Cast your vote on Transformation

hudson 1 year, 4 months ago

NO !

JCsleeper 1 year, 4 months ago

Not only NO, but HECK NO !Strong If these ideas were this great, private entities would be bidding for these projects. Who benefits from these projects? Smartphone apps? Trolleys? Redoing uptwon streetscapes (again)? Funds spent on things they don't have deeds for? If they by chance bring in more tax revenues, does anyone believe the city will reward the taxpayers with lower taxes ? Gosh, maybe JC residents should be grateful that the city let's 'em keep some of their earned income. Anybody see the ambulance tax funds?

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 4 months ago

Have you people got a better idea how to attract the young professionals that might settle here, have families, and pay taxes to keep the town going? The old people like low taxes but they don't contribute going forward. They have done their part but that's in the past. We need a future and it doesn't come from griping and whining and envy.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 4 months ago

You could study what Oklahoma City has done. The tax was used to design and construct civil amenities, and the amenities attracted the young professionals. They actually made it work. That's what the City and the Chamber have in mind. I'm not a Chamber fan but we really need to do something different to keep from drying up and blowing away.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 4 months ago

Oklahoma City is a lot bigger than Jefferson City, but twenty years ago it was just as dead. They had the same problems we do on a larger scale. In 1995, Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal courthouse. In 1999 they had a tornado, a big one.

You might consider the idea that people will pay more taxes if they can see they are getting value. That's the Oklahoma City,Oklahoma story and the Columbia, Missouri story. They are a lot more positive than the Jefferson City, Missouri story.

JCLifer 1 year, 4 months ago

That's the problem here. The Chamber wants everyone to pay more taxes, but they aren't going to help everyone. Most of these projects are for rich business owners or for visitors who might come here. There isn't anything for the working people who already live here, but the Chamber expects working people to pay for all of it.

If these projects were such a good idea, private investors would be scrambling to do these things and build this stuff with their own money.

I don't mind taxes if they are used to benefit most of society, but this tax will not be used to benefit me or my family, but we will have to pay it.

BTW: What happened to the City's ambulance tax they don't need because the couty pays for the ambulance service?

What happened to that huge hotel tax we passed last year that was supposed to build a convention center?

How much of a tax increase will the schools want to build another high school that we so desparately need?

How is the city going to fix all these crumbling streets, stormwater problems, lack of sidewalks and crumbling sidewalks, and finish putting in curbs and gutters? We have much more important needs that trolleys, smart phone apps, and paying to rehab St. Mary's hospital building for Lincoln University.

VOTE NO.

1OPINION43 1 year, 4 months ago

I think it is important to vote no on this issue. The Chamber, the City Administration, the City Council and the power players in this community must learn to live within the city’s budget as provided by the current tax base. Many of us have had to learn to live within our own budgets and taking more away will only result in less money to spend in the community. We cannot continue to add sales tax upon sales tax every time there is a want. Some of the ideas do have merit but should be addressed through our current tax base and not by adding another sales tax. I strongly suggest the Chamber seek private investment to accomplish these goals. I also have concerns with accounting for the use of this tax over the next ten years. What happens in ten years if all the wants are not filled? No doubt, another sales tax or an extension of the tax. Once a sales tax is enacted it difficult to make it go away. In the mean time the city will no doubt have other wants over the years and will pursue other sales taxes as well, while continuing to increase sewer fees or let the garbage company get a 4.8% raise in fees. Further I do not believe that an exorbitant tax base will do anything to attract young professionals to the city. So rank and file state workers, retirees, other fixed income individuals, lower wage earners and the unemployed, please go to the poles and vote no on the Transformation Sales Tax!

JCsleeper 1 year, 4 months ago

And when the loft apartments and other ameneties have attracted young professionals, they are going to work at what? Food service? Retail? Dead-end state jobs? If these ameneties do not attract businesses that have solid career paths, young professionals will locate elsewhere as they are doing now. $40M is a lot of tax dollars t gamble-but if it's someone else's money, what the heck. If the Chamber wants more revenues from taxes, perhaps they should make the effort to convince legislators to increase the purchasing power of the employees of the area's largest employer.

