"Swingman" wrote in message news:...
> I am beginning to suspect that we could do worse than making a calculated
> effort to replace the current crop of "emergency management" _leadership_,
> at the national and regional levels, with a core of seasoned, ex military
> combat leaders. I doubt there is anyone in this country, as a group, who
is
> better trained and more qualified to think, plan and react as you point
out
> ** above.
As has been so clearly demonstrated in the past 36 hours, the proof of the
above is in the pudding.
Once again, this country would do well to forego the current crop of
"emergency managers", with their know-it-all, we know what's best for you,
condescending attitudes, observed firsthand in my personal experience with
the current school of thought in "emergency management" during TS Allison in
2001, again in this very thread, and shortly thereafter, and tragically,
during this aftermath of Katrina.
Military combat operations are the epitome of "emergency management", and
there is no one better trained in leadership and _effective utilization of
resources_ than those trained and experienced in same.
We already have them, we've already paid to train them, and we need to make
a calculated effort to utilize that prior investment in a civilian capacity,
and with a special emphasis in the homeland security department. In these
times ... yours and my kids lives may soon depend on it.
The past 36 hours amply proves the point, without question, or yahbuts.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:03:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >> OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
> >> >> are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...
> >> >
> >> >Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
> >> >services, what more expensive additional programs.
> >>
> >> Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
> >> property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
> >> utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
> >> support those residences.
> >
> >No, I didn't forget any of that. I only said that residential property
> >taxes are not sufficient in themselves to justify growth. It's a mantra
> >often used by people as a reason for growth but it doesn't pay.
> >
> >It takes all the business and other taxes to help subsidize the property
> >tax, if you will.
>
> I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up.
Well can you find figures relating total or porperty tax rate
vs population density, or total tax revenue, or total tax revenue
vs total population for a nice cross section of communities?
or property tax rate vs population density?
Perhaps better, can you find the history of property tax rates
(or total tax rates) for specific communities vs population over
time and compare that to the national average change in property
tax rates or total tax rates, adjusted for inflation.
Seems it would be a tough problem to address due to confounding
factors like major (taxable) corporate entities moving into
or out of those same communities at the same time, unless you
want to consider such changes as manifestations of developement.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:11:50 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >>
> >> I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. ...
> >
> >It's unusual in places I've been for developers to pick up all the
> >associated costs of developments--they may put in the sewer lines in the
> >subdivision, for example, but they don't add on to the central station
> >for increasing it's capacity. Nor do they build the new schools and
> >other infrastructure such as the fire department additions, et al. I
> >don't have actual data at hand but no city in which I've resided has had
> >individual personal property taxes which covered all the ancillary
> >services on a per capita basis.
> >
> >I don't think it would be hard to find, however. What does your city
> >spend on such developments as well as routine services and how does that
> >compare to the personal property tax revenues? I doubt it will cover it
> >w/o the sizable business tax revenues.
> >
> >I wasn't arguing so much against expansion, simply observing that the
> >residential growth alone more likely than not doesn't pay its way by
> >itself.
>
> again though, it is not just the property taxes, but also the other taxes
> as well that cover the other costs -- sales and use taxes, etc. Taxes on
> the businesses that move in that wouldn't be there if there were not an
> associated increase in clientele. This obviously works, otherwise
> municipalities could not afford to grow and support that growth. You have
> to have the residential growth to get the local business growth as well.
> It is a combination of all those tax sources that funds the resulting
> infrastructure. Certainly the school growth is funded by the increases in
> property taxes. Not everyone who moves into these developments sends
> children to the schools, but they all pay an equal amount of property tax
> for the schools.
>
I do love the arguments we heard around here not long ago, though: one
particularly yuppie area of the county was more or less classed as the
be-all and end-all of county tax support. Houses in the $300,000 range,
three kids per house, high end jobs. Basic problem: a 300K house around
here pays about $1800-$2000 in RE taxes. It costs close to 5K to
educate one kid. Other taxes? Many, maybe most, of these people work in
a close by city, not in the area where they live. They shop in that
city, they entertain themselves in that city. The actual savior of the
tax situation is at the other end of the county, on lakefront property
that has gotten insanely expensive over the past three decades. Average
house in and around that lake? $300,000. Mostly retirees. Average
number of schoolkids per household? Nada. There are some of course, but
probably not one in twenty. Shopping, though, may be done one county
over (better malls, if that's not a contradiction in terms), but much
is done in county. There's not even a high school really close by the
lake and there are never any complaints about that. With 754 square
miles, and maybe 63,000 people, the county skims by, but the building
continues apace in the yuppie area, and much more slowly in the lake
area. There's only so much lake and lake access land. Sooner or later,
the balance is going to be lost, and people are in for a major surprise
when the tax rates change.
