Anybody know who's behind the no-annexation bill?

[crazed_hoosier2]

Which is ultimately why we have annexation, and ultimately why you need to listen to Marvin's (or twenty's?) advice: if you don't want to live in the city, move into one of the rural counties that will never be annexed by anyone.

Ah, but see, that would be another bluff, wouldn't it? Because you want to be near the city. In other words, we can easily turn this conversation backwards: I understand the quandary landowners are in, but hamstringing the ability of cities to annex suburbs is the wrong way to fix it.

What's happening around here is that it's gone beyond county borders -- and, increasingly, state borders too (I'm a stone's throw from Kentucky). Frankly, I doubt we'll ever see the taxing "districts" that twenty is advocating -- not, anyway, in such a way that would effectively allow cities to tax residents in adjacent counties the same as they tax those inside the city limits. So I don't really think people need to move to rural counties. An adjacent suburban one will do. And I'm flat certain that an Indiana city (or taxing district) is never going to convince the Kentucky legislature to allow us to tax their citizens. So what do we do then, as taxpayers keep fleeing the taxman?

Again, the remedy for cities and towns is to reevaluate their value proposition and make it attractive to people and businesses to locate there...not using whatever methods they can find to keep chasing them and their money all over creation. That's a fight they're losing and will continue to lose.

 

[UncleMark]

Again, the remedy for cities and towns is to reevaluate their value proposition and make it attractive to people and businesses to locate there...

Which of course in your world means lower taxes and therefore not being able to spend money on... making the city attractive to people and businesses, like with good streets and nice parks and good fire and police protection.....

Cut the crap. You can do all the theoretical bullshit you want, but the bottom line is that everybody wants something for nothing. You can either join the race to the bottom, or the adults can decide to do the right thing for the community at large and make reasonable financial sacrifices to accomplish that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What's happening around here is that it's gone beyond county borders -- and, increasingly, state borders too (I'm a stone's throw from Kentucky). Frankly, I doubt we'll ever see the taxing "districts" that twenty is advocating -- not, anyway, in such a way that would effectively allow cities to tax residents in adjacent counties the same as they tax those inside the city limits. So I don't really think people need to move to rural counties. An adjacent suburban one will do. And I'm flat certain that an Indiana city (or taxing district) is never going to convince the Kentucky legislature to allow us to tax their citizens. So what do we do then, as taxpayers keep fleeing the taxman?

Again, the remedy for cities and towns is to reevaluate their value proposition and make it attractive to people and businesses to locate there...not using whatever methods they can find to keep chasing them and their money all over creation. That's a fight they're losing and will continue to lose.

The thing is, people like amenities. People like parks, flowers, music, art, history, food, and whatever else. If humans did not like those things they would not have been part of human culture since at least ancient Egypt.

Which of those items do corporations like? I have never seen a corporation at a festival. I have never seen a corporation admiring a art, eating a fine meal, playing with the baby corporations in a playground. There are two things I can think of a corporation likes, infrastructure and no taxes.

For the most part, most of America has similar infrastructure. Our roads are the same, we have running water, and electricity. Only a few places in America will ever be ruled out entirely by infrastructure.

So that leaves no taxes. That is what the corporate beast craves.

If you find a corporation relaxing in the park on a fine spring day, snap a photo and post it. Because from my angle a barren wasteland with no taxes is the dream of corporation.

 

[UncleMark]

If you find a corporation relaxing in the park on a fine spring day, snap a photo and post it. Because from my angle a barren wasteland with no taxes is the dream of corporation.

As long as they get their roads, running water, and electricity.

Everyone else is one their own. It's all about choices and markets and all kinds of other crap you learned in Macro Econ.

Screw the people. It's all about the businesses.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The thing is, people like amenities. People like parks, flowers, music, art, history, food, and whatever else. If humans did not like those things they would not have been part of human culture since at least ancient Egypt.

Which of those items do corporations like? I have never seen a corporation at a festival. I have never seen a corporation admiring a art, eating a fine meal, playing with the baby corporations in a playground. There are two things I can think of a corporation likes, infrastructure and no taxes.

For the most part, most of America has similar infrastructure. Our roads are the same, we have running water, and electricity. Only a few places in America will ever be ruled out entirely by infrastructure.

