Type in your address and scroll down to locate your assessed property value. Your new tax will be $.50 for every $100.00 of the assessed property value.
Blogroll
Recent Comments
 | Dave Boger on Is the Flora Place Exclusion… |
 | Shaw Resident on What Will You be Taxed |
 | rxmom on What Will You be Taxed |
 | Citizen on See Who Doesn’t Have to… |
 | Derek on What Will You be Taxed |
| Shaw Resident on What Will You be Taxed |
 | dave on What Will You be Taxed |
 | Jim Ruebsam on What Will You be Taxed |
 | getthefactsinshaw on FBI, Mayor, Police Department … |
 | Jennifer on Voice Your Opposition |
 | Matt Davis on Voice Your Opposition |
 | Chris on FBI, Mayor, Police Department … |
| Jennifer on Voice Your Opposition |
 | Matt on What Will You be Taxed |
 | Laawrence Miskel on FBI, Mayor, Police Department … |
According to calculations I will be assessed $102.00 That’s not too much. In fact, I’d be happy to pay that much to see private patrols come in.
My share would be $114. At $9.50 per month, that’s the cost of 2 lattes. Seems to be a good investment in my property value and neighborhood.
A little over $170 for us — on top of $2,250 we already pay. If this were going to city-wide police protection I’d pay it, but $170 for our own little fiefdom? No. This Fortress Shaw mentality is part of the problem, not part of the solution, put forth by well-intentioned people who count their fortunes in lattes.
The point here isn’t how much you would owe, but the fact that you would need to owe it at all. Why should we pay additional tax for a service (“security,” i.e. the police) that we’re already paying for via property taxes, car taxes, the 1% resident/earner tax, sales taxes, etc. etc. There are also loopholes where the tax money can be used for “other” purposes…which may not be security-related.
If you think about it, if someone really wanted to break into a home, they would do it. They could post guards around the neighborhood and keep tabs on where the “security guard(s)” are, and when the guard(s) left their target area, they could move in. Unless you could post a guard at every street, which is obviously cost-prohibitive and just plain creepy, there’s pretty much no point.
So why pay “just $100″ for a false sense of security? Seems to me that if you’re not really any safer, then you’re just wasting your money, even if were “only $20″.
In a bad economy, with people losing jobs left and right (and heavier losses to come), it seems pretty arrogant to say it’s “just $100″…especially for people who don’t have that extra to spend. Do you want someone to have to choose between buying food and paying this tax? Do you want someone to have to lose their home, because they can’t pay this tax?
Think about that. Get back to me when you have an answer.
I’d like to echo the “false sense of security” sentiments.
The point isn’t how seemingly little the cost would be, but whether the results we’re paying for would be commensurate with the cost.
Would I pay $100-200 a year if this security squad would guarantee no break-ins to my car or home? Yeah, you bet. But do I think that would actually be the case? Not a chance.
I’m not willing to pay $100+/year for the illusion of security. I’d rather invest it in a real solution like a car alarm or home security system that has a realistic chance of deterring crime.
Mike Thomas, Shaw Homowner, and Matt:
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Mike, Shaw Homeowner and Matt,
If private patrols only create a “false sense of security,” then how do you explain the decrease in crime in Forest Park Southeast, Southwest Garden, and other areas with an SBD? Or the fact that Southwest Garden residents and property owners (there is a very high concentration of multi-family housing there) overwhelmingly voted to continue the SBD? Or the fact that CWE residents overwhelmingly voted to continue their SBD?
It’s not a false sense of security if factual evidence from other neighborhoods actually back up the claims that it works.
And if it doesn’t work, we get to vote it down in 5 years. I’ll be first in line at 6 am to vote the sucker down if it fails.
Jim-
I’d wager the crime decrease has a lot more to do with the overall decrease in crime across the city, cited in other posts on this blog. Including the new city sales tax increase that helped hire new police officers. It’s factually irresponsible at best to attribute any decreased crime *solely* to the SBDs in these neighborhoods.
Speaking of a false sense of security, I’ll give you a perfect example of exactly why I don’t think the rent-a-cop solution will make this neighborhood safer.
This past summer, about 6:30 at night, my wife and I were walking down Flora near the intersection with Thurman. We were shocked when we saw two police officers run onto the porch of a nearby house, peering into the front windows with guns drawn. We were about 3 houses away at the time, so we stayed safely out of range as we watched what happened.
About 60 seconds later, I noticed the Hi-Tech Security car driving down the road towards us. He had driven past the house where the cops were, but he easily could have missed them since they were on the other side of the street. I ran out into the middle of the road to get the security guard’s attention. He rolled down the window and I proceeded to tell him what was going on, pointing to the house and the cops still running around outside.
When I had finished, the security guard just looked at me with a blank stare for about 5 seconds, as if to say, “Yeah, what’s that got to do with me?” Then he shrugged his shoulders, said the cops would take care of it, and drove off down the road.
I can’t think of a more fitting illustration of “false sense of security”.
