Comments on: North Bend considers annexation http://snovalleystar.com/2008/12/17/north-bend-considers-annexation Website for the SnoValley Star Newspaper Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:11:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ben Reser http://snovalleystar.com/2008/12/17/north-bend-considers-annexation/comment-page-1#comment-1659 Ben Reser Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:36:46 +0000 http://snovalleystar.com/?p=2309#comment-1659 There's no good reason to be annexed either. However, since most people have already signed off on the ULID and in the process agreed to waive the right to oppose annexation it's probably going to happen anyway. The supposed benefits listed in this article of annexation are: * Lower property taxes. I don't believe this for one second. The article talks about how the city expects to receive more revenue from doing this. I've lived in other areas where annexation happened and people swore up and down it would lower property taxes. In my experience this may be true in the short term but a couple years down the line they always end up needing more than they expected. * Needed for the ULID. The ULID doesn't require that the properties be in the city. It has it's own plan to pay for it. Even if annexation doesn't happen the ULID will. They're entirely separate issues. * Improved police protection. You've got to be kidding me. The city of North Bend (as the article points out) pays the county for police protection. It's the same cops in the same cars doing the same job. What exactly will be better? If you say more cops, I'll ask how that's going to be paid for without higher property taxes? Even if you assume the county passes along the costs to the city without any profit, more cops cost more money not less. * Better access to government. The idea that we can stop caring about the county council and just worry about the city is ludicrous. The county still can override the city. Instead you've got twice the government meetings to go to if you really want to stay on top of things. The only real benefit is to developers who wish to develop property out here easier. There are no real benefits to people with developed property already. It's just more bureaucracy that we end up having to pay for. There’s no good reason to be annexed either. However, since most people have already signed off on the ULID and in the process agreed to waive the right to oppose annexation it’s probably going to happen anyway.

The supposed benefits listed in this article of annexation are:

* Lower property taxes. I don’t believe this for one second. The article talks about how the city expects to receive more revenue from doing this. I’ve lived in other areas where annexation happened and people swore up and down it would lower property taxes. In my experience this may be true in the short term but a couple years down the line they always end up needing more than they expected.

* Needed for the ULID. The ULID doesn’t require that the properties be in the city. It has it’s own plan to pay for it. Even if annexation doesn’t happen the ULID will. They’re entirely separate issues.

* Improved police protection. You’ve got to be kidding me. The city of North Bend (as the article points out) pays the county for police protection. It’s the same cops in the same cars doing the same job. What exactly will be better? If you say more cops, I’ll ask how that’s going to be paid for without higher property taxes? Even if you assume the county passes along the costs to the city without any profit, more cops cost more money not less.

* Better access to government. The idea that we can stop caring about the county council and just worry about the city is ludicrous. The county still can override the city. Instead you’ve got twice the government meetings to go to if you really want to stay on top of things.

The only real benefit is to developers who wish to develop property out here easier. There are no real benefits to people with developed property already. It’s just more bureaucracy that we end up having to pay for.

]]>