So that leaves no taxes. That is what the corporate beast craves.

If you find a corporation relaxing in the park on a fine spring day, snap a photo and post it. Because from my angle a barren wasteland with no taxes is the dream of corporation.

Does anybody like taxes? Why single out corporations?

Look, we can bellyache about this stuff all we want. Maybe it makes you feel better, I don't know.

But I do know that any governmental entity that relies on tax revenues is really no different than anybody else who has customers who pay their bills: neither should ever feel entitled to other people's money. They have to present a good value proposition so that people choose them.

Granted, it's easier to stop being a customer of a company that doesn't provide a good value for the money than it is to stop being a taxpayer of a governmental entity that doesn't provide a good value. But it can still be done -- and is every day. It will only become easier to do as the economy becomes more virtualized and less reliant on things like geography.

We can either gripe about this and shout "You're not paying your fair share!!" or we can adapt so that people and entities aren't out seeking greener pastures and better deals (or finding them if they do).

I vote for the latter. Any community or society which chooses the former is likely going to find themselves declining -- and that will have been a conscious choice they made.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We can either gripe about this and shout "You're not paying your fair share!!" or we can adapt so that people and entities aren't out seeking greener pastures and better deals (or finding them if they do).

That sounds great, in theory. But the real world and political theory seldom agree with one another. Let's pretend we want similar things, a nice community with some sort of parks/events, with good police and fire. How do we fund it? Now you and I might move there because we may value that enough that we would pay for it. I get that. But does a corporation give a damn about any of that? That's the point I'm making, as far as business goes it is a race to the bottom. They want a home with low wages and no taxes. I want to live in a place with decent wages and taxes to support a good, thriving, community. How do communities people WANT to live in attract business? The current way is for the community to give them a few million to move there. Strangely enough, you and I both dislike that idea. So how else? You have the theory, in the real world though how does that theory work? In some places they solve it by just being bedroom communities. But that comes at a price, we have to build infrastructure to move people 20-30 miles from home to work.

All I am trying to get is HOW does a community attract a business if that community can't just say "here's no taxes for you for life". I get how they can attract people, I am asking how they attract business?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That sounds great, in theory. But the real world and political theory seldom agree with one another. Let's pretend we want similar things, a nice community with some sort of parks/events, with good police and fire. How do we fund it? Now you and I might move there because we may value that enough that we would pay for it. I get that. But does a corporation give a damn about any of that? That's the point I'm making, as far as business goes it is a race to the bottom. They want a home with low wages and no taxes. I want to live in a place with decent wages and taxes to support a good, thriving, community. How do communities people WANT to live in attract business? The current way is for the community to give them a few million to move there. Strangely enough, you and I both dislike that idea. So how else? You have the theory, in the real world though how does that theory work? In some places they solve it by just being bedroom communities. But that comes at a price, we have to build infrastructure to move people 20-30 miles from home to work.

All I am trying to get is HOW does a community attract a business if that community can't just say "here's no taxes for you for life". I get how they can attract people, I am asking how they attract business?

You're not hearing me right, Marvin. When I say those buzzwords "value proposition", you are apparently hearing "We'll give you lots of stuff...and we understand that you're willing to pay nothing to get them."

But that's not at all what I'm saying. Of course things cost money. Infrastructure costs money. Law enforcement costs money. What a value proposition does is present an offer of this in exchange for that. So I'm not saying "If you want to attract businesses, have lot of great public services and amenities, but don't charge the business taxes...make everybody else figure out how to pay for it." Nope. Not saying that.

What I'm saying is that the whole mix of things like an educated workforce, sound public infrastructure, police and fire, amenities, etc. offer a competitively priced package such that businesses want to locate there. Because the vast majority of them have to operate in competitive (often highly competitive) marketplaces. As such, it's incumbent upon their management to make sure that they're getting good value -- not only from their suppliers, their lenders, their employees, but also the governments they interact with. If they aren't getting good value, then it will harm their own ability to compete -- and then of course they'll be compelled to find alternatives.