JCLifer 1 year, 4 months ago

Geeze! This town has enough lawyers and lobbiests.

The future is for skilled technical workers. That is where the growth and jobs will be.

Aiming for young professionals is crazy. This little town will never have the fancy and trendy amenities they want. Better to shoot for a strong middle class family town full of skilled technical jobs that will pay way more than all the low skill state clerk jobs.

This council, mayor, and Chamber are driving us to a path of high taxes, high debt for projects to benefit the rich snobs and uptown businesses at the expense of the taxpayers who are struggling in this recession with no end in sight. Just hundreds more state layoffs every year.

VOTE NO. This high tax boondoggle won't create any jobs.

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

What do you mean that the future is for skilled technical workers? Not arguing (for once), just interested.

I need to go to one of the infomration sessions and do more research on this project. As a J.C. boy born and raised, I'm glad to see leadership with a vision for this town. There's always been too many comfortable old people with familiar last names in charge who have been content to sit on the status quo, content for J.C. to be just another midwestern town where there's nothing to do but go to church and eat at some chain feedbag in a strip mall. This is the capitol city, and we're part of a beautiful, historic landscape. We deserve a town that gives us a reason to be here other than the fact that we're born here.

The young brain drain is a real problem. I was one of the young people who left, and I've lived in other towns where I saw investment in the community pay off big time. I came back for reasons that have nothing to do with the town, but I brought someone with me who is not tied to the town the way I am. I want that person to be proud to live here, too. I am HAPPY to pay a very slightly higher sales tax if it means a better Jeff City.

On the other hand, I hate the conference center idea because all the data shows it is a bad idea. If the same people who signed off on the conference center are overseeing these projects, well... color me skeptical. Not necessarily opposed, just cautious.

So I need to do more research. I hope everyone considers this carefully, but with an open mind and without reflexive, knee-jerk responses. This might be a good idea, but as a good ol' Missouri boy I need them to "show me."

JCLifer 1 year, 4 months ago

gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf

Sequoia 1 year, 4 months ago

Interesting stuff in there... but, to be fair, nothing that won't come with its own tax burden.

JC27 1 year, 4 months ago

Vote No on this tax increase. It's unacceptable to tax the entire community for the good of the downtown businesses. If they want to improve the area then they can do it themselves. The Chamber of Commerece should not be allowed to levy a sales tax and that is exactly what is happening here. This does nothing to bring lasting job growth to our community. Remember, these are the same people pushing the conference center and how did that work out? Here they are less than a year later with their hands out asking for 10 million more dollars. Everyone opposed needs to show up on voting day or they will slip this thing past us too.

JCLifer 1 year, 4 months ago

How about building some amenities that local citizens would use with this tax money? We need an outdoor ampitheater for summertime symphony concerts, bands, and plays.

How about cleaning up the parks and improving the equipment?

Build a few more shelters at the parks for family reunions, BBQs, and meetings.

Put some lighting in the parks so they can be used after dark. Better bathrooms, etc.

How about a community center where people can come for benefit dinners, 60's and 70's concerts, schools can use for special activities, etc.

How about finishing 179 so that it connects to Hwy 50 at the Taos exit?

Build some stuff to benefit the taxpayers with taxpayers money. Let the uptown merchants build their own stuff and pay for it.

JMO 1 year, 4 months ago

Having looked over the things they'll be spending the taxes on, my first question is why the city is spending money on transforming St. Mary's into annexes, nursing school, children's discovery zone and things connected with Lincoln? Or do I have that wrong? The city doesn't own Lincoln or St. Mary's, right? The city won't get the revenue from the nursing school and children's activities, right? I think the old St. Mary's is a great spot for future use, but how does it benefit the city? If it only benefits LU, then shouldn't LU pay for that? Why not put the conference center in there if there's going to be one? You'd think they could renovate a huge existing building, complete with parking garage, easier than building a brand new one. I could get behind something like a community health center, a community center and such...But the city doesn't appear to be buying the property, just spending money for Lincoln to benefit.

