City needs to rescind its support for URAs

Mark William's letter in the Dec. 8, 2005, issue sure cleared everything up for me — not. It sounded like a kid whose mother just caught him taking money out of her purse.

In one breath he says the URD is "tax neutral." Immediately following he states it would increase taxes $5 per $100,000. Later he states taxing entities are unaffected, but then says the mil rate would jump 0.5 percent.

The cost of the Great Northern Road/Woodland Drive project has jumped from $2.8 to nearly $10 million in the last couple years.

He constantly mentions downtown revitalization/infrastructure, what does that mean? What "large projects?" How unspecific can you get? Things that LIDs, impact fees, grants and standard property taxes won't cover? More hanging flower baskets maybe, stupid narrowing of intersections and red brick sidewalks such as at Main and Third?

And how does helping downtown benefit the entire county, or me for that matter? All the new construction was supposed to ease all of our taxes, not become a license for new ways to spend more. The bottom line, just because the "Private Economic Development Corp." says something, doesn't make it so. Note the word: "Private." I wouldn't expect my neighbors to pay for my new garage, that's my responsibility. The same for the Seasons and Panhandle Bank who can take care of themselves in spite of what Miller and Williams say.

I call upon Steve Lockwood, Helen Newton, Ms. Lamsen and Mr. Boge to rescind this URD turkey when the new council takes office next month. Sandpoint is growing all by itself thank you. It needs no further help from the taxpayers.

LAWRENCE FURY

Sandpoint