The problem that, say, a state like Illinois has is that they're becoming increasingly unable to offer efficiently priced government -- because they've spent themselves in a deep hole and have to find the bucks from somewhere to try to get themselves out of it. But nobody is compelled to locate there and, as such, take ownership of a share of that crushing debt.

That's a state that has shown us all how it's not done.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

That sounds great, in theory. But the real world and political theory seldom agree with one another. Let's pretend we want similar things, a nice community with some sort of parks/events, with good police and fire. How do we fund it? Now you and I might move there because we may value that enough that we would pay for it. I get that. But does a corporation give a damn about any of that? That's the point I'm making, as far as business goes it is a race to the bottom. They want a home with low wages and no taxes. I want to live in a place with decent wages and taxes to support a good, thriving, community. How do communities people WANT to live in attract business? The current way is for the community to give them a few million to move there. Strangely enough, you and I both dislike that idea. So how else? You have the theory, in the real world though how does that theory work? In some places they solve it by just being bedroom communities. But that comes at a price, we have to build infrastructure to move people 20-30 miles from home to work.

All I am trying to get is HOW does a community attract a business if that community can't just say "here's no taxes for you for life". I get how they can attract people, I am asking how they attract business?

A), don't tax business, tax wealth.

B), tariffs, both for goods and services.

those pocketing the wealth from business would rather have the business entity taxed than the wealth they receive from it, since taxing the entity rather than the individual(s) siphoning off the bulk of the wealth from said business entity, is much more regressive.

the business entity is also much better poised, politically and financially, to fight taxes, than the individuals reaping the rewards of the business entity.

tariffs work, and have been around forever. (since the founding fathers in the US).

cheap t-shirts or tvs mean nothing, if you have no job or a poor paying one.

in the Cook case, if the county had the same tax rate as Btown, there would be no issue to begin with. (not sure if there are environmental, ordinance, etc, concerns).

people and business locating outside city limits absolutely do have the city residents subsidizing them.

the reason conservatives are so big on pitting state against federal, and state against cities, and state against state, is because that allows the moneyed interests to always play one against the other.

good point by Marv on the infrastructure thing as well.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You're not hearing me right, Marvin. When I say those buzzwords "value proposition", you are apparently hearing "We'll give you lots of stuff...and we understand that you're willing to pay nothing to get them."

But that's not at all what I'm saying. Of course things cost money. Infrastructure costs money. Law enforcement costs money. What a value proposition does is present an offer of this in exchange for that. So I'm not saying "If you want to attract businesses, have lot of great public services and amenities, but don't charge the business taxes...make everybody else figure out how to pay for it." Nope. Not saying that.

What I'm saying is that the whole mix of things like an educated workforce, sound public infrastructure, police and fire, amenities, etc. offer a competitively priced package such that businesses want to locate there. Because the vast majority of them have to operate in competitive (often highly competitive) marketplaces. As such, it's incumbent upon their management to make sure that they're getting good value -- not only from their suppliers, their lenders, their employees, but also the governments they interact with. If they aren't getting good value, then it will harm their own ability to compete -- and then of course they'll be compelled to find alternatives.

The problem that, say, a state like Illinois has is that they're becoming increasingly unable to offer efficiently priced government -- because they've spent themselves in a deep hole and have to find the bucks from somewhere to try to get themselves out of it. But nobody is compelled to locate there and, as such, take ownership of a share of that crushing debt.

That's a state that has shown us all how it's not done.

Illinois isn't something I think most want to emulate, and now on the other side appears to be Kansas. So we want to be in the middle. I think for most of the US, infrastructure is a wash. I'm thinking parts of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and some other places like that, have a real problem competing. But for most of the US, I don't know that there is a big difference in electricity availability, water, roads. anecdotally I don't travel too many places where I wonder if I've ended up on a different continent.

An educated workforce is helpful, but I suspect business has figured out workers will move to the jobs.

My concern is that right now, the employers hold all the high cards. We saw it with the Carrier deal. I don't want to soak business, that is counter productive. I just fear the Kansas disaster hasn't sunk in all across the country yet (while the Illinois disaster is legendary). We may not be having a race to the bottom, but at least some are quickening their pace that direction.

