Imperial Fargo/Cass rely on various regressive taxes to further their agenda(s).
However, the recent chatter put forth by the Fargo Diversion Authority public outreach committee proposing a property tax assessment for the diversion is nothing more than another regressive tax designed by a den of thieves.
In December 2014 public outreach members appeared perplexed in how to gerrymander the vote, so they conspired a different way to “roll it out” to get impose public buy-in.
The proposal places a disproportionate burden on property owners, which are determined by value and risk, that are not equitably represented by the voter base that determines whether the assessment district passes or fails.
Essentially, voters with little or no risk get to vote on whether to impose a disproportionate assessment onto others with an alleged greater risk, yet the Fargo Diversion Authority routinely touts unqualified benefit to a fictitious 200,000 people.
The overall “lie”, that is the Fargo Dam and FM Diversion began several years ago and the project that exists today is based upon a fabricated EOE flood level that is not supported by historical precipitation records. Precipitation records indicate 73 of the past 134 years being below the 134 year average. Ironically, 45 of those years occurred during the alleged “wet-cycle”.
Ironically, the EOE “wet cycle” has very little to do with factual flood protection for the city that exists. FEMA and USACE POR (period of record) 100 year data are nearly identical. The Corps “wet cycle” was used as manipulate data, generate a favorable cost benefit ratio and foster encroachment into the last natural flood plain south of Fargo. Keep in mind, the current proposal nearly doubles the footprint of Fargo, ND on the back of tax payers.
The recent “lie” trotted out by the den of thieves is a tax assessment encumbrance that places a mandate that property owners become co-signors of bonds, bank loans and lines of credit they intend to use to fund Fargo Diversion Authority spending habits, shore up and ultimately pay for the multi-billion dollar boondoggle.
Out of the declared $725 million votes needs, local governments retain $483 million votes and allowed only $242 million votes to the remaining voters. So no matter how you slice it, the powers that be, that contrived the assessment, ultimately have the greater share of the vote to impose an assessment for a project that voters have never formally chosen by ballot.
So how did this assessment come to be…? Continue reading and listen to the audio clips and make your own determination.
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Ken Pawluck Cass County Commissioner |
“Well, if we’re presenting that concept on the basis of…, of…., an obligation against your property that you don’t have to pay or…, that’s, that’s…, we’re gonna lose, we’re gonna…, lose because all the energy goes to explaining, wny that is.” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Eric Dodds AE2S |
“If voters approve this…, that will continue to tell a great story that…, we have agreed to assume liability because we need this thing.” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
“The special assessment district really the idea of it is, the cost of construction is going to outpace the revenues we have. So financing is going to have to happen for this project.” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
“So we have gone down this path of how to do an assessment district through the water district in order to get this financing. So if the assessment district were to be set up you could bond against it. And when you get those annual payments you use the sales tax revenues to pay the annual payments and so that, that bond, liability against your property would go down every year as the sales tax pays for it. It’s at some point if sales tax no longer is around or not sufficient or whatever, whatever makes up the difference, then that could possibly be against the property as well. So I think the intent is to keep sales tax around to keep paying those annual payments” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Jake Gust Project Supporter |
“And to absolve the property owner totally of any responsibility I think is a mistake.” |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
…that, that…, that is a opinion we’ve heard too from some legislators that maybe didn’t like the sales tax when that was went through they preferred that residents had skin in the game so to speak.” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
“We’ll make sure you get a bill…”(laughter) |
| Eric Dodds AE2S |
“I do think that, I mean, y’know, like any other assessment district that the water board will do, this assessment district will require property owners to vote and so they will be voting to place liability on their property bill…, and we hope that sales tax will pay for that but…, y’know there’s a chance that it won’t.” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Ken Pawluck Cass County Commissioner |
“Okay, what about uhhh…, what about shaking loose some of the uhhh…, tight restrictions that the water commission has on how the, the appropriated funding can be used?” |
| Eric Dodds AE2S |
