Quotes from the City Council

 

After hearing testimony from angry citizens pleading for tax relief on 9/14/06, these are the kinds of comments we heard from St. Petersburg City Council Members. (Quotes are nearly exact based on video and some slight editing performed for clarity.  The content of the comments are not changed.  Judge for yourself.  Listen to the comments of the council members at thehttp://stpete.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2:

 

 

James Bennet:

 

Mr. Bennet didn’t seem to like have people there complaining.  He started scolding the audience and then started offering statements that had nothing to do with the millage rate to distract people from his continuous insistence on INCREASING PROPERTY TAX COLLECTIONS Every Year!

 

 

Bennet scolded the audiance: “I would anticipate that if you have that kind of ardor today that you would participate in the budget from the start. 

 

            Mr. Bennet, your scolding of the audience won’t work.  We won’t be pushed around by council members who insist that we must show up at all the budget meetings to make a difference.  How absurd.  You are there to represent your constituents.  If special interests want more spending and we can’t afford it:  JUST SAY NO!

 

Bennet: "And millage rate reduction is about what we have unless you want to decrease your trash pickups or decrease your quality of water." 

 

Mr. Bennet: You know very well that Property taxes do not pay for Trash and water.  These services pay for themselves through water and trash bills!  Please stop hiding from your support of increased property taxes.

 

 

Renee Flowers:

 

Council Woman Flowers seems to think that the increased expenses in the economy justify the 12% increase in property tax collections this year.  She also seems to think the citizens authorized handouts to Albert Whitted Airport.  She seemed to be in disbelief that the city should operate at the same amount of tax revenue as last year.

 

Flowers:  "Just like it costs you more to operate your business this year, it costs us more this year to run the city."

 

            Councilwoman Flowers, you know very well that inflation increased only about 3.1% this year and population grew only 1%, why does the city need to fuel its spending with a 12% increase in Tax revenues?  Why can’t the city operate on the same number of tax dollars as it did in the 1990’s (about $50 million/year)?

 

Flowers receives a response from City Attorney about the budgetary debt of the airport and the need for a $350,000 subsidy from the city:  “We had subsidized the airport primarily because the citizens spoke in a referendum in support of the airport”. 

 

 

Ms. Flowers, the citizens voted (*see below) to keep the airport “forever” in part to avoid having massive condo development and a waterfront park there.  They authorized you to take federal and state money for the airport.  They NEVER voted to transfer tax dollars to the airport.  In fact the referenda were worded to indicate that the acceptance of grants would allow the city to avoid spending local money on the airport.  The Airport pays for >90% of its own activities. Please quit trying to distract people from the the fact that you can’t say no to a tax increase! 

 

 

Rick Kriseman

 

Mr. Kriseman seems to think that the current anger over increased tax collections he supports is some sort of passing fad that will go away if he can just ride out the storm.

 

Mr. Kriseman: “What’s on everybody’s minds is the TRIM Notices, they’ve seen what the taxes are doing,  so that’s the issue. A couple Weeks ago it was the insurance issues as people are getting cancellation notices and struggling to find insurance for their homes.  6, 8, 10 months ago, all of us on the Council, we get phone calls from citizens – “we want more traffic calming…More funding for neighborhood partnership grants, playgrounds and parks that are in neighborhoods that our kids can walk to easily, funding for social services and social action, funding for more code investigations and more code officers more funding for more police officers and more firefighters…affordable housing programs …airports.  This is what we hear all year.”

 

            Mr. Kriseman, it is your job to spend money that is within the means of the taxpayers to spend.  You were elected by all citizens to represent them in a responsible way.  The Taxpayers can no longer afford to spend and spend so that you and other council members can receive the political benefit by handing out candy to special interest groups.

 

 Mr Kriseman: “All those expenses that you all experience, the city experiences the same expenses and we are seeing a total budget increase of 5%."   

 

            Mr. Kriseman, you and Council woman flowers should sit down with a math teacher together.  While the whole budget may be up 5%, the increase in Tax Collections is 12%.  Why are taxpayers fueling most of the growth of the city’s budget?  Why must you vote to increase taxes beyond the inflation rate and beyond the ability of people to pay?

 

Mr. Kriseman: “Save Our Homes unfortunately sounded great years ago when all of us as citizens voted for it and now we’re paying for it because you have citizens living right next to each other some of whom are paying 10-20X more in taxes as their next door neighbors and its not fair.  We have to work all of us together with our state legislature and try to make changes to those things.”

 

            Mr. Kriseman, don’t you think you could lower the taxes by 10-20x by simply collecting no more than the inflation rate every year?  Rather, you have allowed city tax collections to double over 7 years with each one of your votes!  Attacking Save our homes is not the solution, but allowing everyone to benefit by setting responsible tax rates that don’t increase faster than inflation and population growth would be!  This also seems a bit disingenuous since you said you would consider supporting a “transportable” Save Our Homes cap when people move (St. Pete Times 10/4/06: http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/04/Tampabay/Tax_protester_puts_Kr.shtml)

 

 

*Albert Whitted Charter Amendment language approved by voters:

 

Charter Ammendment #1 (11/2003)
Should Albert Whitted Airport remain open forever by amending the City Charter to require retention of the airport? Ch Ammendment #2 11/03

 

Charter Amendment #2 (11/2003)
Shall Albert Whitted Airport be supported by amending the City Charter to authorize City Council, without notice to surrounding properties or referendum approval, to accept, by ordinance, grants requiring twenty year assurances limiting property to airport uses?(Note: The inability to accept grants could impact the City’s ability to maintain the airport)