Swingman wrote:
> "Charlie Self" wrote in message
>
> > three kids per house, high end jobs. Basic problem: a 300K house around
> > here pays about $1800-$2000 in RE taxes. It costs close to 5K to
> > educate one kid.
>
> A 300K house here pays about $9000/year in taxes, a little more than half of
> that is school taxes. Basic problem is the kid's don't get educated, racism
> (mostly reverse) is rampant, and benefits for the educrats far exceed what
> you or I will ever be able to afford.
Ah, hell. I know. Here, the bennies almost outweight the salaries,
which are slightly on the low side, but given expenses in the area
(things like a very decent townhouse two bedroom apartment for $450 a
month, low car insurance, lowest [until last week] gas prices except
for a couple spots in NC, and on), a starting salary of about 30K
doesn't seem all that bad to me. But these kids want to be out of
school and outearning daddy and mommy put together.
Add that to a total refusal to accept even the concept of merit pay--my
wife's oldest teaches Latin and music (choir or chorus) at a local HS,
is beyond competent and hates the idea of merit pay. You figure it out.
I can't.
Bennies. Oh, yeah. They are not as good as they were a decade ago.
Teachers now have to pay half their health insurance costs, IIRC. And
they can't reture until something like 58, instead of 55. That is, they
can't retire at whatever the bigger percentage of their pay was.
It's a bitch to have to work all of 33 years to get full retirement. Or
so I get told, as I approach 44 years, without even sensible partial
retirement, and with my health insurance primarly what VA is allowed to
dole out each year (plus Medicare, which I guess VA accepts).
I tell ya, I really, really feel for the plight of the American HS
teacher these days. (Actually, inner city teachers, yeah. I'd want a
squad of Marines to back me up there.)
By the way, a 300K house here, if it's not on the lake, is very large
(3500+ square feet), full air, zoned heat and air, and about every
amenity you can think of. A pretty decent house, 2400 or so SF set up
and ready to go except for furniture, probably runs 190K. The average
house is selling for 149K, 1800 SF, AC, etc.
My guess is that most of them will collapse a year after the mortgage
is paid off.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >...
> >> OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
> >> are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...
> >
> >Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
> >services, what more expensive additional programs.
>
> Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
> property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
> utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
> support those residences.
No, I didn't forget any of that. I only said that residential property
taxes are not sufficient in themselves to justify growth. It's a mantra
often used by people as a reason for growth but it doesn't pay.
It takes all the business and other taxes to help subsidize the property
tax, if you will.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
...
>
> I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. ...
It's unusual in places I've been for developers to pick up all the
associated costs of developments--they may put in the sewer lines in the
subdivision, for example, but they don't add on to the central station
for increasing it's capacity. Nor do they build the new schools and
other infrastructure such as the fire department additions, et al. I
don't have actual data at hand but no city in which I've resided has had
individual personal property taxes which covered all the ancillary
services on a per capita basis.
I don't think it would be hard to find, however. What does your city
spend on such developments as well as routine services and how does that
compare to the personal property tax revenues? I doubt it will cover it
w/o the sizable business tax revenues.
I wasn't arguing so much against expansion, simply observing that the
residential growth alone more likely than not doesn't pay its way by
itself.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:11:50 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >>
> >> I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. ...
> >
> >It's unusual in places I've been for developers to pick up all the
> >associated costs of developments--they may put in the sewer lines in the
> >subdivision, for example, but they don't add on to the central station
> >for increasing it's capacity. Nor do they build the new schools and
> >other infrastructure such as the fire department additions, et al. I
> >don't have actual data at hand but no city in which I've resided has had
> >individual personal property taxes which covered all the ancillary
> >services on a per capita basis.
