I'd be more inclined to support this idea if (and only if): The tax revenue it generated was applied 100 percent toward paying off the Water Street redevelopment scheme that subsequently blew up in the city's face and is a big cause of the city's current money troubles. Additionally, the city's authority to collect this income tax needs to expire once the debt is paid off.
And secondly, there needs be an amendment to the city charter that prohibits city-financed real estate schemes of this sort in the future. Without these two commitments established by law I'd have to say "no way" regardless of whatever other promises the advocates for the income tax make. Period.
The goofs on council who set this whole thing up a decade ago are mostly long gone now but the debt is still with them and so promises from the current mayor and council don't and shouldn't be much of a reassurance to the taxpayers given their track record, eh?
And secondly, there needs be an amendment to the city charter that prohibits city-financed real estate schemes of this sort in the future. Without these two commitments established by law I'd have to say "no way" regardless of whatever other promises the advocates for the income tax make. Period.
The goofs on council who set this whole thing up a decade ago are mostly long gone now but the debt is still with them and so promises from the current mayor and council don't and shouldn't be much of a reassurance to the taxpayers given their track record, eh?
