Elk Creek Fire proposed property tax increase sparks debate

WindPeak wrote: Yes you did write an opinion piece. You wrote about the opinion of the Chief who doesn't make decisions. You wrote about the opinions of Friends of Elk Creek. You wrote about Mike Bartlett's opinion but never discussed how the taxpayers get ripped by the language of the ballot question as it is written. No objectivity anywhere. The crux of the matter is the question not what the Chief has to say.

And you are right it is six union firefighters from your article.

The six union firefighters staff the No. 1 fire station

o·pin·ion 1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

An opinion piece is an article, published in a newspaper or magazine, that mainly reflects the author's opinion about the subject. Opinion pieces are featured in many periodicals.

Opinion pieces may take the form of an editorial, usually written by the senior editorial staff or publisher of the publication, in which case the opinion piece is usually unsigned and may be supposed to reflect the opinion of the periodical. In major newspapers, such as the New York Times[1] and the Boston Globe,[2] editorials are classified under the heading "opinion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_piece

I didn't write an opinion piece. The purpose of the article was to give each side a platform to present their argument. I gave each side equal opportunity to come forward to speak to me and I didn't use anonymous sources in the article.

I reached out in both private messages and public statements to the opposition I've seen on these forums to talk to me on the record about their facts. Mike Bartlett was the only one willing to sit down with me to lay out his concerns.

But thank you for your opinions.

Walter....you wrote a great article. I was interviewed for 15 minutes and you were thorough and committed to getting factual information and asked me to justify my comments which I respected greatly. The fact that you spent 4 hours of your time with Mike Bartlett speaks volumes that this was not biased. WindPeak...you have a lot to say and it is not surprising that many on this site hide behind their usernames and dont want to go on record. My eyebrows always rise a bit when people wont say who they are. It is a way to spew unsubstantiated information and not have to back it up or take responsibility for it. My name is Jennifer Eleniewski with Creekside Insurance and I approve this message and i for one am getting sick of the misinformation stated about insurance and ratings by those who hide in the shadows.

And you Jennifer Eleniewski are misinformed. You keep harping like a know it all about how insurance is going to go up if ECFD doesn't get what they want. I think a few have pointed out already that insurance is going to go up no matter what. Too bad ECFD couldn't have done a better job in the past and since the Chief came on board being more fiscally responsible and providing better training for their firefighters. McLaughlin screwed up in the Lower North Fork Fire and if you have listened to any of the scanner information ECFD f.f. floundered trying to access the fire while LNFF f.f. went to work climbing the mountain and fought it.

As for unbiased not at all. Just because Newton interviewed you with your misinformation and chose not to be unbiased and talk seriously about the question which is what will be voted on show that he skewed the information to fit his needs. Not factual at all. By the way I was never asked to provide any information. But I am sure your sorry attempt at being a businesswoman was out there wanting to provide as much misinformation as possible.

MountainGirl44 wrote: Walter....you wrote a great article. I was interviewed for 15 minutes and you were thorough and committed to getting factual information and asked me to justify my comments which I respected greatly. The fact that you spent 4 hours of your time with Mike Bartlett speaks volumes that this was not biased. WindPeak...you have a lot to say and it is not surprising that many on this site hide behind their usernames and dont want to go on record. My eyebrows always rise a bit when people wont say who they are. It is a way to spew unsubstantiated information and not have to back it up or take responsibility for it. My name is Jennifer Eleniewski with Creekside Insurance and I approve this message and i for one am getting sick of the misinformation stated about insurance and ratings by those who hide in the shadows.

Welllll, I'm convinced.... When the anti-tax zealots start lowering themselves to personal attacks over their own lies (while still hiding behind their usual smokescreens), I'll still vote FOR it on general principles.

So you become an anti tax zealot when you object to the poor quality of the ECFD when they don't deserve an increase.

And in case you didn't know it, this is a forum that uses nicknames and Terms of Service specifies not providing any personal information. But of course you knew that, otherwise we would know your real name.

Yea and Jennifer Zilcrapski is definitely a professional businesswoman. I wouldn't buy squat from her. All she is doing is peddling herself and her misinformation.

LadyJazzer wrote: Welllll, I'm convinced.... When the anti-tax zealots start lowering themselves to personal attacks over their own lies (while still hiding behind their usual smokescreens), I'll still vote FOR it on general principles.

LJ.....calm down....meds in the kitchen...lower shelf....you IMHO will vote for any tax, anytime and any measure that extracts citizens hard earned money......easily seen. ALL tax dependent entities should demo complete transparency and NEVER resort to fear tactics to jack up the public.

WindPeak....I rest my case...you are clearly not worth my time when you resort to name calling and insults. Misinformation.......i would love to debate you on insurance facts because I will win. You want to call me names and question my abilities as a businesswoman...bring it....i have plenty of people who can vouch for my integrity, professinalism,and concern for this community. i think the fact that i have been self employed for 19 years speaks to how I am as a businesswoman. Just keep doing what you are doing because it sure makes it easier for those of us who are respectful to win the arguement.

WindPeak wrote:
[snip]

By the way I was never asked to provide any information.

[snip]

No... you are correct, I never asked you personally. But I did ask the most vocal critic on these 4A threads to go on the record.

Walter L Newton wrote:

KINCAIDSPRINGS wrote:
[snip]

I keep trying to bring it back around to the district finances and the appropriate budgetary care. What detailed facts would you like? I am happy to give you all you ask for. I have already done my homework.

[snip]

And I've PM you and asked you if you would like to be one of my opponents that I interview for my rather long Flume article that will be published on Oct. 11th.

But you have not bothered to answer me.

The offer still stands.

If you have something to say "on the record" please PM me and we can arrange something.

And this person decline to be interviewed. And if you have been paying attention to these threads, then you should be fully aware who the person is that I asked above.

I've been open and up front about the fact that I was writing this article and you had the same opportunity to hit that "PM" button.

You didn't.

Walter L Newton wrote: (I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a home, nor do I pay property taxes)

You're not thinking straight today Walter. Unless you are homeless and living on the street you are paying property taxes. The person you are renting from collects them from you in your rent and submits them to the government for you. The cost of any goods or services you purchase contain the taxes that are remitted to the government, but most of us fail to consider that reality. Taxes are a cost of business, and, like every other cost to the business, they are included in the final cost to the consumer of the product, along with a profit margin of course. So not only are you paying property taxes, albeit indirectly, you are actually paying a higher property tax (due to the profit margin) than the owner of the property is.

PrintSmith wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote: (I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a home, nor do I pay property taxes)

You're not thinking straight today Walter. Unless you are homeless and living on the street you are paying property taxes. The person you are renting from collects them from you in your rent and submits them to the government for you. The cost of any goods or services you purchase contain the taxes that are remitted to the government, but most of us fail to consider that reality. Taxes are a cost of business, and, like every other cost to the business, they are included in the final cost to the consumer of the product, along with a profit margin of course. So not only are you paying property taxes, albeit indirectly, you are actually paying a higher property tax (due to the profit margin) than the owner of the property is.

Good point. When I first went into compiling this article, I didn't know that commercial property is taxed at 3.6 times the amount for residential properties.

That was an eye opener for me.

And that's specifically why I included that information in the article as a counterpoint to all the talk that seemed to only target the homeowner.