It's probably pretty obvious that lots of Naperville residents are breathing a sigh of relief today that a quarter cent citywide sales tax is off the table as a means of funding the building of the new parking decks. Whew? But there's a wrinkle here. Given that one of the possible solutions to find this sorely-needed money to alleviate the parking situation is to tack on a one percent food and beverage tax in the downtown (on top of the one percent food and beverage tax that already exists), isn't the end result the same - just more taxes? And if this is the way it is ultimately done, won't there be a trickle-down effect from the restaurants that are forced to impose the tax? In other words, Naperville diners and beverage consumers may be faced with higher prices on their menus and bar tabs. Any way you look at it, a tax is a tax - with more money going out of the already heavily taxed taxpayer's wallet.
Sales tax safe, or is it?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sales tax safe, or is it?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/981
A one cent additional tax is not too much to ask those who frequent Naperville restaurants. We are very fortunate to have free parking, although there is not enough places to park. I recently had to drive around for 10 minutes in order to find a parking place so I could go to dinner. I am not breathing a sigh of relief over this vote. Naperville needs this parking deck and the city council needs to approve it now.
10 minutes? And you're complaining? Instead of spending more money to support the ridiculous, gas-guzzling habits we've formed, why don't we work on bringing shuttles & other forms of public transportation into Naperville? Oh wait, I forgot, we're cutting that funding. Speaking of that, where's THAT money going? Why not use THAT to pay for your precious parking? Or how about walking? God forbid a Napervillian has to walk a few blocks to stuff his or her face.
I think it is premature to take any funding options off the table. The money has to come from somewhere. If you remember, the Van Buren deck was to be funded primarily by the downtown businesses. They agreed to pay about two thirds of the cost -- until the decision was made to build, then, suddenly they convinced the council that the entire city would benefit from the deck and therefore, they shouldn't have to bear the majority of the burden. Council agreed and it was funded from property taxes....my guess is that the merchants would like the taxpayers to fund this deck as well.. If the city collects 2% in sales tax, they need $2.1 Billion in sles revenues to recover the cost of the new decks (estimated at $42 million) Over 20 years, that's $105 million per year in sales generated in the downtown area -- over and above what is collected today. Does anyone really believe that is going to happen??
I wish to correct my prior posting to clarify that the entire cost of the Van Buren deck is not paid by property owners -- the downtown merchants pay a portion of the cost, over and above the portion in the general property tax levy. My point was that they pay considerably less than they originally agreed to pay.
It would make sense to me that the majority of the money to build the parking garage should come from the surrounding downtown businesses. They are the ones who stand to benefit the most from the additional parking capacity, after all.
Recently, the Chicago Tribune reported that Wheaton was building a downtown parking deck that would be financed -100%- by the downtown businesses, no additional burden on the other taxpayers. It is possible and it is certainly fair. I'm fairly certain that a vibrant downtown in Wheaton is beneficial to the entire community, just as it is in Naperville. Why should private citizens in Naperville subsidize business in the central business district? ( Except by shopping or dining there.) Why not subsidize development and pay for the parking for businesses along Route 59 or 75th street or 95th Street? Doesn't the city benefit from those areas, as well? ( I hope everyone realizes I am not suggesting that we begin such subsidies.)