A Little Theory

Hi All,

Firstly, trout I hope that you seriously reconsider looking for greener pastures. For one thing, you know what they say about "the grass is always greener on the other side." Once you get to "the other side" the grass will look greener over here again!

Seriously, Cherokee Village is fantastic. The quality of life, the pace, nature, and the special, undefinable "something" is almost spiritual in nature. The resources -- from golf, to lakes, to swimming -- relative to the tax burden and overall cost of living is unparalleled anywhere I know about. I don't like "shopping" craziness. And I like real people. John Cooper actually got less development than he wanted but actually a better environment overall for exactly that reason. And CV is not only good now, it is heading to an even better vision.

I would say trust a little more. 2030 is from people who really care about this place. They aren't "tax and spenders." At the level of taxation here in the Village, that very concept is almost laughable. Sure, a tight eye needs to be kept anywhere. But the folks I've met in the City have their hearts in the right place and truly do care about costs. In fact, they are always looking how to get work done as cheaply as possible. Work release is cleaning up road garbage for us because of City Hall initiative.

I suggest taking seriously the idea that the City is underfunded relative to SID. The issue is really that simple. If we funded SID like we fund the City, SID would have the same problem!

Paul let's cut to the chase. Most (majority) of villagers could careless about city government only a few pushed for a city knowing that it would pass because the knew other would not vote of care what happened as long as it did not mess up their life. Golf is big here and cheap living is the key. So my taxes go up a little still cheaper. Until the city keeps spend and creates problems like HSV or BV. Also have you noticed the ageing of the village in homes. This will create a problem in the near future. Why move to CV when we can move to some place that has more shopping, medical and newer homes. That can not be addressed by the city or SID. The "road department" came by my street the other day and tried to clean out a drainage area so the water would go under the road not on top. A 12 year old with a shovel could have done a better job. The backhoe operator created a worse problem than before. Once the housing market improves (down the road) we will be looking at relocating to Missouri north of Springfield. Sad to say but that 2030 things is just a dream. And please pay attention the city will continue to spend and tax.

Hi fellows,

Of course, the City didn't just land one day from Mars. It required a ground-swell of political action and voting by citizens of CV. Enough folks wanted it to make it happen. No one rode in one day and declared them self an Alderman or Mayor. People wanted a City for some reason. I think the reason remains. I keep pushing after concrete things that we don't need that the City does. If we go through them one by one, maybe we could get some focus. But my hunch is that the tasks being done by the City are wanted tasks and that SID wouldn't be able to do them any cheaper.

Iroc, I don't know but I bet if you research their current problems they started out just like cv. spending a little then more and then taxes and spending even more. Just a thought. It all started somewhere and like I said we were doing just fine before a city.

Iroc,

You aren't kidding! The question always is : Compared to what? I'll take those CV "issues" any day of the week.

I can tell you this. We don't pay anywhere near what my sister and her husband pay in fairfield bay and that place has major problems. I hear the same bs about hot spring village. Both have big expenses and the residents pay through the nose. I take the village and its little problems over fairfield bay and hs village any day of the week.

Hi Forum,

The more I think about it, the more that I think my "little theory" in the prior post is probably right. Like your feedback. Any takers on this topic?

Hi Forum,

I've been thinking about the taxation issue in terms of the City. There's a question that goes back to the history of the development of the City governance. My theory is that the City structure was developed out of a desire for elected government but that it has never been adequately funded. Folks wanted the car but didn't want to pay for the gas, so to speak. If we look at the total assessed revenue dollars going to SID relative to the total going to the City, you easily see what I'm talking about.

I think that the best way to form the tax question is not in a SID versus City way. It is rather what services do we want, do we want it at least in part provided with elected leadership, and are we willing to start funding things in a more balanced way in terms of the distribution between SID and City?

Again, I believe that the services being provided by SID and City combined are what most people actually want done. Paying for it is another story as is how we distribute revenue for what is basically the same project -- running and maintaining the Village by two entities.