11-06-2012, 09:57 AM
11-06-2012, 10:05 AM
..yet he didn't veto it.....
11-06-2012, 10:26 AM
(11-06-2012 10:05 AM)chuwy9 Wrote: [ -> ]..yet he didn't veto it.....
That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
11-07-2012, 11:47 PM
(11-06-2012 10:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:05 AM)chuwy9 Wrote: [ -> ]..yet he didn't veto it.....
That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
Close to 60% of voters believe in something... It wasn't even close.
11-08-2012, 04:44 PM
(11-07-2012 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:05 AM)chuwy9 Wrote: [ -> ]..yet he didn't veto it.....
That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
Close to 60% of voters believe in something... It wasn't even close.
The vote for the prop wasn't a vote for in favor of the stadium. The vote was in favor or making others pay for the majority of it.
11-08-2012, 09:17 PM
(11-08-2012 04:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-07-2012 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:05 AM)chuwy9 Wrote: [ -> ]..yet he didn't veto it.....
That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
Close to 60% of voters believe in something... It wasn't even close.
The vote for the prop wasn't a vote for in favor of the stadium. The vote was in favor or making others pay for the majority of it.
So you voted no because you wanted the city's taxpayers to foot the bill. Gotcha.
I'm glad you finally admitted that mista was right all this time.
11-08-2012, 09:33 PM
(11-06-2012 09:57 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Mayor Cook today on KLAQ admits that he does not believe that the baseball stadium will be an economic boast to the city.
WTF is an economic boast?
11-09-2012, 12:12 PM
(11-08-2012 09:17 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote: [ -> ](11-08-2012 04:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-07-2012 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:05 AM)chuwy9 Wrote: [ -> ]..yet he didn't veto it.....
That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
Close to 60% of voters believe in something... It wasn't even close.
The vote for the prop wasn't a vote for in favor of the stadium. The vote was in favor or making others pay for the majority of it.
So you voted no because you wanted the city's taxpayers to foot the bill. Gotcha.
I'm glad you finally admitted that mista was right all this time.
I voted no because I wanted City Council to be forced to find an alternative way to fund the project.
City Council cannot raise property taxes to build the stadium.
11-09-2012, 03:17 PM
(11-09-2012 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-08-2012 09:17 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote: [ -> ](11-08-2012 04:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-07-2012 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
Close to 60% of voters believe in something... It wasn't even close.
The vote for the prop wasn't a vote for in favor of the stadium. The vote was in favor or making others pay for the majority of it.
So you voted no because you wanted the city's taxpayers to foot the bill. Gotcha.
I'm glad you finally admitted that mista was right all this time.
I voted no because I wanted City Council to be forced to find an alternative way to fund the project.
City Council cannot raise property taxes to build the stadium.
City council cannot, but taxpayers can. And voting "no" authorizes the road to higher taxes on property owners. So like I said....you voted no because you wanted the city's taxpayers to foot the bill. And once again...mista was right.
11-10-2012, 02:39 AM
(11-09-2012 12:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-08-2012 09:17 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote: [ -> ](11-08-2012 04:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ](11-07-2012 11:47 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote: [ -> ](11-06-2012 10:26 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]That is correct. He said that city council believes in the stadium and therefore he decided not to veto the project. However, he says that he personally does not believe that it will be an economic boost to the city.
Close to 60% of voters believe in something... It wasn't even close.
The vote for the prop wasn't a vote for in favor of the stadium. The vote was in favor or making others pay for the majority of it.
So you voted no because you wanted the city's taxpayers to foot the bill. Gotcha.
I'm glad you finally admitted that mista was right all this time.
I voted no because I wanted City Council to be forced to find an alternative way to fund the project.
City Council cannot raise property taxes to build the stadium.
The stadium could be built using "local sales tax", therefore, moving current projects covered by sales tax to property tax... It is quite simple