Gurnee wants to tax Six Flags Great America parking

Posted Friday, May 19, 2006 12:27 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Gurnee should look at Six Flags Great America if it wants to boost its revenue through new fees or taxes without affecting a majority of residents, some village trustees say. Although it wasn’t pursued in time to bolster the new budget that runs through April 2007, Trustee Greg Garner said he still thinks the village’s administrative staff should explore his idea of placing a $1 tax on every vehicle parked at Great America.

Read more from The Daily Herald.

Related parks

Friday, May 19, 2006 12:35 AM
Looks like a CP Sandusky round 2
Friday, May 19, 2006 8:31 AM
Remember, the government thinks all money is theirs. They think you should just shut up and be grateful for whatever they let you keep.
Friday, May 19, 2006 8:48 AM
HeyIsntThatRob?'s avatar Here in Elyria, Ohio the city commisioners are enjoying their new renovated offices that only costed them nearly $800k to do it. Ted Kalo is enjoying enjoying his new office with a 25-inch flat screen TV so that he can flip on CNN and all that jazz.

Of course here in Elyria $800k could have been better spent fixing that rocky pathway through the middle of town they call Route 57, but hey the offices are much more important than fixing roads, giving the police the stuff they need to do their job, or *gasp* cutting taxes.

Don't believe me? Read it here

The government is having fun with your money. Remember that ;)

~Rob Willi

Friday, May 19, 2006 9:00 AM
Jeff's avatar Chances are that the county has no fiscal responsibility for maintaining 57, so your comparison doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the county is a lot bigger than Elyria.
Friday, May 19, 2006 9:07 AM
HeyIsntThatRob?'s avatar So my comparison isn't so good.

I'm going to go ahead and double the size of my home, add some really neat motion sensor lighting so I don't have turn on any light switches, oh yeah I'd like to get rid of my old 27" TV and bump it up to a plasma TV so that I could better entertain guests that should come to my home. All I have to do is go door to door and let everyone know that I'm going to take $20 from them to pay for it.

Why is it that us citizens have to be fiscally responsible yet our government doesn't have to? No matter which way you look at it, our government and others that hold powerful positions are having their fun and sticking the taxpayers the bill. I wouldn't mind seeing a tax increase IF they were proven to be fiscally responsible.

~Rob Willi

Friday, May 19, 2006 9:22 AM
Jeff's avatar Dude, aside from the TV's, there's nothing out of line there that's any different from any new construction in a public building anywhere. And you're talking about fiscal responsibility as if the county didn't budget for any of this. They did, and it appears they've gone a grand over. Who cares?

Local government is the mark of efficiency compared to the feds, because there's a lot more accountability and people watching right there.

Friday, May 19, 2006 1:37 PM
janfrederick's avatar $800,000 isn't squat and probably wouldn't pay for the yellow stripe down the county road anyway.

But I get that feeling about local gvt sometimes too. Where I grew up in Milpitas, they just rebuilt their city hall for several million and yet the over crowded high school has leaky roofs. But at least city hall looks like something from Ikea. ;)

Friday, May 19, 2006 2:06 PM
Jeff's avatar But that's an issue that people don't appreciate either. A school and city hall, in most places, come from two entirely different governmental units. Particularly here in Ohio (where school funding is all wrong, still), cities are funded by income tax, counties by sales tax, schools, park districts and library districts by property tax, etc. Chances are, the city couldn't build a school if they wanted to.

But back on topic, if you're a resident, and you can pass off some of your tax burden to someone from out of town, you'll probably be OK with it. However, if this doesn't reduce whatever other tax they pay there (don't know how Illinois cities/towns are funded, income or property?), then I would have a problem with it.

Friday, May 19, 2006 2:12 PM
Local governemnt is just as corrupt and wasteful when it comes to taxpayers dollars!!!

And they are ALWAYS happy to screw the tourists as they then tell the voters they are responsible with the money that is confiscated from taxpayers!

And SFGAM plays right into this by gouging there guests for parking so it is then easy for the politicians to rationalize adding more money to the parking fee since SFGAM has just done the same.SFGAM has NEVER undercharged for parking and should give the guests the option of paying $5 for a map or reduced parking fee's.*** This post was edited by Bob O 5/19/2006 2:16:13 PM ***

Friday, May 19, 2006 2:56 PM
Jeff's avatar Come on, Bob. That's a generalization. No other form of government is more accountable than your local government, and at least where I live, you can't be taxed unless you approve the tax. You also vote for the people you put in office.
Friday, May 19, 2006 3:20 PM
HeyIsntThatRob?'s avatar janfrederick:

You've proven my point. The city hall looks like something from Ikea and it doesn't really have to. I'm sorry, no matter where you are looking; local, state, or federal, the government is having fun with your money.

