FiveNations54 t1_j6iwh7i wrote

The way in which they frame the narrative - shift of tax burden from variable a to variable b, under the hypothetical that it'll push people to utilize their land in such a way that it is implied, will yield profit to either offset or net positive, is both an exaggeration and nonsensical.

Municipalities across the country are providing certain tax abatements, forgiveness, or sliding scale agreements in order to forgo that lump sum of revenue up front for the revenue that comes as a result of reinvestment, for the long term. This also includes changes to Zoning, and possibly codes/ordinances in order to allow for more flexibility with what can be built, in order to be more accessible to more people.

Their hypothetical only works if the buyer actually wants to invest in the community, not a single residential or commercial building, which may sit unaltered as structure or land, thus a loop hole is evident. It also won't work if, again, changes to the area's zoning don't happen because otherwise, if a company views it as an unnecessary hurdle, they won't invest. Plenty of other places, and States, for a business can set up shop. It's also dumb to think they don't have an army of lawyers reviewing these laws to find a way out of it.

It's another bullshit feel good policy they didn't fully flush out because they chose to lick boots rather than make simple changes to their ordinances, which would have allowed for the same thing, but with little to no freebees


FiveNations54 t1_j04m1gf wrote

I used Winter Accounting in Verona. Dude was cool, kept it casual. Only charges you for what needs filled out. He was good at asking questions he thought may be in line with my life situation. Pretty short meeting, he handled the paperwork, and I only went back a second time to pay, and get the packet for my records.