Mason councilman irritated by Kings Island official's comments

Posted Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:14 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Discussion on giving some Mason residents a full income tax credit also re-ignited debate on a city admissions tax. The possible tax credit has officials at places such as Kings Island worried that the city would seek to replace lost income tax revenue with money generated by an admissions tax. Greg Scheid, vice president and general manager of Kings Island, told council Feb. 12 that the city has a "moral obligation" not to create an admissions tax.

Read more from The Community Press.

Related parks

Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:20 AM
For some reason the link included is nothing more than a link back to this page.

Chuck

+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:38 AM
I used to live out in Mason and I can tell you that they generate more then enough cash flow from other taxes. Either they need to stop being so greedy in that city or stop spending so much money.
+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:23 AM
Sorry... fixed.
+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:37 AM
Scheid said at the time, then City Manager Scot Lahrmer, the mayor and council promised Kings Island an admissions tax would never be levied on the park.

Never say never....

"For you to stand up there, sir, and make it look like a quid pro quo, that is not the case and I don't appreciate that presentation."

Maybe not, but that lost revenue IS going to come from somewhere...

Looks like both sides have assumed a nice adversarial role...smells like Tulsa! ;)

+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:45 AM
Cedar Fair is now big business, and now that they're in town, I think it would be really stupid to take them on for this issue. Look at what they did in Sandusky with that stupid parking tax.
+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:23 AM
I know Greg Scheid and like him but I think his words might have been a little strong in that political setting. "Moral obligation"?

Jeff, you know municipal politics like I do. What elected officials may have "promised" ten years ago is meaningless if it wasn't put in writing as some sort of binding agreement.

+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:48 AM
I totally agree, those kinds of promises are meaningless. What's morally annoying is municipalities that compensate for a shortfall by trying to tax a specific entity.
+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 3:59 PM
I've written Mason's City council and told them. If you can afford custom street lighting and planting on even side streets.

YOU DON'T NEED MORE TAXES.

Chuck

+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:04 PM
My exact message to City of Mason council was as written.

Seems to me a city that can have decor lighting and plants on every street don't need to place extra taxes on Kings Island or its visitors.

Your out of line and bitting the hand that feeds you as I see it.

Charles Nungester

+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:09 PM
Elected officials don't like to hear anyone say that they (the official) is not entitled to their (the constituent's) money.
+0
Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:00 PM
What's wrong with your grammar guys. ...A city do not need to? ...They is not entitled? Practice what you preach. This is the all mighty, non-forgiving, Coasterbuzz, not some dinky little message board.

On topic, sounds to me a lot like the same situation Kennywood faced a few years ago. This taxation would cause KI to raise it's prices and/or lower the budget for the things it needs to run well.

Good luck KI.

+0
Friday, February 16, 2007 11:55 AM
Cities, counties, townships, etc. love these kind of taxes. Other similar cases:
1. Hotel taxes... Most municipalities charge between 10 and 15% tax on a hotel room
2. Car rentals, especially at airports, where the taxes can run 15 - 25% again depending upon the location.

All in all, politicians like these kind of taxes because, in general, the people that elect them do not pay a significant portion of the tax (i.e. out of towners pay the majority of the tax) and, in this case, it would be quite expensive for KI to pick up and move to another location (the captive audience theory).

+0
Sunday, February 18, 2007 8:35 PM
The obligation thing is an interesting angle, considering it dealt with the park property (and probably others in the area) actually changing the municipality to which it belonged.

I love how so many of these towns and cities have cute little slogans about how friendly and hospitable they are to tourists, while trying to figure out way to squeeze as much out of them as possible. I'm picturing Mayor Quimby here. Someone should figure out a way that a visitor could get the most out of the city services for which they're paying, legally of course.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...