> >
> >I don't think it would be hard to find, however. What does your city
> >spend on such developments as well as routine services and how does that
> >compare to the personal property tax revenues? I doubt it will cover it
> >w/o the sizable business tax revenues.
> >
> >I wasn't arguing so much against expansion, simply observing that the
> >residential growth alone more likely than not doesn't pay its way by
> >itself.
>
> again though, it is not just the property taxes, but also the other taxes
> as well that cover the other costs -- sales and use taxes, etc. Taxes on
> the businesses that move in that wouldn't be there if there were not an
> associated increase in clientele. This obviously works, otherwise
> municipalities could not afford to grow and support that growth. You have
> to have the residential growth to get the local business growth as well.
> It is a combination of all those tax sources that funds the resulting
> infrastructure. Certainly the school growth is funded by the increases in
> property taxes. Not everyone who moves into these developments sends
> children to the schools, but they all pay an equal amount of property tax
> for the schools.
You're trying to make much more out of what I said than what I said,
Mark. :)
But, you come back and reinforce my point--that residential expansion on
its own is generally a net loss revenue-wise for municipalities despite
a general perception to the contrary. It was because there is that
general perception that I made the observation.
(BTW, where it was made clear to me was while taking a series of classes
in planning while sitting on a City/County Planning Commission in TN.
That's been quite some time ago now, but I doubt the general trends are
much different now than then.)
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:03:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > >> >...
> > >> >> OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
> > >> >> are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...
> > >> >
> > >> >Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
> > >> >services, what more expensive additional programs.
> > >>
> > >> Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
> > >> property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
> > >> utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
> > >> support those residences.
> > >
> > >No, I didn't forget any of that. I only said that residential property
> > >taxes are not sufficient in themselves to justify growth. It's a mantra
> > >often used by people as a reason for growth but it doesn't pay.
> > >
> > >It takes all the business and other taxes to help subsidize the property
> > >tax, if you will.
> >
> > I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up.
>
> Well can you find figures relating total or porperty tax rate
> vs population density, or total tax revenue, or total tax revenue
> vs total population for a nice cross section of communities?
> or property tax rate vs population density?
>
> Perhaps better, can you find the history of property tax rates
> (or total tax rates) for specific communities vs population over
> time and compare that to the national average change in property
> tax rates or total tax rates, adjusted for inflation.
>
> Seems it would be a tough problem to address due to confounding
> factors like major (taxable) corporate entities moving into
> or out of those same communities at the same time, unless you
> want to consider such changes as manifestations of developement.
What's really significant is changes in local population and revenues
versus requirements for capital improvements and services, discounting
commercial entity-generated revenues. What is almost universally found
is that the non-business revenues simply aren't sufficient owing to
(relatively) low evaluation. (While a $300k house seems quite expensive
in some areas, compared to the evaluation of even a small industrial or
manufacturing facility, it's chump-change.)
There's some difficulty in separating out, but the tax revenues paid by
corporate entities are able to be separated in most jurisdictions pretty
easily. A major more recent exacerbating problem tends to be the
sizable rebates offered by municipalities to lure business which appears
to be leading to a different form of the "arms race".
Swingman wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" wrote in message
>
> > Add that to a total refusal to accept even the concept of merit pay--my
> > wife's oldest teaches Latin and music (choir or chorus) at a local HS,
> > is beyond competent and hates the idea of merit pay. You figure it out.
> > I can't.
>
> It's not the teachers I was referring to, it was the top heavy
> administration. One of my edicts, were I to rule, would be that NO
> politician can make more than a classroom teacher.
Thereby absolutely guaranteeing even a poorer pool of candidates to
choose from...
Not that I think teachers in general are poorly paid in comparison to
some other professions and that there are often more administrative
staff than necessary, but there are some reasons such situations have
developed. Charlie referred to one part of the story (but only a
part)....
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> three kids per house, high end jobs. Basic problem: a 300K house around
> here pays about $1800-$2000 in RE taxes. It costs close to 5K to
> educate one kid.
