Question #1: How does a city make money? Results from asking google.
Three (3) immediate answers without a forensic review of this city's balance sheet.
 |
| "Even I can see this." |
Wiki answer. "
Cities typically make money from taxes and fees charged to residents,
businesses, and visitors in the city. Some such examples are parking
fines, sales taxes, dog &a
m
p; cat licenses, business licenses, liquor
licenses, and city vehicle registration (if applicable). Cities also
receive a portion of property taxes."
Yahoo best answer (chosen by voters). "Property taxes are the primary source along with fees and fines and of
course the counties, state, and federal government usually via the state
give them money.
Most property taxes go to pay for the schools, at least where I live that is where most of the money goes by far."
We knew that! Its common sense. And the answers seems to agree with our city revenue and property tax (or shall we say the lack there of).
Question #2: Does a city lose money on its residents? Not found. Reasonably, if a city (or shall we say a city council) is foolish, it could be true.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
4 comments:
These are bizarre questions. Cities don't "make money." They have sources of revenue, largely from taxes and fees. These sources are not secret. They are available in city budget documents.
City services are paid for with these revenues. City services for residents cost money. Cities are not businesses. It's equally meaningless to ask if cities lose money on residents or make a profit on residents.
Whether or not cities lose money on development (or lack thereof) depends on the type of development. It's why cities are always chasing commercial development because that captures sales tax and other revenues that are greater than the costs of providing services to that development. The increased property tax revenues from new residential development do not cover the increased costs of providing city services to that development.
"Cities don't "make money." They have sources of revenue.." Anonymous 9:57 am.
Okay for this article, sources of revenue = a city making money. Whereas the claim from the anti-development stronghold in this city amounts to "people in a city is a revenue loser, and open space is a revenue producer". That's all part of the reason "our environment is our economy". And that reasoning is "bizarre".
Reasonably what you say about sales taxes appears to be true, without further credible documents. And although residential development (people) use services within a city, these same residents (people) spend money in that city which produces in part the sales taxes needed to sustain a city. It takes people to make the retail/commercial component work. Additional comments on the recall update article, posted 5/29/12.
Sales tax is a pittance unless we have something that draws shoppers from other comunities. Absolutely no real sign of that kind of development coming to Pacifica but if it ever happens visitors could come here to shop, dine, play, visit the old folks and then go home. Better they don't live here and add to the budget-busting cost to educate, protect and provide all those essential and feel-good services. Property tax doesn't come close to paying the bills. Never has, and we get what the state says we get from that stomped-on pie.
That's part of the problem anonymous. Cities should run more like a business. i.e. you can't spend more than you're taking in. You can't pay unsustainable union wages and benefits. You can't keep raising prices (taxes) without losing customers. And you can't cut off your source of "income" every chance you get by not allowing development.
Post a Comment