Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2010 House Bill 2719 (Allowing cities of high population density to impose sales and use taxes) [by LGI on January 13, 2010]It is about time another alternative to the 10,000 population threshold was introduced. This will allow cities to annex adjacent urbanized areas to improve their quality of life through through the provision of municipal services. Counties cannot adequately service these areas, and those remaining are largely low-moderate income neighborhoods with no commercial that won't pay their pay without the City having some incentive to take them under their wing.
Reply
Should it be solely the option of the annexing city's legislature to determine it needs additional revenue? Have we seen any (even one) legislature that hasn't always decided it needs more revenue? I would believe that there ought to be some (relatively) independent agency that would look at the situation to determine that a remedy is needed.
Reply
Why should the money come out of the state's portion of the sales tax? It was the county that let the previously unincorporated area decline before annexation. I don't want to pay for the problems in Pierce County (although I (living in King County) am convinced that the taxpayers of Asotin County do wish to pay for problems in both King and Pierce Counties[:'(])
Reply
View Full Conversation