This is another example of a city that needs more money to deck out their offices, give themselves a raise, or make the city look "pretty."

As for Ohio schools, the funding is crap, I agree with that. In LaGrange, our community decided to tax themselves to build a new school, but decided not to tax themselves to open it. So two elementary schools are closing to open the new high school. There has got to be a better way of doing the funding.

Oh yeah I remember now:

The State Supreme court ruled in 2002 that Ohio school funding was unconstitutional. It's been over 3 years and not much has changed, no legislation to change the way of funding schools and, no executive change to enforce it.

EDIT: How about that, the first ruling was back in 1991!

Your tax dollars at work :)

~Rob Willi*** This post was edited by HeyIsntThatRob? 5/19/2006 3:23:38 PM ***

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:30 PM
Jeff's avatar OK, no one wants a cardboard box for their public buildings. The cost per square foot between a boring structure and something that looks nice and will last is negligible. I've been involved with several school and city projects. With all due respect, Rob, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If you think they're having fun with your money, vote for someone else, or run for election yourself.

Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
And while they are at it, why doesn't the government force the park to let everyone with a half dozen illegitimate kids and those who are to damn lazy to work in free and give them a book of vouchers for free food from all the the parks concessions. It may mean that the rest of us have to pay an extra $20 or $30 for admission if and when we get a vacation day from our job, but it is the politicly correct thing to do.

(Man - I have been waiting a long time for one of these threads to turn to politics.)

Friday, May 19, 2006 10:32 PM
Local officials are voted into office, just like federal or state officials are. And they all waste money, off course the local ones will claim they are more responsbile, but all one needs to do is look at the budget they pass every year and it is easy to spot wastefull, spending, escpecially when it is money that local officials get from state and local government.

And i want to know what community allows every voter individually to determine what taxes they approve of, and if you dont wont require you to pay them??

Friday, May 19, 2006 11:11 PM
The town may find itself in real trouble if they pass a tax that openly targets a single business. Whatever money they collect from this tax will be spent in several years of litigation.

This is much different than something like a county wide hotel tax that numerous businesses are subject to.
They're not even making an attempt to say something generic like "a parking tax on entertainment venues" and right now we happen to have only one venue. It's a parking tax on SFGAM and only SFGAM.

Ideally, what should be done if the parking tax is enacted is to organize a boycott by parkgoers of all other businesses within the town limits; restaurants, gas stations, hotels, bars, etc. The town might make their money from out-of-towners visiting the parks, but how much might they lose if those out-of-towners stop patronizing local businesses? Yeah, I know how realistic would it be on a large scale, but if nothing else, people on this forum going to the park could make their own statement.

Friday, May 19, 2006 11:13 PM
Didn't read the other responces but If Gurnee did this, Then I would just make parking free and add the parking to the cost of addmission. This could be done by only raising adult admissions a couple bucks each

The park would be making just as much and the customer says Hey! Free parking while the park is collecting two bucks from everyone even the adults who rode with someone :)

Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:47 AM
Jeff's avatar If you complain about the way local government is run and don't do anything about it, I have no sympathy for you. I've spoken at my local city council meetings on several occasions. You make noise, get the press involved, when you don't like how things are going. My city isn't perfect, but they do a damn good job overall and have kept income taxes much lower than surrounding suburbs. Involvement is what makes it work.
Sunday, May 21, 2006 6:55 PM
"No other form of government is more accountable than your local government, and at least where I live, you can't be taxed unless you approve the tax."

I agree with this statement. However, what is the reason you think Ohio school funding is wrong? I'm not trying to start a fight. I'd like to understand this possible conflict. I realize how hard it can be to get levies (sp?) passed...but isn't this the ultimate form of local control government?

The local schools in Ohio perfrom at the level their surrounding community deems appropriate. There is a direct and imediate influence (voters) to make sure school spending is kept in check! This seems positive to me.

Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:24 PM
Jeff's avatar It's the way that the state funds construction that causes the big problems. A well-to-do community might get major dollars to build a new school when its tax base is growing exponentially, but another community that needs it more gets less. It's really screwed up, and the Ohio Supreme Court said it's unconstitutional.

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC