If real estate taxes were to fund services only it would be 2/3 of what it is now? Please explain how you came up with this number. As for your statement that the net effect is that taxes are still going up. Well what else do you expect? For them to get lower. Actually in my case they did. My area had no increase in assessment for the year and the mil rate went down to .89 so my overall liability went down this year. Even so, the cost of running the govt keeps going up just like everything else does. Please tell me how well you understand municipal funding and financing as well as how operational units are funded and how capital projects are handled. Also please tell me how the city rates in the financial market. We can talk further if I feel you comprehend how the City is run financially so that I can ascertain whether or not we can have a decent debate.

Fanatical "investment" in tourism hasn't reaped any "profits" to the general public. Yes, assessments are based on market sales criteria but wanton development spending has only continued increases in tax bills. The rate may be lower by regional standards but the net affect still keeps going up. If real estate taxes were to fund SERVICES only, it would be about 2/3 of what it is now. I just love that THERVICES argument from Spendemdorf.

to the question of why assessments are high: Assessments are higher because the value of property has gone up substantially in recent years. Assessments are based off of actual home sales, so it is determined by the market. The only control the City has is what rate to charge and at .89 it is by far the lowest in the region.

This from the same Linwood Branch who told me when he was a member of City Council that the voters "didn't understand the question as it was phrased" on the 31st Street park ballot=The voters are to stupid to know what's best.

Someone needs to inform Mr. Spore that the equity in my home is not his to spend as he sees fit and I am growing tired of hearing the promises of lower taxes for corporate welfare while my real estate tax bill seems to know only one direction-up.

If the hotel/motel owners want it, let them fund it.

I'm very suspicious of anything that Jim Spore supports. Some of these projects obviously have some worth to them. However, I've lived in Va Beach since the mid 70's and all I've heard from the politicans and developers is that investment in tourism keeps our taxes low. If that is true, why have our real estate taxes more than doubled in recent years. Yes, the tax rate is low, but assessments are high. The taxpayer may see some benefit but the developers are the real winners.
Each of these projects should be evaluated and treated individually and and carefully planned. Citizen input is rarely, if ever, considered.

A stand on some principle will not work in the real world. If the City makes it policy to not invest in any public/private ventures, then the businesses would go elsewhere-plain and simple. The only way to make that theory work is if all govt entities in the country decided at one time to stop providing incentives for private investment. It is not going to happen. If you think it will then I have some of that proverbial oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. We need to work with realities not ideologies when it comes to economic development.

the underlying issue that was implied but left unstated is the use of "public money" for private development. How this funding became de'rigeur is just baffling to me. No one can recall a project that did not go forward when "public money" was denied! So why are we providing it with the associated risks and burden to the taxpayer? Private development needs to stand on it's own merits, the developer and investors assume the risks and hopefully the rewards, leave the taxpayer out of it unless thay want to be a private investor. Now BEFORE someone goes to great lengths to explain the "benefits" of public private ventures first give me an example of a worthy project that was denied public money and it went undone.

As per the comment: "It is equally important that citizens understand how economic development in these strategic areas will positively affect them and the taxes they pay. All too often, people who object to economic development projects also complain about high taxes." While I disagree with some of the findings of this Blue Ribbon Panel (the numbers used to bolster some findings were very questionable-if not geared to support a pre-determined end), I must agree with this point. I hear and read of so many complainers that they want the following: lower taxes, high services, and restricted development. Anyone with any sense about these issues knows you cannot have all these elements in concert with each other. Yet we still have the lowest real estate taxes in the region by far, also the lowest personal property rate. And the City still has the best services and infrastructure, bar none, in the area. Quite an accomplishment that few want to recognize.