PDA

View Full Version : Local Mission (KS) on a mission to implement new "driveway tax"


healthpellets
08-19-2010, 07:00 PM
Basically, you pay based on how many "trips" your property produces.

For instance, a single family home produces 9.5 trips per day, resulting in a yearly driveway tax of $72.

A box store produces 8500 trips per day, and may be taxed upwards of $60,000 a year. Of course, we'll have to see how their agreed tax breaks account for new taxes.

Of course, this is all being implemented because instead of cutting spending, the Mission city council wants to spend more. And since property taxes and sales taxes can't be counted on for consistent funds, they found a new way to create a source of income.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/18/2159938/mission-to-impose-driveway-tax.html

Instead of relying on sales and property taxes for roads, the city will start charging fees based on how much traffic properties produce.

The City Council on Wednesday night approved a new fee charging every homeowner $72 a year and small businesses $3,558 a year beginning in December.

The fee is expected to raise $1.2 million a year to help finance $38 million in road improvements during the next 10 years. It also will help fund a new express bus service between Overland Park and the Country Club Plaza that will run through Mission.

City officials said they desperately needed the money for deteriorating streets. But some residents said itís a bad time economically for whatís essentially a tax increase.

Bwana
08-19-2010, 07:09 PM
:spock:

Seriously, what's next, perhaps a flush tax. Every time you give the old thunder cup a pull, you get taxed fifty cents. Someone round these brain children up and run them through a wood chipper.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 07:36 PM
i was under the impression, and i'm pretty new to these parts, that all these little suburbs like mission, fairway, leawood, etc are all pretty conservative.

am i wrong there?

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 07:44 PM
i was under the impression, and i'm pretty new to these parts, that all these little suburbs like mission, fairway, leawood, etc are all pretty conservative.

am i wrong there?

Extremely and they are also wealthy for the most part.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 07:47 PM
Extremely and they are also wealthy for the most part.

that's what i thought. but i couldn't figure out how they talked themselves in to this new tax which, in some cases, is pretty substantial.

Saul Good
08-19-2010, 08:51 PM
Extremely and they are also wealthy for the most part.

Mission is not a wealthy area.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 09:00 PM
Mission is not a wealthy area.

He asked about all the suburbs and they are almost all wealthy which is what I said.

Out of 630 cities in Kansas they rank 17th right behind Shawnee Mission

Saul Good
08-19-2010, 09:08 PM
He asked about all the suburbs and they are almost all wealthy which is what I said.

Out of 630 cities in Kansas they rank 17th right behind Shawnee Mission

Just clarifying.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 09:11 PM
Just clarifying.

It's cool. I think it is all kind of confusing because you have Shawnee Mission, Mission, Mission Hills, Mission Woods...fuck how many Missions do we need in 1 county?

Saul Good
08-19-2010, 09:12 PM
It's cool. I think it is all kind of confusing because you have Shawnee Mission, Mission, Mission Hills, Mission Woods...**** how many Missions do we need in 1 county?

I don't think that Shawnee Mission is an actual city. It's more of a district. There is Shawnee and Mission. It's kind of like Ray-Pec.

dirk digler
08-19-2010, 09:22 PM
I don't think that Shawnee Mission is an actual city. It's more of a district. There is Shawnee and Mission. It's kind of like Ray-Pec.

I learn something new everyday. Thanks Saul.

Saul Good
08-19-2010, 09:31 PM
I learn something new everyday. Thanks Saul.

Don't take it to the bank. I'm not 100% sure about it, but I think it's right.

blaise
08-19-2010, 10:36 PM
It seems like a double tax. You already pay property tax on the property.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 10:38 PM
It seems like a double tax. You already pay property tax on the property.

i'd much prefer a driveway tax instead of a property tax since you already paid a tax on the property when you purchased it.

and the driveway tax seems like a more even way to distribute the burden.

Bowser
08-19-2010, 10:42 PM
Mission is not a wealthy area.Should be, from all the revenue they garner from nabbing speeders on a two mile stretch of I-35.

blaise
08-19-2010, 10:46 PM
i'd much prefer a driveway tax instead of a property tax since you already paid a tax on the property when you purchased it.

and the driveway tax seems like a more even way to distribute the burden.

Maybe more even, but not one that would get any Mission politician much support from voters. If you just split the tax by driveways instead of property value the people in $125,000 homes would be paying the same as the people in $500,000 homes. So I would think the $125,000 home owner would see his taxes go up. The city would want the net dollars coming in to be the same.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 10:48 PM
Maybe more even, but not one that would get any Mission politician much support from voters. If you just split the tax by driveways instead of property value the people in $125,000 homes would be paying the same as the people in $500,000 homes. So I would think the $125,000 home owner would see his taxes go up. The city would want the net dollars coming in to be the same.

but the people in the 500k homes paid more tax when they purchased the home and property, no?

blaise
08-19-2010, 10:54 PM
but the people in the 500k homes paid more tax when they purchased the home and property, no?