Cook isn't a poster child, I hardly know their situation. And no one at Cook is coming out and taking credit. So they are just might be an example of the issue. And it isn't just them. I think early on I said a lot of my neighbors were organizing to fight it. Even though we are surrounded on 3 sides by city and have been since our subdivision was built 30 years ago. And at the time, it was required to be built to city standards (water/sewer, curbs, sidewalks). Most everyone wants to game the system, live as close to that line as possible. My point all along has been that we need to figure out how to get people to look bigger picture. Looking at the globe, my neighbors have a lot of square miles across 7 continents they could live in, they choose to live a baseball throw from Bloomington. That means Bloomington is an attraction for them. In my mind, why shouldn't I be willing to help keep it such? If they don't find Bloomington an attraction, grab a dart and throw it at a map of the world. There are a lot of other places. If one likes something, one should do their part to keep it. It may just be me, I tend to put money in those donation boxes for museums I like. Good museums don't just grow in nature. Good cities don't either.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You're not hearing me right, Marvin. When I say those buzzwords "value proposition", you are apparently hearing "We'll give you lots of stuff...and we understand that you're willing to pay nothing to get them."

But that's not at all what I'm saying. Of course things cost money. Infrastructure costs money. Law enforcement costs money. What a value proposition does is present an offer of this in exchange for that. So I'm not saying "If you want to attract businesses, have lot of great public services and amenities, but don't charge the business taxes...make everybody else figure out how to pay for it." Nope. Not saying that.

What I'm saying is that the whole mix of things like an educated workforce, sound public infrastructure, police and fire, amenities, etc. offer a competitively priced package such that businesses want to locate there. Because the vast majority of them have to operate in competitive (often highly competitive) marketplaces. As such, it's incumbent upon their management to make sure that they're getting good value -- not only from their suppliers, their lenders, their employees, but also the governments they interact with. If they aren't getting good value, then it will harm their own ability to compete -- and then of course they'll be compelled to find alternatives.

The problem that, say, a state like Illinois has is that they're becoming increasingly unable to offer efficiently priced government -- because they've spent themselves in a deep hole and have to find the bucks from somewhere to try to get themselves out of it. But nobody is compelled to locate there and, as such, take ownership of a share of that crushing debt.

That's a state that has shown us all how it's not done.

Zero of that addresses the original problem. Don't forget, we're not just talking about attracting the business to the community. We're talking about getting them inside the city limits. You don't like annexation, so you need to provide another avenue to do that. You're not doing that now. all the reasons you've listed are just reasons for a business to come park itself just outside the city limits, which is exactly what they already do.

 

[Ladoga]

Illinois isn't something I think most want to emulate, and now on the other side appears to be Kansas. So we want to be in the middle. I think for most of the US, infrastructure is a wash. I'm thinking parts of West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and some other places like that, have a real problem competing. But for most of the US, I don't know that there is a big difference in electricity availability, water, roads. anecdotally I don't travel too many places where I wonder if I've ended up on a different continent.

An educated workforce is helpful, but I suspect business has figured out workers will move to the jobs.

My concern is that right now, the employers hold all the high cards. We saw it with the Carrier deal. I don't want to soak business, that is counter productive. I just fear the Kansas disaster hasn't sunk in all across the country yet (while the Illinois disaster is legendary). We may not be having a race to the bottom, but at least some are quickening their pace that direction.

Cook isn't a poster child, I hardly know their situation. And no one at Cook is coming out and taking credit. So they are just might be an example of the issue. And it isn't just them. I think early on I said a lot of my neighbors were organizing to fight it. Even though we are surrounded on 3 sides by city and have been since our subdivision was built 30 years ago. And at the time, it was required to be built to city standards (water/sewer, curbs, sidewalks). Most everyone wants to game the system, live as close to that line as possible. My point all along has been that we need to figure out how to get people to look bigger picture. Looking at the globe, my neighbors have a lot of square miles across 7 continents they could live in, they choose to live a baseball throw from Bloomington. That means Bloomington is an attraction for them. In my mind, why shouldn't I be willing to help keep it such? If they don't find Bloomington an attraction, grab a dart and throw it at a map of the world. There are a lot of other places. If one likes something, one should do their part to keep it. It may just be me, I tend to put money in those donation boxes for museums I like. Good museums don't just grow in nature. Good cities don't either.