A 300K house here pays about $9000/year in taxes, a little more than half of
that is school taxes. Basic problem is the kid's don't get educated, racism
(mostly reverse) is rampant, and benefits for the educrats far exceed what
you or I will ever be able to afford.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
> Not disagreeing with what you are saying above. but I'm wondering why we
> are becoming so dependent upon the federal government to solve all of our
> problems. Much of the problems observed in the past 72 hours could better
> have been solved at the local level with adequate preparation. Certainly,
> federal help for the evacuation and re-build are needed; but the initial
> preparation should have been accomplished at the city, then state levels.
Not arguing, just wondering, but haven't the big problems always been
"solved" at that level? Wars, civil war, the great depression ... and this
was a biggie.
It's taken close to 40,000 troops and they're just getting started.
Louisiana, mostly rural, has always had a high proportion of its population
in poverty, and I am not so sure that it had the resources under the best of
circumstances, particularly when you consider how the population density has
increased the past twenty years..
Flying over any part of the country today and looking down, as opposed to 40
years ago, you can't help but be aware of the remarkable increase in
populated area. We may well have passed the point of state and local
governments being 'resourceful' enough to handle any situation of similar
impact.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> Swingman wrote:
> > It's not the teachers I was referring to, it was the top heavy
> > administration. One of my edicts, were I to rule, would be that NO
> > politician can make more than a classroom teacher.
>
> Thereby absolutely guaranteeing even a poorer pool of candidates to
> choose from...
Teachers, or politicians?
Average Senate salary: $98,542; Average HR salary: $87,894; Average Mayoral
Salary in the 50 largest cities: $100,000; Average US Teachers salary:
$45,822.
Go ahead .. take a loooong look around you, then expound/pontificate on who
is more important to the future of this country/where fiscal priorities
should be ... I am going to cut some wood.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>...
>> OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
>> are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...
>
>Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
>services, what more expensive additional programs.
How then are local governments able to provide those services?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> Add that to a total refusal to accept even the concept of merit pay--my
> wife's oldest teaches Latin and music (choir or chorus) at a local HS,
> is beyond competent and hates the idea of merit pay. You figure it out.
> I can't.
It's not the teachers I was referring to, it was the top heavy
administration. One of my edicts, were I to rule, would be that NO
politician can make more than a classroom teacher.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:03:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> >...
>> >> OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
>> >> are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...
>> >
>> >Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
>> >services, what more expensive additional programs.
>>
>> Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
>> property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
>> utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
>> support those residences.
>
>No, I didn't forget any of that. I only said that residential property
>taxes are not sufficient in themselves to justify growth. It's a mantra
>often used by people as a reason for growth but it doesn't pay.
>
>It takes all the business and other taxes to help subsidize the property
>tax, if you will.
I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. Given
that most homes reside on 1/4 to 1/3 acre lots, and, in my area at least
generate approximately $3k per year in local property taxes, that's
approximately $6k to $9k per acre per year in property taxes.
Infrastructure is typically paid by the developer and passed through to the
home-owner, so the only infrastructure cost with the neighborhood streets
is maintenance. That leaves schools, and police and fire. Given that the
sales taxes are, for the most part, also paid by the homeowners local to
their area, this hardly seems to be "subsidizing" property taxes nor does
it reduce the assertion that growth will increase tax revenue. (i.e, if
those folks were not in the developed area, they would not be paying those
sales taxes through those businesses. Nor, in many cases would those
businesses be located in that area because no market would exist for their
products.
While some of the effects of growth are not desirable (loss of good
farmland for example), the above tax argument does not seem to be a valid
argument to pursue as one for opposition to growth.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:11:50 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>...
>>
>> I would really like to see some data backing that assertion up. ...
>
>It's unusual in places I've been for developers to pick up all the
>associated costs of developments--they may put in the sewer lines in the
>subdivision, for example, but they don't add on to the central station
>for increasing it's capacity. Nor do they build the new schools and
>other infrastructure such as the fire department additions, et al. I
>don't have actual data at hand but no city in which I've resided has had
>individual personal property taxes which covered all the ancillary
>services on a per capita basis.
>
>I don't think it would be hard to find, however. What does your city
>spend on such developments as well as routine services and how does that
>compare to the personal property tax revenues? I doubt it will cover it
>w/o the sizable business tax revenues.