That's true, and I'm not arguing which is more fair. The city wants the tax income every year, and they get it from yearly property taxes. They're not going to do anything that causes them to get less income. So, the net dollars from a driveway tax (if it was used instead of a property tax) would have to at least equal what the city received under the current system. To do that I would think the taxes on the smaller homes would need to go up, if you're just splitting it equally between driveways. So, any city council member or mayor that supported it would basically be guaranteed to be voted out in the next election.
But anyway, they want to tax both, the property and the driveway, and the cars that use the driveway.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 11:09 PM
That's true, and I'm not arguing which is more fair. The city wants the tax income every year, and they get it from yearly property taxes. They're not going to do anything that causes them to get less income. So, the net dollars from a driveway tax (if it was used instead of a property tax) would have to at least equal what the city received under the current system. To do that I would think the taxes on the smaller homes would need to go up, if you're just splitting it equally between driveways. So, any city council member or mayor that supported it would basically be guaranteed to be voted out in the next election.
But anyway, they want to tax both, the property and the driveway, and the cars that use the driveway.

if the area is as conservative as i believe it to be, it seems like they're setting themselves up to be voted out anyway.

if they were truly conservatives, they'd be looking at removing the property tax and using the driveway tax only.

they'd also be looking at doing other things to save money, like getting rid of their police force and contracting with the county or KCK. or maybe a town of 10000 needs their own police force...but i bet they could do a contracting bit to save money.

Guru
08-20-2010, 06:01 AM
I remember when Graves promised to eliminate personal property taxes on our vehicles. Damn liar!!!!

pikesome
08-20-2010, 06:36 AM
I lived in Mission for a year a couple of years ago. I don't remember it being super conservative or wealthy. What I do remember is that the town has two pretty different groups. There are the residents, mostly older suburb types and all of the people who work there. Something like two thirds of their daytime residents just work there.

This might be a way to squeeze more cash out of all those "out-o-towners" That's the golden goose for Mission IIRC.

Warrior5
08-20-2010, 07:08 AM
if the area is as conservative as i believe it to be, it seems like they're setting themselves up to be voted out anyway.

if they were truly conservatives, they'd be looking at removing the property tax and using the driveway tax only.

Pretty sure the area is not "conservative"... it's Dennis Moore's district, which includes Mission, Lawrence, Olathe, and KCK.

dirk digler
08-20-2010, 07:43 AM
Pretty sure the area is not "conservative"... it's Dennis Moore's district, which includes Mission, Lawrence, Olathe, and KCK.

Everything I have read it is conservative or at least votes the clear majority of the time Republican. Moore was the first Dem to win in that district since it was created around 1875.

I could be wrong but in that area there is not 1 Dem mayor.

Moore has been a perennial target for the GOP but he has always managed to win re-election despite the conservative nature of his district. However, President Barack Obama narrowly won the 3rd district in the 2008 presidential race.

Saul Good
08-20-2010, 07:48 AM
Median household income = $42,298.

For comparison, Overland Park = $72,319, Leawood = $126,935, Olathe = $61,111, Lenexa = $61,990, Shawnee = $59,626.

It is literally surrounded by cities that have a MUCH higher median income. It's an older town. I would guess that there are a lot of retirees that bring down the numbers some, but that would mostly be speculation.

Saul Good
08-20-2010, 07:49 AM
Everything I have read it is conservative or at least votes the clear majority of the time Republican. Moore was the first Dem to win in that district since it was created around 1875.

I could be wrong but in that area there is not 1 Dem mayor.

Well, they have had a Democrat as a rep for several terms, and they voted for Obama. I would call that moderate at worst. I certainly wouldn't call it extremely conservative nor would I call it wealthy.

dirk digler
08-20-2010, 08:18 AM
Well, they have had a Democrat as a rep for several terms, and they voted for Obama. I would call that moderate at worst. I certainly wouldn't call it extremely conservative nor would I call it wealthy.

Outside of Moore it has been a conservative\Republican district has is the whole state for that matter.

Obama won 51%-48% in that district and was put over the top mostly by KCK black voters which saw a 7% increase in turnout that year and college voters at KU.

Moore’s moderate mien and voting record, his history of winning votes in Johnson County and internecine Republican fighting enabled him to win reelection five times. He won 65%-34% in 2006, his best showing, and against challenger Nick Jordan, a moderate touted by national Republicans, he won by the very solid margin of 56%-40%. Moore was undoubtedly helped by the Obama candidacy in 2008 in the three distinct parts of the district.

●In Wyandotte County, which includes Kansas City, Kansas, with its black community; turnout was up 7% (despite zero population growth (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-01.html)) between 2004 and 2008 and Obama carried the county 70%-29%, with a 23,000-vote margin.

●Historically Republican Johnson County, containing many of the affluent suburbs of metro Kansas City, is now the largest and highest-voting county in Kansas. Turnout in 2008 was up 10% from 2004. In that year Johnson County voted 61%-38% for George W. Bush; in 2008 it voted only 54%-45% for John McCain. The Republican margin was cut from 60,000 to 25,000—barely enough to offset the Obama margin in much smaller Wyandotte County. Johnson County has had robust population growth (8% in 2004-08) and turnout seems likely to be robust in this affluent area in 2010.

