"The organization’s board of directors voted Tuesday night to reject the proposal from the city of Tualatin to extend the urban renewal plan, and start receiving the tax dollars it has been missing out on since 1975."
I've seen quite a few new and remodeled fire stations of late. I'm not sure they're the best ones to criticize of wasteful spending, seeing as they are benefactors of the public dollar.
The real not so funny part will be how they roll over when they get an offer that makes them look like they're prudent while going along with it.
This isn't the first time firefighters or other jusrisdictions have voiced concern for their budgets beign adversely affected by TIF.
Not one of them sticks to their guns and fiscal responsibility. In some cases the roll over has been a total sham costing their budgets even more while pretending it's midigating.
The depth of fiscal dishonesty involved in our local Uraban Renewal schemes will never get reported.
Instead more districts and renewals are on the way all over the place.
The City of Beaverton is preparing a 970 acre district to fund more of the Round.
What a whopper that is.
Those new fire stations were approved overwhelmingly by voters in a levy in 2006. Say what you will about wasteful government spending, but I'm not going to complain about building a fire station.
From what I've read, TVF&R has actually been lauded for having very strong financial controls, a good balance sheet, and a relatively low tax rate - while having one of the best, most effective, professional (read: paid, not volunteer/free labor) fire fighting agencies in the entire nation.
I'd rather gold plate a fire truck, than anything owned by TriMet or Metro, or a Parks & Recreation District. And as Steven pointed out, the few times TVF&R shows up on a ballot, the response is usually quite positive.
Comments (8)
"The organization’s board of directors voted Tuesday night to reject the proposal from the city of Tualatin to extend the urban renewal plan, and start receiving the tax dollars it has been missing out on since 1975."
Hmm can't see any bias there can we?
Posted by Mike H | February 26, 2010 1:41 PM
I've seen quite a few new and remodeled fire stations of late. I'm not sure they're the best ones to criticize of wasteful spending, seeing as they are benefactors of the public dollar.
Posted by ws | February 26, 2010 3:28 PM
I meant to say new and remodeled stations in the TVFR service area...
Posted by ws | February 26, 2010 3:28 PM
Beneficiaries, not benefactors. Huge difference.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | February 26, 2010 3:45 PM
The real not so funny part will be how they roll over when they get an offer that makes them look like they're prudent while going along with it.
This isn't the first time firefighters or other jusrisdictions have voiced concern for their budgets beign adversely affected by TIF.
Not one of them sticks to their guns and fiscal responsibility. In some cases the roll over has been a total sham costing their budgets even more while pretending it's midigating.
The depth of fiscal dishonesty involved in our local Uraban Renewal schemes will never get reported.
Instead more districts and renewals are on the way all over the place.
The City of Beaverton is preparing a 970 acre district to fund more of the Round.
What a whopper that is.
Posted by Ben | February 26, 2010 7:11 PM
Those new fire stations were approved overwhelmingly by voters in a levy in 2006. Say what you will about wasteful government spending, but I'm not going to complain about building a fire station.
Posted by Steven | February 26, 2010 8:04 PM
From what I've read, TVF&R has actually been lauded for having very strong financial controls, a good balance sheet, and a relatively low tax rate - while having one of the best, most effective, professional (read: paid, not volunteer/free labor) fire fighting agencies in the entire nation.
I'd rather gold plate a fire truck, than anything owned by TriMet or Metro, or a Parks & Recreation District. And as Steven pointed out, the few times TVF&R shows up on a ballot, the response is usually quite positive.
Posted by Erik H. | February 26, 2010 9:19 PM
"Beneficiaries, not benefactors. Huge difference."
Thanks. I messed that one up. I wish there was an edit feature.
Posted by ws | February 27, 2010 2:55 PM