“Why make taxpayers pay for it?”

By: Mr. Wilson on June 27, 2006
"Why make taxpayers pay for it?" That's a reasonable question, Councilman Camp. He must have a reasonable response for it, too, because Jon Camp voted to spend $2 million of your tax dollars to build a new Hy-Vee at 50th and O Streets. The situation is this: the City of Lincoln has declared a good chunk of the area around 48th and O blighted. As part of the redevelopment, Hy-Vee wants to build a large store to replace its 70th and O location. (A curious business decision in my mind, but hey, they didn't ask me.) Since the area is blighted, the project is eligible for public dollars. In the Hy-Vee project's case, that amounts to around $2.1 million, roughly $750,000 of which would go into Hy-Vee's pockets. The rest would go toward infrastructure improvements that would indirectly support the store. The store is expected to return about $120,000 in annual tax revenue. It's not clear if that $120,000 is above and beyond what the 70th and O store already returns, or if it is merely a replacement for whatever the 70th and O store currently contributes to the public coffers. Given that information, Councilman Camp has obviously decided that the project is worth making taxpayers pay for. But why? Councilman Camp, I would like you to answer your own question: Why make taxpayers pay for it?

Comments

See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.

Swid
June 27, 2006 at 4:35PM

I think somebody just volunteered himself for the next open-mike City Council meeting.  😛

beerorkid
June 27, 2006 at 5:34PM

because he is not going to donate the profits from
“Alpha squad 7: Lady Nocturne: A John Camp adventure” to it.

Dave K
June 27, 2006 at 6:15PM

Good points.  I’d like to hear him stumble over a response to that question. 


I just think he looks too much like Billy Joel to be an effective leader.

foxspit
June 27, 2006 at 7:18PM

As I understand it, the property in the blighted area of 48th and O streets was/is owned by the Misle’s who have substantial resources to keep their property up.  Why, indeed, are taxpayers required to foot improvements to this privately owned section of town?  If I let my vacant property go to crap like that, you can bet I would be getting nasty letters from the city to clean it up.

I don’t have a problem footing some of the bill for improvements to the area.  Streets need to be put in place, landscaping, etc.  And in general, I support some form of tax incentives to encourage improvements in blighted areas.

This seems to be pushing the envelope though.

Share your thoughts with the community.

Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.