Matt,
Then how do you explain the number in crimes on Flora being cut by over half between 2007 and 2008? How do explain that while crime was down overall in the City, it’s up in Shaw?
And most importantly, what are the solutions that can be effectively implemented to ensure we continue the fight against crime without the SBD? Our current arsenal includes the police, NSO, CSB and alderman. Many of us involved in this campaign (on both sides) have been using these tools for years.
In a few months, I will begin raising my family in Shaw, so this topic, admittedly, has gotten a bit emotional for me. I feel that I need to fight to do what is best for my children and wife, and I believe, at this time, the SBD will provide increased security. I believe this because other areas have effectively implemented SBDs and have voted to continue them. I believe this because there is factual evidence, whether you believe it’s coincidence or not, that private patrols work. You have anecdotes, but no facts that show crime in Shaw will decrease without the SBD. We can assume it will be more of the same.
For all of those on this board who live and invest in Shaw, I truly appreciate your development efforts here. As a small business owner, I understand the financial risks required to get up and running, especially taking a chance on a venture that may or may not turn you a profit. As someone whose taxes aren’t withheld but are paid out of my pocket every quarter, I know the pain of writing that check to the government. That said, my family’s safety trumps all other concerns. I respect your need to oppose the SBD, and I’m sure you can respect my desire to do everything in my power to keep my kids safer.
When this is all over, no matter the outcome, I’d like to buy Stephanie, Steve, Dan, Amy and others a round at Thurman Grill to toast our great neighborhood. Political campaigns in this country have been ugly ever since Burr and Hamilton dueled. However, the great thing is that we can then sit next to each other at the pub or in the pew and, hopefully, civilly discuss our differences. You’ll hear more from me during this campaign, but please be assured that I’ll be an ally after it ends!
“I respect your need to oppose the SBD, and I’m sure you can respect my desire to do everything in my power to keep my kids safer.”
I can respect your desire to keep your family safe.
What I cannot respect is your desire to force me to pay for your family’s safety against my will.
We can go back and forth all day on whether the SBD will really work or not.
What the issue boils down to for me is, I do not believe it will work and I am not willing to spend my money on it.
Rather than respecting the decisions of those who do not wish to pay for this venture, you and all those in favor of the SBD feel justified in violating our property rights.
No amount of statistics or good intentions overcomes the fact that what you all are attempting is theft.
You can try to sanitize it by running through an election process and having someone else (the Collector of Revenue) take the money for you. You can try to justify it by saying it’s going towards a good cause.
But the end of the day, you’re trying to keep your family safe from crime by committing a crime of your own. There’s no justification for that.
Accusing supporters of a crime? That means there are many criminals across the city, as there are 59 separate CIDs or SBDs.
We’re not forcing this tax on anyone. We’re asking for a vote and passage by a majority of our neighbors. If you feel that an ordinance or law that is passed democratically is criminal just because you don’t like it, I can write a book of criminal acts committed during my lifetime.
I’m sorry you feel that way, and I hope that, if the SSBD passes, you stay here and at least give the SSBD a fair shot. You’ll have access to budgets, meetings, meeting minutes, etc., as those on the Committee for a Safer Shaw have ensured me, as I was forming my own opinions, that the administration will be very public and open.
In response to Matt’s comment:
This reminds me of the way I feel about paying for all of the city schools that my kids will never, ever use. But I still pay it and it’s a hell of a lot more money than you would pay for additional security.
I don’t think 2 to 4 cars are going to do anything. there is a lot of space in shaw and there is no way it could really be effective. so why waste money for nothing? i would rather spend the money on home and car alarms, front and back porch light bulbs, and dog food. i think the money spent on those things would be much more effective in deterring crime. if the amount of patrol cars were a proper number then i might actually consider voting for it, but i don’t want to pay for nothing.
some say its a low cost, but how many other low cost items are we paying for now?
If this passes will this mean the regular police portection will be reduced?
No, regular patrols will be the same. The Commission will oversee where the patrols are to be working according to high crime areas, times of day, crimes committed etc…a crime mapping if you will. This allows targeting of areas that have/or are having problems or if trends are seen over time as to areas related to crimes. These patrols cannot be called out of Shaw for other city crime related activities…well, unless a bomb hits or major disater but that is understandable. But as far as the ‘normal’ robberies, shootings, car accidents, homicides and the such….
i still don’t see how 2 – 4 cars are going to cover all the streets and alleys. i heard they were thinking about putting the cars in known trouble areas. seems to me that the criminals would just relocate to a different spot in the neighborhood. plus, if a car is sitting in a certain area then that means my block is getting neglected. my biggest concern is paying for nothing, and i just don’t think there will be enough patrols to make any kind of a difference.
also, i’ve seen signs(for the tax) on flora and a bunch of signs on homes that will not have to pay the tax due to tax abatement. easy decision i guess when you have nothing to lose. i think tax abatement shouldn’t apply to the patrols.