“There was a, there was a…, small team, ummm, some of the common staff locally here as well as some of the administrators met with some of the accounting and adminstrator folks at the state water commission, I was not part of those meetings but my understanding was they were having discussions about that exact issue, y’know, if we’re sorta getting criticized for having this pot of money that’s been, uhh, allocated by the legislature, and, and we’re getting criticized by them by not spending it and then part of the state water commission staff is also sorta criticizing we’ve got this pot of money why aren’t you spending it but on the same hand the state water commission staff is putting all these restrictions on how we can use the money, so…, they had sort of an educational meeting with the water commission staff and it sounded like that was sort of…, another step towards the right direction and there’s gonna be another meeting or two to help continue that dialogue, with the hopes of, sorta…, allowing us to use more of the money that the legislature appropriated all within the guise/guides of legislation, ummm…” |
| December 10th, 2014 Public Outreach Transcript Excerpt | |
| Ken Pawluck Cass County Commissioner |
“Well we’re nearing (cough) in on $60 million dollars, having been spent and the state has…, just around $2 million dollars that they’ve, that they’ve spent even though they’ve authorized, uhh, a $175 million…, so…, there’s a great disparity there and…, what they say they want to do and what’s actually happened so…, I’m glad they’re talking about it” |
FAST FORWARD TO PUBLIC TAX ASSESSMENT MEETINGS
| March 10, 2015 Tax Assessment Meeting (Holiday Inn) | |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
“sure…, So the question is if 100 percent of residential votes vote no would the assessment still pass? Ummm…, I guess personally I haven’t looked at what the breakout is for residential properties…, all properties get a vote, it’s not just residential properties that get to vote, so that is sorta the example the we showed, there’s also commercial properties, ummm, some…, some commercial properties are pretty value that get quite a lot of vote, so I’d have to exactly break out how that works, the county and the city also have very sizable votes, and so…, I guess if…, 100 percent of the people were against something I’m sure that’s something the elected officials who are elected by those people would probably take into consideration when they cast their vote as well.” |
| March 17, 2015 Tax Assessment Meeting (Harwood, ND) | |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
“It’s true townships, the city and the county have, have, have large votes, they have a lot of say in this.”[splice]“Government entities we are, we ar…, they’re elected bodies that speak on behalf of all the people.” |
| March 17, 2015 Tax Assessment Meeting (Harwood, ND) | |
| Rodger Olson CCJWRD |
“..y’know there’s no guarantees on how any one…, of the indirect benefited areas will vote…, I can’t tell you that, that…, I know how West Fargo is going to vote…, I do know that Cass county voted…, in favor…, of…uh…the assessment district…, yesterday at their regular meeting.” |
| March 17, 2015 Tax Assessment Meeting (Harwood, ND) | |
| Rocky Schneider AE2S |
“…doing the math one-third of the 725 is voted upon by the county…, y’know ultimately if the bond goes out it, it falls back on the full faith and credit of the county…, so the county is the one that is going holding the…, the paper at the…, the end of this and so they got the biggest vote…, but they’re also voting on behalf of the majority of the people that elected them…” |
Just how naive do these imbeciles think tax payers are?
“…voting on behalf of the majority of the people that elected them…” is a pile of steaming horse manure!
How is it possible to “vote on the behalf” of the people when they’ve not waiting to see how the people have chosen to vote? This is nothing more than taxation without representation.
This is also clear representation of the corruption and lack of moral ethics akin the architects of the tax assessment and overall schemes nebulous to the Fargo Dam and FM Diversion project.
Not only did Cass County Joint Water Resource district manipulate the vote in such a way that elected officials can vote contrary to the will of the people, they will be tabulating the votes without independent verification, that will scrutinize every NO vote with impunity to ensure that the outcome remains in their favor.
Curiously, the architects of the diversion tax assessment failed to address how governmental votes will pay their $483 million share. So it appears that the a substantial portion of the tax liability story is being intentionally withheld from voters.
Remember…, the CCJWRD defined $725 million votes but attributed only $242 million to voters, leaving the balance to be imposed directly or indirectly, when or if the sales tax sunsets. Ironically, any diversion debt left unpaid will be imposed upon the assessment district in place. Which suggests the claims of property tax liability diminishing over time will reduce the tax assessment encumbrance apportioned to any given property, is a disingenuous statement.
It is absolutely imperative that everyone receiving a ballot votes, preferably “NO”. Ballots will become evidence necessary in proving governmental overreach, corruption and taxation without representation.
Clever or incompetent…, either way, every elected official and appointee involved with the latest charade needs to be recalled or not elected or re-elected in the future to any position involving public trust and tax revenues.
Views: 173
Do I understand correctly that every unreturned ballot will be counted as yes vote. So if no private property owner returns a ballot – fargo will claim unanimous approval?