●The 3rd district also includes part of Douglas County, including most of the old New England Yankee-established town of Lawrence, home of the University of Kansas. Historically Douglas County was Republican and in presidential elections from 1920 to 1988 voted Democratic only once, in 1964. But starting in 1992 it has voted Democratic in every presidential election. Kansas was not a target state, so we can assume that the Obama campaign did not spend lavishly on organization here; even so, turnout was up 7% countywide in 2008 over 2004, and the Democratic margin increased from 57%-41% to 64%-34%. In popular votes the margin doubled from 8,000 votes to 16,000 votes.

HonestChieffan
08-20-2010, 08:47 AM
As long as we who demand services continue to demand more and more, there will be continued taxes applied in creative ways to pay for what the masses demand. Its as simple as that. When we elect people with the will and guts who will start cutting spending we have some hope. But as it stands if you expect perfect roads, ideal city parks, fancy street lights and all the other garbage people demand and have no idea what it costs, then the price has to be paid.

bobbymitch
08-20-2010, 09:18 PM
I would seriously fight that tax. Prove to me that I use my driveway, on average, 9.5 times a day. If you are going to charge me a little more than $7.50 for each in/out, ya better put a counter on it.

We average 2 a day, 4 on a heavy day.

Another city council using some engineer's SWAG, pulling numbers out of his bung hole.

I'm sure that there are city residents who don't even have a car. Lot's of luck collecting the tax on them.

HonestChieffan
08-20-2010, 09:35 PM
If you voted for Obama you should not complain about taxes...fed state or local

banyon
08-20-2010, 10:26 PM
Mission, KS writes more tickets per capita than any other jurisdiction in the state of Kansas.

When I used to handle traffic defense all over the state, we got about the same volume from Mission as we got from Wichita. it was ridiculous. They like to make money off of you.

healthpellets
08-20-2010, 10:36 PM
Mission, KS writes more tickets per capita than any other jurisdiction in the state of Kansas.

When I used to handle traffic defense all over the state, we got about the same volume from Mission as we got from Wichita. it was ridiculous. They like to make money off of you.

since you have a different perspective, do you think it's necessary for Mission to have their own police force? or can a burb of 10k people contract out effectively?

banyon
08-20-2010, 10:38 PM
since you have a different perspective, do you think it's necessary for Mission to have their own police force? or can a burb of 10k people contract out effectively?

What do you mean contract it out? To a private security force?

healthpellets
08-20-2010, 10:42 PM
What do you mean contract it out? To a private security force?

smaller towns will contract out law enforcement to counties or bigger surrounding cities.

assuming it's cheaper than running their own.

banyon
08-20-2010, 10:44 PM
smaller towns will contract out law enforcement to counties or bigger surrounding cities.

assuming it's cheaper than running their own.

Is it possible for Mission to do that? Sure!


But why would the city council approach that while they are raking in the dough?

healthpellets
08-20-2010, 10:46 PM
Is it possible for Mission to do that? Sure!


But why would the city council approach that while they are raking in the dough?

i'd wonder if the income from the PD is funding the PD or is being used to fund the rest of the city too. just thinking of alternatives to raising taxes.

banyon
08-20-2010, 11:10 PM
i'd wonder if the income from the PD is funding the PD or is being used to fund the rest of the city too. just thinking of alternatives to raising taxes.

I would wager it goes into all the city coffers.

alnorth
08-20-2010, 11:20 PM
This whole "we need consistent income" complaint doesn't fly with me. I understand that it is sooo difficult and annoying for a state or a city to get a ton of money then nothing as our fortunes rise and fall, but it is not good public policy to demand the same $x year after year, and screw us when we are broke.

/rant on

If we can afford it (we make more money, buy more stuff) then you, the state and city, get to rake in a bonus. Wonderul, good for you. Before you start making long-term budgets and community projects based on making that amount of money forever, I suggest you save some of the freaking extra windfall tax money for the lean years so you dont ream us when we lose our job and cant afford to pay you what we paid 3 years ago.

Guess what, you stupid states and cities: that is what we do.

Stewie
08-21-2010, 02:19 PM
Heh! Mission is NOT a wealthy area by a long shot. While the uninformed seem to think everyone in JoCo is dripping money out their assholes, it's not true. You'd be hard-pressed to find a $250K home there. Are there some?... sure. It's not the norm by any stretch.

There is no Shawnee Mission except for the post office that's in Mission.

The reason "Mission" is a popular name is that the Shawnee Indian Mission is located in Johnson County. It was a pretty big deal 150 years ago.

googlegoogle
08-21-2010, 08:41 PM
$chool$

privatize and everyones taxes go down.

healthpellets
08-21-2010, 09:06 PM
$chool$

privatize and everyones taxes go down.

oh god! what about the unions! wait, kids! what about the kids? we can't trust corporations that rely on results to make a profit! it's about the kids i tell ya.