Jackson Free Press

Mayor Dave Nichols II of Monticello has a letter in The Clarion-Ledger today opposing the move to pass a PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) bill for the capital city. It reads in part:

Based on the arguments you make concerning the infrastructure demands placed on Jackson by the Capitol and its offices being there, you would have to pay every city and county in the state. Every city has some type of state government building or buildings in its corporate limits, putting a demand for services.

Keep in mind, there are no property taxes paid on these buildings, either; yet, they receive all city services. I am sure Wesson and every other small city with a two-year college would love an annual payment from the state.

You must remember that the state is already paying for water and sewer in all these buildings so the state is helping with some of the infrastructure costs in Jackson and all other cities where it has property.

Previous Comments

ID

90709

Comment

Here's a different take, from an editor in Madison.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2007-01-08T11:04:45-06:00

ID

90710

Comment

Obviously the guy doesn't even understand what a PILT is for. The point is for the state to pay for property Jackson can't tax because it's owned by the state, not to reimburse Jackson directly for infrastructure costs. There's no reason in principle why the state couldn't do that in other cities, but I doubt that, oh, I dunno, say, MONTICELLO has enough state property to even make it worth considering.

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2007-01-08T18:56:55-06:00

ID

90711

Comment

good point, Tim. but ahem seems hard for some to get. thanks for the education, let's hope it passes on. I'm pretty smart and I don't get it right off, but it's clear to me, Jackson gets screwed, and that's not fair/good/ok. Give the city a break. 'layne'

Author

layne

Date

2007-01-08T19:06:29-06:00

ID

90712

Comment

I've got mixed feelings on this. One government authority trying to tax another to make up for lack of tax base seems weak. I've lived in other capitol cities that thrived from being the capitol city. Should the State have taxed the city for the honor? And if you grant Jackson's request, how can you refuse anywhere else? Reimburse Oxford for all the campus properties ? Personally, I think Jackson has turned an economic corner and good things (taxes) are to come. King Edwards, Farish Street, Standard Life building and all the money those Parkway boys are throwing around. Money chases money. These guys don't invest in a loser.

Author

Doc Rogers

Date

2007-01-08T21:49:06-06:00

ID

90713

Comment

Doc, I am glad to see your optimism. I hope it's realistic. Don't know the 'Parkway boys' but good for them, whoever they are. However, capitol cities I am familiar with, St. Paul, Madison, Albuquerque, don't have quite the same 'white flight' issue as Jackson does, folks just leaving the city for 'more space.' But all the good city stuff is still in the city. Maybe at tax at the border. If you want to go to Hal and Mal's and go back to ...if you like Fondren and go to the co-op there, but go back to... I have no idea.

Author

layne

Date

2007-01-09T14:16:31-06:00

ID

90714

Comment

The most obvious example of a city where PILTs are paid (and considered normal and ordinary) is Washington, DC. I think that's a clearer case than Jackson's (a much larger portion of Washington is Federal property than the portion of Jackson that is state property), but still. But it might be politically wise to simply have the state make these payments for all its property rather than singling out Jackson. I dunno.

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2007-01-10T07:34:22-06:00