And what exactly is wrong with the uptown streetscape now? I think it looks pretty good - or would if there were fewer empty businesses. Wasn't that just done a few years ago? Or am I so old that it just seems like yesterday. If they only mean to do from Adams to Layfayette, I suppose I have less problem. I don't have a serious objection to generally sprucing up the city or just repairing and updating things like the water mains - heck, the one in front of the capital has broken at least twice I can think of, so I'm sure they need work.

If I have my facts completely wrong, by all means let me know. I still am having a little problem figuring out where they city is going with these taxes, but they seem to not be benefitting the taxpayers very much.

JMO 1 year, 4 months ago

Well okay, they say the conference center at St. Mary's isn't feasible. I'm not an architect, so maybe that's true. But my other questions remain.

thatguyagain 1 year, 4 months ago

The commenters on this site are by and large negative so I'm sure many will comment back but I really don't care. Like every person, I also HATE paying taxes.

However, I will be voting YES for Transformation. I've been involved with the process and understand it has many parts that together change the economic landscape of the city. Individually, they don't - as many here have pointed out. The plan laid before us has been well designed and includes many safeguards. This is our time to make a change in Jefferson City and build economic resilience against state jobs. The projects themselves are not designed to directly employ people. They're designed to make the community attractive for private investors to locate here and make it feasible. My job deals heavily with small businesses. As an example of what Transformation can do, I am in discussions with a small business with a national footprint that wants to locate in downtown Jefferson City IF Transformation passes. If it doesn't, they're probably going elsewhere. The capital injection for that business? Almost $1 Million. Not $1 Million from the tax, $1 Million private dollars. They're rehabbing old buildings, employing high paying people, and bringing national attention to Jefferson City. See the real point of Transformation? Oh, and I'm a young professional and don't consider this rhetoric. My friends who have located elsewhere have lamented on how stubborn and regressive this city is. Remember the casino that went to Boonville because people were afraid of crime? Anyone who's been there can attest there does not seem to be a crime problem in Boonville. Now we can prove them wrong by supporting growth. Please join me in voting YES February 7th to help demonstrate we are a city interested in the future and the naysayers on the NT blog are in the minority. Thank you.

rodinman 1 year, 4 months ago

Read and reread all the comments and the only "negative" thread was that most of the comments are against passing the tax. Not negative comments but stating they will vote "no." I surmise not agreeing with you and supporting another tax is negative.

Gabrielle 1 year, 4 months ago

It sounds like Jeff City had an opportunity to have the casino that went to Boonville? What year was that discussion/vote had?

JMO 1 year, 4 months ago

I'm somewhat embarassed to admit I voted against the casino. Not because I think gambling is bad or that I thought it would bring in crime, I love to go to the casino. I would have liked to have had one here. My one and only problem was it didn't have (that I saw) any restrictions on where the darn thing was going to be nor could I get any answers at the time as to where they wanted to put it. What I didn't want was to have people driving across the bridge and see the capital dome and a big neon casino sign competing for your attention. If I had seen any indication of where they were going to put it promoted by the people who wanted it, and it was a decent distance from the capital, I'd have voted yes. So my vote at least was due to poor advertising by the promoters of the casino.

Gabrielle 1 year, 4 months ago

JMO: as I see it, you have every right to value what you value and cast your vote accordingly. I believe I remember voting on this. That was a concern of mine as well. Nothing wrong with voters expecting plans be outlined clearly.

The reason I asked my question is b/c to me it sounds like thatquyagain is saying the casino went to Boonville b/c JC said 'no. I remember voting on this and - at that time - there was a casino in Boonville. Part of the dicussion was crime and that Boonville was doing well with the casino. I am unclear if there was a vote prior to that - prior to Boonvile getting their casino. Was there another vote earlier? A discussion? here in Jefferson City?

JMO 1 year, 4 months ago

So, thatguyagain, maybe YOU can answer my question? Why should the taxpayers pay to build annexes and nursing schools for LU? Shouldn't Lincoln pay for it?

News Tribune