09-26-2007, 03:26 PM
09-26-2007, 03:41 PM
Cowboy Wrote:
"The way I see it, we are minus three potential Crack Houses in Woodland."
That potential is always there in Oak Ridge. I wish we would run the crack dealers out of town instead of the developers!
That potential is always there in Oak Ridge. I wish we would run the crack dealers out of town instead of the developers!
Agreed
09-26-2007, 08:35 PM
Ok, apparently I've been misunderstood. Awhile ago, I said "We have to stop saying "NO" to everything.
No one likes change, but everyone adjusts to progress. After all, we once used a pencil and a scrap sheet of paper to do the math."
9Ball - I'm not opposed to a business making a profit. It's what makes the world go 'round. My initial point was that Patel has picked up the property at a "residential" price and is about to ask for a discount in his property taxes. I don't think that the city should allow a tax abatement or any other discounted style of taxing as he has already saved money when he purchased the property. Yes, I encourage businesses to come to town, but offer someone a discount if they are willing to take a dilapidated piece of commerical property with a view of rejuvenating what is making us look bad. Yeah, three more potential crack houses are gone, but that could have been rectified by the houses being reconstructed for residential use.
Cowboy - Yes, I too had the opportunity to scoop up the property, however, I have chosen to look in other areas of Tennessee where I'm able to get five acres in the middle of nowhere to build on in a few years. I don't want traffic of any kind. Until then, I will continue to focus on the city that I live and pay property taxes in for my home. That's ok, no ill feelings here. In fact, I applaud your statement about chasing out the crack dealers. I certainly wish that the people who own properties to rent out would screen their tenants better. Maybe when there's a drug bust at their rental property, they should be the one to pay the "crack tax".
It's all about progress. I don't have a problem with that.
No one likes change, but everyone adjusts to progress. After all, we once used a pencil and a scrap sheet of paper to do the math."
9Ball - I'm not opposed to a business making a profit. It's what makes the world go 'round. My initial point was that Patel has picked up the property at a "residential" price and is about to ask for a discount in his property taxes. I don't think that the city should allow a tax abatement or any other discounted style of taxing as he has already saved money when he purchased the property. Yes, I encourage businesses to come to town, but offer someone a discount if they are willing to take a dilapidated piece of commerical property with a view of rejuvenating what is making us look bad. Yeah, three more potential crack houses are gone, but that could have been rectified by the houses being reconstructed for residential use.
Cowboy - Yes, I too had the opportunity to scoop up the property, however, I have chosen to look in other areas of Tennessee where I'm able to get five acres in the middle of nowhere to build on in a few years. I don't want traffic of any kind. Until then, I will continue to focus on the city that I live and pay property taxes in for my home. That's ok, no ill feelings here. In fact, I applaud your statement about chasing out the crack dealers. I certainly wish that the people who own properties to rent out would screen their tenants better. Maybe when there's a drug bust at their rental property, they should be the one to pay the "crack tax".
It's all about progress. I don't have a problem with that.
09-27-2007, 03:22 PM
I have two friends who ran off Crack Dealers in their neighborhoods. It can be done.
09-27-2007, 03:28 PM
I agree with you Blowin Smoke. I don't think that we should subsidize Mr. Patel's taxes either. Not in this case.
09-27-2007, 03:42 PM
And he seems to have received that message.