When Assistant Secretary of the Army Civil Works (ASACW) Joe-Ellen Darcy comes to Fargo, ND to green light the PPA (Project Partnership Agreement) releasing $5 million in federal funding and giving Fargo their project start, we witness another ceremony of evil-doers giving ruinous ideas legitimacy.
From the outset, the alleged best and brightest have fallen prey to Fargo development agenda disguised as flood control for the very city in North Dakota that disrespects the balance of the states constituency for profit and leveraged policy.
There is no victory to be had for the residents of Fargo or the state of North Dakota because funding the multi-billion dollar beast that the Fargo Moorhead Diversion Authority (FMDA) has unleashed will burden taxpayers for the next two to three generations.
Even worse is the taxation without representation of any future generation that will be denied their right to accept or reject the tax obligation being imposed upon the yet un-born generations.
The talking heads will sanctimoniously refer to it as a “significant milestone” and continue to try and juxtapose a “fabricated” 20,000 in need of mandatory flood insurance against a dam and diversion project to legitimize natural flood plain encroachment which creates the very conditions at the center of the issue. All this, while Fargo’s elite laugh all the way to the bank for successfully preying upon taxpayers…, “because they can”.
Meanwhile one bad financial decision after another will mire Fargo deeper in debt with their only recourse being to further extend sales taxes and impose property tax assessments.
Most people are unaware that Fargo and Cass county took out a $100 million ($50 million each) from US Bank and held those liabilities off the FMDA books. The NON-taxpayer ratified loans were drawn against to allegedly to pay bills and contracts associated with the FMDA project along with escalating costs of the Oxbow project.
| 2016-06-09 Mike Montplaisir: US Bank Loan.mp3 | |
| 2016-06-09 Tim Mahoney & Kent Costin: Wells Fargo Loan.mp3 |
Rather curious that the talking heads of the FMDA, Fargo and Cass county are borrowing huge amounts without the consent of voters as though their actions are “administerial”.
According to the Fargo December 31, 2014 CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) <[7.2mb Download] Fargo has over $600 million in Total Direct and Overlapping Debt.
Can Fargo continue to spend and tax beyond legal debt limits without the consent of voters?
Fargo and Cass county are facing a minimum of $1.2 billion in borrowed debt obligation as a result of the Fargo Dam and FM Diversion project, “IF” the project remains on budget, which is double Fargo’s 2014 Total Direct and Overlapping Debt.
How much debt can taxpayers shoulder when tyrants continue to obligate the taxpayer to indebtedness beyond the limits allowed under the North Dakota Century Code…, especially when North Dakota is experiencing a significant budget shortfall and a Bakken Oil rebound does not appear to be coming anytime soon?
| North Dakota Century Code 21-03-04. Grant of power to borrow – General limitations of indebtedness. |
||
| Every municipality may borrow money and issue municipal obligations thereof for the purpose specified and by the procedure provided in this chapter, and for no other purpose and in no other manner, except as otherwise provided in section 21-03-02. No municipality may incur indebtedness in any manner or for any purpose in an amount which, with all other outstanding indebtedness of the municipality, exceeds five percent of the assessed value of the taxable property therein, except: | ||
| 1. | Any incorporated city, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified voters thereof voting upon said question at a general or special election, may increase such limit of indebtedness three percent on such assessed value beyond said five percent limit, and a school district, by a majority vote of the qualified voters thereof voting upon said question at a general or special election, may increase such limitation of indebtedness five percent on such assessed value beyond the said five percent limit. | |
| 2. | Any county or city, when authorized by a majority vote of the qualified voters thereof voting upon said question at a general or special election, may issue bonds upon any revenue-producing utility owned by such county or city, for the purchase or acquisition of such utility, or the building or establishment thereof, in amounts not exceeding the physical value of such utility, industry, or enterprise. | |
| 3. | Any incorporated city, if authorized by a majority vote of the qualified voters thereof voting upon said question at a general or special election, may become indebted in any amount not exceeding four percent of such assessed value, without regard to the existing indebtedness of said city, for the purpose of constructing or purchasing waterworks for furnishing a supply of water to the inhabitants of such city or for the purpose of constructing sewers, and for no other purposes whatever, but the aggregate of such additional indebtedness for waterworks and sewers never may exceed such four percent over and above the limitations of indebtedness in this section heretofore prescribed. | |
| All bonds or obligations in excess of the amount of indebtedness permitted by this chapter, given by any municipality as herein defined, are void. | ||
Views: 599