Did you and your neighbors receive a waiver from the city regarding annexation? If so, you cannot vote in a remonstrance. Ask how many of the would be remonstrance voters have waivers voluntarily given by the city.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Did you and your neighbors receive a waiver from the city regarding annexation? If so, you cannot vote in a remonstrance. Ask how many of the would be remonstrance voters have waivers voluntarily given by the city.

Correct, we were all prohibited since we had signed onto sewer. That didn't stop meetings, and signs, and whatever else some people may have done. Since I didn't care if I was in or out, I didn't attend the meetings.

 

[UncleMark]

Even though we are surrounded on 3 sides by city and have been since our subdivision was built 30 years ago. And at the time, it was required to be built to city standards (water/sewer, curbs, sidewalks). Most everyone wants to game the system, live as close to that line as possible.

You and people like you all live in Bloomington, for all intents and purposes. It's like living together but not getting married. When it comes time to make it official, that's when the drama begins.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So Bloomington is suing the state. Bloomington claims that 1) the state cannot single out a city in law which this does and 2) items in a bill have to be related and the budget is not related to annexation.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So Bloomington is suing the state. Bloomington claims that 1) the state cannot single out a city in law which this does and 2) items in a bill have to be related and the budget is not related to annexation.

You know what? They might have a point. The Indiana Constitution does have a germaneness (?) provision.

 

[UncleMark]

You know what? They might have a point. The Indiana Constitution does have a germaneness (?) provision.

ICBW, but I think the next time it's enforced will be the first.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

ICBW, but I think the next time it's enforced will be the first.

There's a first for everything.

 

[Ladoga]

You know what? They might have a point. The Indiana Constitution does have a germaneness (?) provision.

Its not "germaneness". That issue applies - other than in the budget - to multiple subject within one bill which are unrelated. The issue in Bloomington's claim is "special legislation" applying to particular people or places. But its been done for years like cities with populations between 47,000 and 47,500 as of the 2010 census and perameters like that. Bloomington's being singled out is based solely on what they did in annexation that disenfranchised would be objectors on a particular annexation

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

A), don't tax business, tax wealth.

B), tariffs, both for goods and services.

those pocketing the wealth from business would rather have the business entity taxed than the wealth they receive from it, since taxing the entity rather than the individual(s) siphoning off the bulk of the wealth from said business entity, is much more regressive.

the business entity is also much better poised, politically and financially, to fight taxes, than the individuals reaping the rewards of the business entity.

tariffs work, and have been around forever. (since the founding fathers in the US).

cheap t-shirts or tvs mean nothing, if you have no job or a poor paying one.

in the Cook case, if the county had the same tax rate as Btown, there would be no issue to begin with. (not sure if there are environmental, ordinance, etc, concerns).

people and business locating outside city limits absolutely do have the city residents subsidizing them.

the reason conservatives are so big on pitting state against federal, and state against cities, and state against state, is because that allows the moneyed interests to always play one against the other.

good point by Marv on the infrastructure thing as well.

What?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Its not "germaneness". That issue applies - other than in the budget - to multiple subject within one bill which are unrelated. The issue in Bloomington's claim is "special legislation" applying to particular people or places. But its been done for years like cities with populations between 47,000 and 47,500 as of the 2010 census and perameters like that. Bloomington's being singled out is based solely on what they did in annexation that disenfranchised would be objectors on a particular annexation

According to news reports, they are making claims on both ends, including the issue of "germaneness."

 

[UncleMark]

Bloomington's being singled out is based solely on what they did in annexation that disenfranchised would be objectors on a particular annexation

What? Disenfranchised how? The city was following the law to the letter.

 

[Ladoga]

According to news reports, they are making claims on both ends, including the issue of "germaneness."

I am subject to correction, but the provision regarding Bloomington Annexation passed in the budget. Under Indiana's Constitution, the budget bill is a specific exception to the prohibition against "log rolling". But I'll check.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I am subject to correction, but the provision regarding Bloomington Annexation passed in the budget. Under Indiana's Constitution, the budget bill is a specific exception to the prohibition against "log rolling". But I'll check.

