Wheat or chaff?
To the editor:
A recent letter to the editor asked voters to “please vote for independent, open-minded people with vision and optimism” with regards to considering tax abatements. I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, the author of that Feb. 20 letter considers anyone who may deny some future tax abatement as “isolationist,” “divisive” and “pledging to shift the tax burden to homeowners.” Hogwash.
What the letter writer really means is “support candidates who will always say ‘yes’ to tax abatements.” Unfortunately, anyone willing to say “yes” to every tax abatement request cannot meet the standard of “independent” or “open-minded.” As for “vision” and “optimism,” they should try the “always yes” strategy as a bank loan officer — with their own money, and see how far that gets them.
The community’s current tax abatement resentment stems from a poorly thought-out, 80 percent tax abatement given to American Eagle, even though the cost-benefit analysis proved that over the term of the abatement the city, county and school district would be losers, which definitely meant that approving that particular abatement would have shifted the tax burden to us, the taxpayers.
Tax abatements are a double-edged sword. That’s why we need independent, open-minded commissioners willing to say “yes” or “no” based on the merits of each tax abatement request. We need commissioners willing to see the difference between wheat and chaff.
Larry Kipp,
Lawrence