>
>I wasn't arguing so much against expansion, simply observing that the
>residential growth alone more likely than not doesn't pay its way by
>itself.
again though, it is not just the property taxes, but also the other taxes
as well that cover the other costs -- sales and use taxes, etc. Taxes on
the businesses that move in that wouldn't be there if there were not an
associated increase in clientele. This obviously works, otherwise
municipalities could not afford to grow and support that growth. You have
to have the residential growth to get the local business growth as well.
It is a combination of all those tax sources that funds the resulting
infrastructure. Certainly the school growth is funded by the increases in
property taxes. Not everyone who moves into these developments sends
children to the schools, but they all pay an equal amount of property tax
for the schools.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:13:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>...
>> OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
>> are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes ...
>
>Residential taxes are never sufficient to even cover the cost of basic
>services, what more expensive additional programs.
Hit "send" too soon. You are also forgetting that, in addition to the
property taxes there are the corresponding sales taxes, city taxes added to
utilities and other services, as well as taxes on the businesses that
support those residences.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:02:46 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Swingman" wrote in message news:...
>
>> I am beginning to suspect that we could do worse than making a calculated
>> effort to replace the current crop of "emergency management" _leadership_,
>> at the national and regional levels, with a core of seasoned, ex military
>> combat leaders. I doubt there is anyone in this country, as a group, who
>is
>> better trained and more qualified to think, plan and react as you point
>out
>> ** above.
>
>As has been so clearly demonstrated in the past 36 hours, the proof of the
>above is in the pudding.
>
>Once again, this country would do well to forego the current crop of
>"emergency managers", with their know-it-all, we know what's best for you,
>condescending attitudes, observed firsthand in my personal experience with
>the current school of thought in "emergency management" during TS Allison in
>2001, again in this very thread, and shortly thereafter, and tragically,
>during this aftermath of Katrina.
>
>Military combat operations are the epitome of "emergency management", and
>there is no one better trained in leadership and _effective utilization of
>resources_ than those trained and experienced in same.
>
>We already have them, we've already paid to train them, and we need to make
>a calculated effort to utilize that prior investment in a civilian capacity,
>and with a special emphasis in the homeland security department. In these
>times ... yours and my kids lives may soon depend on it.
>
>The past 36 hours amply proves the point, without question, or yahbuts.
Not disagreeing with what you are saying above. but I'm wondering why we
are becoming so dependent upon the federal government to solve all of our
problems. Much of the problems observed in the past 72 hours could better
have been solved at the local level with adequate preparation. Certainly,
federal help for the evacuation and re-build are needed; but the initial
preparation should have been accomplished at the city, then state levels.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 21:28:17 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
>
>> Not disagreeing with what you are saying above. but I'm wondering why we
>> are becoming so dependent upon the federal government to solve all of our
>> problems. Much of the problems observed in the past 72 hours could better
>> have been solved at the local level with adequate preparation. Certainly,
>> federal help for the evacuation and re-build are needed; but the initial
>> preparation should have been accomplished at the city, then state levels.
>
>Not arguing, just wondering, but haven't the big problems always been
>"solved" at that level? Wars, civil war, the great depression ... and this
>was a biggie.
>
Absolutely agree, the aftermath for a problem of this proportion will
require help from across the country. I would prefer to see more private
charitable help, but federal help restoring and keeping order is also
important. It looks like, once again, Americans are stepping up to the
challenge and doing right, organizing and donating to help those in need.
We spent a good portion of our morning Bible class discussing ways to help
those being bussed into the Tucson Convention Center, to the point of
people asking whether we could help some of them enroll in our school. It
also is gratifying to see that Kuwait is offering to donate $500M to the
disaster.
>It's taken close to 40,000 troops and they're just getting started.
>Louisiana, mostly rural, has always had a high proportion of its population
>in poverty, and I am not so sure that it had the resources under the best of
>circumstances, particularly when you consider how the population density has
>increased the past twenty years..
>
That is going to be a major challenge
>Flying over any part of the country today and looking down, as opposed to 40
>years ago, you can't help but be aware of the remarkable increase in
>populated area. We may well have passed the point of state and local
>governments being 'resourceful' enough to handle any situation of similar
>impact.
OTOH, when you look at the increase in populated area, remember that you
are also looking at a corresponding increase in local property taxes and
other tax revenue. If state and local governments are resourceful enough
to handle that kind of tax growth, they should also be using some of that
revenue for disaster planning.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+