Art. 4 Sec. 19. I don't believe there are any exceptions. But I also don't know if the provision is even enforceable. Some state courts have ruled that it is up to the legislature to decide what is germane. Not sure if Indiana has ever tackled the issue.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As much as I think the state was wrong for stepping in, I don't think Bloomington should sue. It's just a waste of money. Even if a court finds in Bloomington's favor, in February the state will just pass a new law. I don't see how this ends in Bloomington's favor, ever.

 

[Ladoga]

Art. 4 Sec. 19. I don't believe there are any exceptions. But I also don't know if the provision is even enforceable. Some state courts have ruled that it is up to the legislature to decide what is germane. Not sure if Indiana has ever tackled the issue.

There have been a lot of cases. The ones successful have ben those enumerating legislative effect by population range as I mentioned above.

The Bloomington Annexation provision passed as SECTION 161 of House Enrolled Act 1 of 2017.
It can be found at page 171 lines 15 through 32. House Enrolled Act 1 is the budget bill.

 

[Ladoga]

Art. 4 Sec. 19. I don't believe there are any exceptions. But I also don't know if the provision is even enforceable. Some state courts have ruled that it is up to the legislature to decide what is germane. Not sure if Indiana has ever tackled the issue.

Basically. What it actually says is this:

Any annexation process started in a certain six-month time frame is automatically voided, and the city that started that process cannot start a new process for any of the properties covered by the voided annexation for five years.

In practice, Bloomington is the only city that started a process in that time period, as far as anyone can tell (so far; technically a city that starts an annexation process between now and July 1 would be subject to the ban, too).

Thanks. I told the board that there was a 5 year bar on new annexations and you said I was wrong. Then you posted what I'd told you. You're Welcome.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Thanks. I told the board that there was a 5 year bar on new annexations and you said I was wrong. Then you posted what I'd told you. You're Welcome.

No. I correctly noted that it was a bar only against annexing property that was included in the original plan.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

As much as I think the state was wrong for stepping in, I don't think Bloomington should sue. It's just a waste of money. Even if a court finds in Bloomington's favor, in February the state will just pass a new law. I don't see how this ends in Bloomington's favor, ever.

Bingo.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There have been a lot of cases. The ones successful have ben those enumerating legislative effect by population range as I mentioned above.

The Bloomington Annexation provision passed as SECTION 161 of House Enrolled Act 1 of 2017.
It can be found at page 171 lines 15 through 32. House Enrolled Act 1 is the budget bill.

Huh? We are talking about Sec. 19, here, not 22.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Bingo.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.

What is the disease here that needs treated? I don't think you will join in voting out people who decided to squash home rule?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What is the disease here that needs treated? I don't think you will join in voting out people who decided to squash home rule?

The symptoms are people and businesses fleeing the city limits.
The disease is whatever is causing them to.

And it's kind of ironic that you're describing the issue of annexation as one of "home rule." Do you think the residents of the areas Bloomington is seeking to annex would see it as such? I think we both know the answer to that question.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The disease is whatever is causing people and businesses to flee the city limits.
The symptoms are people and businesses fleeing the city limits.

And it's kind of ironic that you're describing the issue of annexation as one of "home rule." Do you think the residents of the areas Bloomington is seeking to annex would see it as such? I think we both know the answer to that question.

As the law was written at the time, a city has certain rights to determine its boundaries. Nothing Bloomington did was illegal from the laws as they existed. So yes, it is home rule from the standpoint Bloomington has a right to expand and citizens have a right to object. The catch is that citizens who chose to be on city water/sewer had to sign a waiver to be on it.So for most areas, including Cook, they actually signed away their right to dispute annexation. So in most of the annex areas, a majority of people had voluntarily given up their right to not be annexed. If Cook would rather house themselves in Mumbai, that is their right. But for some reason they chose the very edge of Bloomington. So Bloomington must offer something they want, right?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

As the law was written at the time, a city has certain rights to determine its boundaries. Nothing Bloomington did was illegal from the laws as they existed. So yes, it is home rule from the standpoint Bloomington has a right to expand and citizens have a right to object. The catch is that citizens who chose to be on city water/sewer had to sign a waiver to be on it.So for most areas, including Cook, they actually signed away their right to dispute annexation. So in most of the annex areas, a majority of people had voluntarily given up their right to not be annexed. If Cook would rather house themselves in Mumbai, that is their right. But for some reason they chose the very edge of Bloomington. So Bloomington must offer something they want, right?

