Quote:
Originally Posted by tis
It's true about the sports. Yet many kids in our neighborhood learned to love the lake and have grown up and come back to live. I have always worried though that more and more people will say it's not worth the work and the expense, especially the taxes which you can never get paid off, for a few months a year. Maybe there will always be buyers, who knows?
|
That is the revenue question at hand.
We have a thread on the forum for the dam funding.
They were going to tax shorefront to cover the $8 million annually, then the plan was boat registrations - but at $5, not nearly enough money. So what will be the plan to cover the $8 million and rising? Small potatoes, but something a buyer might think on.
Now we know we are short about $400 million for roads/higways at the State level, and even more at the municipal level.
Plan seems to be a mixture of toll increases and gas tax increases.
Again something a buyer of a recreational home is going to think about for travel costs and fueling up any toys.
Lastly, they have a court order to fix SWEPT. At the time, no clue what the Legislature was thinking. But a recent entry was to triple the SWEPT rate, and discount 20% for a primary home, an extra 10% for no children in school, and an extra 10% for seniors.
Since the State has made it very clear that we have too many of us in the 60+ range (26% of the entire residential population - and who know about the second home owners), no one is sure what that will finally look like.
Will second home owners be bearing the brunt? How much? Since the tax would be collected by the State and redistributed (currently it is kept by the municipality in which it is raised), what is that going to look like for each of the towns around each of the lakes?