts:

• There seems to be a predisposition among public officials to use tax abatement to attract business (and political contributions);
• The business trend seems to be shifting the "benefit" pkg to the employee - 401k's vs pensions, employee paid healthcare insurance vs employer paid healthcare, etc.;
• Spiraling executive compensation vs stagnant employee compensation.

Ok – that’s where big business is heading.  Now look at your public school budget, and see if  "benefits" aren't the 2nd highest expense after salaries. Then compare the benefits with those offered by local businesses.  If you want private business to support public health care, then stop providing premium healthcare to public employees.  Then teachers will stay on their spouses’ healthcare plan, instead of viceversa.

When did public service become a cushy ride?  We need another JFK to remind us that serving others is the higher purpose, not a way to skate through life.  I'm suggesting that public education should focus on educating, local business should focus on business, and public gov't should focus on providing for the public good.  Parents should be able to vote with their tax dollars, not just their ballot apathy.  Implement a voucher system, and actually see how well the public schools measure up.  Involved parents make the difference, not personal wealth, and not standardized testing.

Yes, I'm for statewide health care (but against federal medicaid and medicare).  A minimalist approach.  If you want more, than you can purchase supplemental insurance.  We don't need to break school budgets with your personal healthcare needs, and we don't  need to drive businesses south-of-the-border with your personal healthcare needs.  Yes, employers need to offer employees several different choices in supplemental healthcare.  However, the goal needs to be - healthcare is a personal responsibility.  Smoking, drinking, eating cheesecake – these are personal choices (and I like cheesecake!). Taking non-prescription pharmaceuticals (now that’s a loaded phrase!) is a personal choice - don't pass it off as my responsibility.  

The concept is simple - we need to be responsible for our own future, and stop expecting  someone else to pay for it.  The future isn’t a God-given right – the future is where we reap what we sow.

Posted by The IT Observer at 07:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Editor, GilfordGrok,

I would like to thank the Gilford budget committee for starting to lighten our heavy tax burden. Trying to get control of a heavily padded budget is very hard, and thankless. Many people I talk to like what we see so far, regardless of what town employees, or their wives, say. We just hope that you don’t run out of gas when it comes to the BIG one, the school. What I get for a raise not only goes to pay my higher health care premiums, it apparently goes toward covering the increase of town employees health care too. So between the two I seem to make less money every year, even with a raise. Maybe if the budget committee can get Gilfords budgets back in line I may see a year that I break even.

.
Again, Thank you Gilford Budget Committee! Hang in there!

.                                                                                      
Kurt Gould Gilford

Posted by Doug at 02:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have been emailing with another Gilfordite, and that person has agreed to let me post the substance of our conversation.  This person's observations span the column and my comments on it are the shorter tabbed ones (opposite of what we normally do here)..  Just decided to be different for a change....

-Skip

======================================= 

Think about this too.  This is especially true when large amounts of land are off limits either by regulation (e.g. each house should be on X number of acres) or by conservation.  Less land available will drive up property values if that community is deemed "desirable".  Please note that while such things might seem to be the right things now, they may indeed be parts of the reason why your children may not be able to buy a house in Gilford when the time comes - just look at CA for examples of this happening now.

 

It is the Law of Unintended Consequences 

Continue reading "Assessments (and other things) - Part 2" »

Posted by Skip at 08:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I think that this blog may start to be getting the response that we were hoping for - to give a voice to those that would otherwise remain silent as they fear (perceived or real; it matters not) retribution or bad reactions  from those that might know them. 

Here is one person (that I have vetted as living in Gilford) reaction to the updated assessments.

I'm sure the 10.9% budget proposal has you as up tight as I am. I think of your relationship with Doug & Neil and it reminds me of the "Tax Cap" they pushed thru in Laconia. I like the results of that so far. Maybe Gilford should not be far behind? I was a Mass resident (you probably were also) when the tax cap was implemented there and it had a very positive effect.

As near as I can tell, the 10.9% doesn't really touch the new house for the police - imagine that added on. I drove by the fire house yesterday while all doors were open and noticed all bays full - imagine what's next when the latest greatest fire truck arrives.

Note: I have corrected his percentage rate.... 

Guess you can tell from the couple of comments, I'm on your side - keep up the good work! 

MPBBH

=======================================

Subject:    So this is the Tax Abatement Procedure, eh? 

I thought it might be useful to share my perceptions of the proceedings relative to our Tax Abatement Application with the selectmen.

1. It is probably fairly typical that the Abatement Application follows an unsuccessful attempt to resolve differences with the Appraiser. This was the case with our property appraisal (an 87% increase). As a taxpayer with a difference of opinion on the appraisal put forth, it would seem reasonable that the abatement process directly involve the assessors (Selectmen). The application goes in to the appraiser’s office for his review and consideration. We filed in December of 2005. It is more than coincidence that the application was forwarded for hearing at the final Selectmen’s meeting prior to the deadline (July 1), and after my phone call to a selectmen. We appreciate your efforts.. Would the hearing have happened without the phone call? Our perception is NO, meaning it would automatically become a denial.

1. As the hearing proceeded it became apparent that the Selectmen had none of the data supplied in the Abatement Application. How can the Board seriously consider an application without the data provided? What this leaves is for the Board to simply take the recommendation of the Appraiser which the Board did. The land appraised value increase was reduced to a 71% increase from 87%,  in comparison to the average in the neighborhood of 43%.

1. Perhaps if the selectmen do not have the time and effort to dedicate to the process, a seperate Board of Assesors would make sense to hear a comprehensive appraisal issue.. We have always been willing to pay our fair share of taxes but are still not convinced that the current appraisal reflects a “Fair Share”. The result will be a lack of willingness on our part to vote for future capital improvements that further impact our property taxes.

Posted by Skip at 08:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)