Well, near Bloomington...anyway.

I'm telling you, Marvin: you'll never win this fight this way. Do this, and eventually they'll leave the county. They have to take care of what is creating the incentive to leave. It's the only way.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, near Bloomington...anyway.

I'm telling you, Marvin: you'll never win this fight this way. Do this, and eventually they'll leave the county. They have to take care of what is creating the incentive to leave. It's the only way.

You might be right, our choices might be to turn our cities into Mumbai or let jobs move to Mumbai. I am not happy about those options, but unless we convince Americans to boycott businesses that move that may be the only option. Time to go watch Slumdog for the excitement that awaits us.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You might be right, our choices might be to turn our cities into Mumbai or let jobs move to Mumbai. I am not happy about those options, but unless we convince Americans to boycott businesses that move that may be the only option. Time to go watch Slumdog for the excitement that awaits us.

No, those are not our choices. You're doing the whole hyperbole thing here again.

Cities should not follow Detroit's lead. THAT is what turns once-great cities into Mumbai, not what I'm advocating.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No, those are not our choices. You're doing the whole hyperbole thing here again.

Cities should not follow Detroit's lead. THAT is what turns once-great cities into Mumbai, not what I'm advocating.

Why have you not caught on, i have. Hyperbole wins. We saw it in full force in 2016. We had those disagreements here. Recall Trump saying how much the crime rate was going up? Recall some of us saying no, there was no evidence of it? Recall some saying that people FELT it was higher and that was all that matters? Recall who won 2016, the most hyperbole filled candidate? I've decided if that wins, I might as well join that. I don't get why you haven't, you voted for the guy who never stated a single fact correctly.

But the bottom line is this, it costs money to have nice things. If we want nice places to live, somebody has got to pay for it. I am hearing you say that people won't pay if they can move 5 miles away and get the results for free. That is what I hear, is that not what you are saying? If that IS correct, how do we build nice cities? Unless we place armed guards at all city parks and stop people with the familiar "papers please" to prove they live inside the city limits, I don't see how this is possible.

Trump has shown us the light, say anything and win because people don't give a damn what the truth is. The lesson from 2016.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Why have you not caught on, i have. Hyperbole wins. We saw it in full force in 2016. We had those disagreements here. Recall Trump saying how much the crime rate was going up? Recall some of us saying no, there was no evidence of it? Recall some saying that people FELT it was higher and that was all that matters? Recall who won 2016, the most hyperbole filled candidate? I've decided if that wins, I might as well join that. I don't get why you haven't, you voted for the guy who never stated a single fact correctly.

But the bottom line is this, it costs money to have nice things. If we want nice places to live, somebody has got to pay for it. I am hearing you say that people won't pay if they can move 5 miles away and get the results for free. That is what I hear, is that not what you are saying? If that IS correct, how do we build nice cities? Unless we place armed guards at all city parks and stop people with the familiar "papers please" to prove they live inside the city limits, I don't see how this is possible.

Trump has shown us the light, say anything and win because people don't give a damn what the truth is. The lesson from 2016.

It really isn't hard, Marvin.

First of all, let's just disregard all the Trump distraction stuff. It doesn't serve the conversation.

Second, every single business does this every single day. See, they can't tax peoples' money away from them. They have to convince people to hand it over of their own accord. And why do people do this? Because of this old cliched thing called the value proposition.

I realize that many governments think they're immune from this, given their taxing authority. And I'd say that was long the case -- because what were peoples' alternatives? But they have got to wake up and realize that the world is as mobile as it's ever been and it's only going to get moreso. Not only can people and things move easily, but money can move even easier. Nobody *has* to choose you -- you have to make them *want* to choose you.

Now, does Daimler-Benz give their cars away for free? Of course not. They charge handsomely for them -- and close the deal, despite the hefty pricetag, some 2 million times each year. But, of course, the same goes for companies that sell things inexpensively. They, too, have a value proposition to make.

