the bond vote of 69 million

seems like a keep up with the pennfields, harpers, lakeviews of the world. School and its additional expense burdens are creating issues on homeowners that are tapping out the equity of people in this community. When you like at all the "it will only cost x" its all these little amounts that are getting to be quite substantial. It has made me rethink my real estate platforms in terms of investing. Taxation has gotten to be such a big bite that along with cost of capital, cost of improvements to properties, municipalities applying there rules aka fees, it is out of hand it is no wonder michigan is one of the nations leaders in foreclosure. What steps are we doing to help with that? I have seen the lengths we will go to help 200 retirees from police and fire, but what lengths are we going to save peoples homes? The bottom line is the cbdg monies are being gobbled up in fees and wages and administration of programs but very little in the form of actually getting to the end users. the bond vote in this case is to vague and not specific to wear such a large tax collar for. it seems that there starting in the wrong spot with the high school, i would think elementary and middle school development would be more a logical place to start but then again with the other high schools it seems to be a follow the jones' thinking. The analogy of the newspaper keeps getting more ridiculous as they state the homeowner of a 65,000 home reality is with the assessing in place that we have most homes are assessed higher than this figure and again with homes being foreclosed on at such a high rate it is a bad time to have this bond come up. Also when you look at the totality and factor in rental units in the city there are assessed at a higher mill rate which in effect is even a higher tax burden. I wish the whole totality of all three phases and the corresponding expenses would be outlined, just as in business you would plan out all phases and there costs it would only seem prudent when you are asking tax payers for more money, why not tell them the whole amount you seek.

downtown

well time will tell if the blueprints for downtown will take baby steps or giant strides, interestingly i have been working on utilizing the MSHDA dollars for further development hopefully soon we will see if those funds re appear or are just being lost. The focus for downtown to truly have any shot of making it vibrant is a cultural change. A change that requires investment, inducements to invest, and most importantly...................people and with people comes life and commerce into the area even it its only a few here and there, think about our own spending habits and where we shop and eat and bank and oooo yea get insurance and such those are mainly habitual practices and if we could add more people to the downtown core through inducements to invest which is precisely what the MSHDA money was there for in the first place. I would hope personal issues could be set aside and that programs that benefit the masses can be seen for that not that one particular property owner or another ends up with a better property after investment.

Last nights city commission meeting again amazes, i mean when you think of the number of people on the board and over ten consent agenda items and no one on the board really ever says no and most of the resolutions year in and year out that is the case as well.

When one looks at the totality of the actions of our commission it causes wonder, while i agree with the logic behind most of the abatement considerations seems like we would more actively promote those tax abatements to any and all businesses.

Maybe in downtown instead of having one tax free rennessaince zone aka one buliding 70 west michigan maybe petition to make the entire downtown "the zone" this would stimulate purchase and development at a much faster pace and i think would make the idea of blueprints something of more meaning and substance

the retiree raise

Well it will be interesting what the final tab is going to cost tax payers as to the retirement program. They voted a straight across the board increase to pensions of 200 a month unless you earned 1000 then you went to 1300. This said what is important to note that those funds could go to any use what so ever. So if the issue was really health care why wouldnt we focus all the choices into health. I find it ridiculous that some retirees make over 60,000 a year retired and then we add to this amount. This community is comprised in excess of 50,000 people the retiree pool in question is approximately 200 people.

The intent at city commission was to take "care of the bottom" a quote used by one of the retirees, but in the end the futhered the gap from top to bottom. To further reward people making over double what the average in battle creek make while they sit at home is an outrage not only to the taxpayers at large but the other retirees. The retirees who are in the 1000-2000 dollar range a month they are the ones that the help should have gone out to.

The health plan also needs to not be so lucrative, i mean if you retiree with 20 years in and full benefits you could in essence "retire" at age 38. That said many of the people in the pool work second jobs or i should say start second careers but alas many opt out of the new careers health plan because battle creeks is too good. Better solution is to take care of the "bottom" and create a lesser plan that would create excess cash by being lesser and working with a hardship pool when needed, or buy allowing retirees to ala carte to build a bigger plan. Facts are that for the most part most of us do not use all or any of the benefits of a health plan, but rest assured the premiums charged are as if you do.

The committee that is being formulated is a good idea, bad idea, by having a five member board with two retirees, one active and one citizen and one commissioner is not wise, a board of unrelated people who do not have an interest other than general welfare are the people who should be selected, what this process has shown us over several months that there could be no consensus and there was an willingness to make changes that were needed. That would be the same in hardship evaluation and by having those closest to there friends, co workers, and such is a formula for potential abuse.

_