- Time to sweep house
- December 11, 2012 - 22:13
@ Remington - Yes we have a good many self-serving councillors but you have the wrong list. Among the four you mention, there are perhaps two that are deserving of re-election. They are O'Leary and Galgay - the first because she has the taxpayer's interests at heart and is not afraid to speak her mind; the second because, although he is sometimes on the wrong side of major issues, he is probably one of the more objective, intelligent and selfless members of council. Indeed beyond O'Leary and Galgay, there are none who deserve re-election. To see why, just 'Happily Retired'. The worst offenders unquestionably are O'Keefe and Colbert.
- Happily Retired
- December 11, 2012 - 10:32
The Telegram headline is incorrect and totally misleading, (please try to make these headlines a little accurate) and Councillor Breen must be trying to be cute, hiding behind the mill rate argument. The TRUTH is, we will be facing large tax increases, much higher than the 3.8% increase in city expenditures. I certainly feel like I'm being gouged when I have to pay for expenditures like an overly expensive, and useless skating rink at Bannerman Park, a fence for the Federal Government, or a $40 million swimming pool at Wedgewood Park, especially when the Y has built one around the corner. All of this to satisfy elitist, special interest groups who have council's ear. But I guess it's our own fault, we keep electing these self-entitled clowns, who are only interested building their own empires.
- December 11, 2012 - 09:21
I am sick and tired of this bunch of goons at city hall trying to balance a budget on the backs of the residents.Having said that,we are the people who voted these clowns in there in the first place.However,when the next election comes around just don't give lip service to the election,get out there and vote for some competent people.Duff,O'Leary Galgay,collins and Hickman will have to be replaced if we want to attract new industry.By allowing new office towers,no matter how high they are will add significent revenues in taxes to the city and this will give the residents a little break from the soaring rates.Just look at this bunch,they voted in favour of erecting a fence at Harbour Front and also gave the feds a gift by agreeing to pay for half the cost and all of a sudden they start to think,maybe we shouldn't have done this.Unless we get leadership at the top,as of now we have Zilch,we are destined to keep shelling out our dollars to these goons to do as they see fit with it.Last word,they have to be replaced especially the ones i mentioned in the preceeding paragrapgs.
- moe st.cool
- December 11, 2012 - 07:49
Gues who's going to be paying for this increase? My tenant.
- December 10, 2012 - 21:45
I have been a homeowner in St. John's for 15 years and have seen my property taxes go up substantially with each new assessment cycle. This budget is no exception. With the increase in my house value, even with the reduction in mil rate, I will pay an additional $215 in taxes this year. I live in a modest neighbourhood of Airport Heights with not even a playground within walking distance. My home is a basic side-split just under 15 years old. My friend owns a home in the Baird Subdivision and has seen similar increases over the past 15 years, with over a $200 increase this again this year. I figured that everyone must be seeing an equivalent increase, until I spoke with a friend who lives in a more upscale executive house off Newfoundland Drive...who will actually see his property tax DECREASE by just under $50. Where is the equitable distribution of tax increases? Why do two people living in regular modest houses each pay over $200 more when someone in a larger house in a richer neighbourhaood pay LESS? Can someone please explain?
- December 10, 2012 - 19:55
While the City of St. John's' budget has some property tax reductions, there are many flaws with this budget. For starters, most residents will be paying substantially higher taxes, possibly mill rate increases in 2014 and 2015 which will result in Mayor O'Keefe losing his job come 2013, and worse of all, a proposed increase to the accommodation which could be province wide and resulting in Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism industry being crippled. Therefore, in order to stop St. John's from telling the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador what to do, especially a proposed accommodation tax increase that will be in effect province wide, the Dunderdale Government should do the right thing to protect the tourism industry and stop the tax increase. That way, the government sends a message that St. John's doesn't own Newfoundland and Labrador.
- Seamus Connors
- December 11, 2012 - 10:53
I have worked in Hospitality industry for 8 years and been a Sales Manager for about 4. Let me tell you, the increase in the accomodation tax will not hurt the industry in St. John's or the rest of Newfoundland for that matter. What is hurting the industry there is Newfoundland's lack of presence in virtually all of the major industry events. As a native, I am shocked whenever I go to an event and see that there is no representative from Newfoundland. The industry will never grow there until this is remedied. The accomodation tax is a standard thing accross the industry and at a comparable rate.
- December 10, 2012 - 18:08
And, as residents, we should be happy with this? St John's costs have been spiraling out of line with any reasonable measurement. We need to replace ALL current members of the current council with new people committed to containg costs. Here is the budget growth since 2000, expenses that year were $105,014,140. Expenses for 2011 were 224,227,582, an increase of 119, 213, 442 a growth of about 114% over 11 years. I am sure we have all seen our incomes grow by the same percentage in that timeframe. Interesting that they are sayiny expense costs are "only" going up by 3.8% from last year, if that is so I would think that the expansion (new houses and business) would cover much of that and there should be no need for them to increase my property tax by about 34% in 2013.
- Josh Harris
- December 10, 2012 - 16:21
I'm sure the unions are paying attention to this. Balanced budgets, reduced mil rates, etc, all mean that they can extort more money out of the city. There's no reason why someone picking up garbage shouldn't make $100k is there?