If cities and countries look at their citizens -- be they individuals or groups of any kind -- as captive sources of revenue for their spending intentions, they are going to become impoverished. Again, if you really want to turn a once-great city into an American Mumbai, follow Detroit's lead.

If not, consider another way.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It really isn't hard, Marvin.

First of all, let's just disregard all the Trump distraction stuff. It doesn't serve the conversation.

Second, every single business does this every single day. See, they can't tax peoples' money away from them. They have to convince people to hand it over of their own accord. And why do people do this? Because of this old cliched thing called the value proposition.

I realize that many governments think they're immune from this, given their taxing authority. And I'd say that was long the case -- because what were peoples' alternatives? But they have got to wake up and realize that the world is as mobile as it's ever been and it's only going to get moreso. Not only can people and things move easily, but money can move even easier. Nobody *has* to choose you -- you have to make them *want* to choose you.

Now, does Daimler-Benz give their cars away for free? Of course not. They charge handsomely for them -- and close the deal, despite the hefty pricetag, some 2 million times each year. But, of course, the same goes for companies that sell things inexpensively. They, too, have a value proposition to make.

If cities and countries look at their citizens -- be they individuals or groups of any kind -- as captive sources of revenue for their spending intentions, they are going to become impoverished. Again, if you really want to turn a once-great city into an American Mumbai, follow Detroit's lead.

If not, consider another way.

I am still not seeing how cities can attract business except with "we will never tax you, ever, in fact we will pay you to come here"? What am I missing, how do we have nice things if no one will pay for them?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I am still not seeing how cities can attract business except with "we will never tax you, ever, in fact we will pay you to come here"? What am I missing, how do we have nice things if no one will pay for them?

Ask a question: are those nice things worth the price being charged to the people you're charging to have them? If not, why not?

Look, I take it as a complete given that virtually everybody wants to pay bottom dollar for the things they buy and to be paid top dollar for the things they sell (which is typically their labor, but whatever it may be). So this is hardly any kind of revelation. And it may seem on the surface that this creates an impossible situation. But it really doesn't -- which is why I brought up Mercedes. How many people do you think would like to have a Mercedes if it was offered for free? What about twenty grand? What about if they were a million bucks each? It's a question of value when you're dealing with people who have choices and alternatives.

This may be a new-fangled concept for people involved in government. But it's not for anybody who has ever had to convince people to part with their money willingly.

Take a toll road as an example. I vacation in Colorado a lot. Several years ago, we flew into DIA and went to the rental car company. They said (I can't verify this is true, just what they said) that the E470 -- the bypass highway we usually take to get from the airport towards the mountains -- tolls were all automated now and that I had to pay a daily toll fee for the 10 days we'd be there. Well, guess how many times I planned on driving the bypass? Twice. And the fee was going to be something like $60, as I recall. If I didn't pay it, then I'd be charged a fine which would be even more.

So what did I do? I laughed at them, told them I'd make alternative arrangements, and promptly just drove the old way through Boulder.

Now, see, that was a really dumb idea by whatever entity oversees that highway. I'm sure some people would pay it, even if they didn't like it. But I'm sure plenty of others objected like I did and said they can shove their bypass up their rear end.

Now, would I have paid a more reasonable fee of $5 or so per use? Sure. I don't have a problem with toll roads. The roads do provide a significant value -- but, like everything else, that value is not unlimited.

I don't know any of the details behind Cook's gripe with Bloomington. And I strongly doubt that they're just looking to be freeloading. Was I freeloading in that story? No. In fact, I'd have paid a reasonable fee. But was I willing to pay an exorbitant fee to take the toll road when I knew of a cheaper alternative? You bet. And, further, I bet you'd have done the same thing if you'd have been with me. Amirite?

The issue here isn't anybody freeloading. The issue is the balance between the cost of taxes and the benefits received by them. Any city, county, state, or country that does a poor job managing this balance is going to have a very rough future.

 

[UncleMark]

As much as I think the state was wrong for stepping in, I don't think Bloomington should sue. It's just a waste of money. Even if a court finds in Bloomington's favor, in February the state will just pass a new law. I don't see how this ends in Bloomington's favor, ever.

I'll give them credit for not taking this lying down. IIUC, the suit is being handled by in-house counsel, so the costs should be limited.