so who has been paying this consultant out of Nashville?

I think the city and county are using this to help take people's minds off the Jan 31 fiasco amd to have platforms for their re-election campaigns. I hope we can vote on it. I'll bring up the question again. Let's say we have a brand new metro gov. Will that mean that someone who has served two terms on city council or commission would be able to serve again, since technically it is a brand new government? I wonder if that is a plan to skirt the term-limits.

I would pay double in taxes if I lived in the city. Yes, I know I'd get fire protection, trash pickup and a few other things, but it doesn't even out. Not even close. Assuming a lot of "efficiencies" (which I have a hard time believing with any government), my taxes would have to go up at least 50% and maybe substantially more than that. Any committee will need to demonstrate to county voters (maybe by a restriction written in to the proposal which cannot be altered) that they will come close to breaking even with additional services they will no longer need to pay for separately.

Three words...

Urban Service Fee.

That is how this will be proposed. Savvy taxpayers will know that no matter what is written down in writing it CAN and WILL be changed over time.

Set aside the "efficiencies issue" for a moment, why do politicians want Metro? Two reasons, money and power. Where does that money and power come from, developers.

Look at the amount of area that can be developed in Knox County. Two types, currently undeveloped and infill of land already developed or brownfield. The easily developed land has already been developed.

What is left will cost more to develop and will have higher price points than the currently developed land. Do you want to subsidise that development?

If you watch the zonings you will see many developments proposed on slopes that make no sense. Not all land can been made into a subdivision or condos. Learn it and live it.

The devil is in the variances granted.

That is why I have written about the importance of the storm water ordinance. Metro government will allow the ability to change existing ordinances. I assure you, it is not about getting rid of term limits. They don't have the guts or the stupidity to abandon term limits, but they might try to reset the clock for two more terms. Any Metro Charter will have term limits. That is a given.

We absolutely need a primer on Metro. Who do you trust to write that primer? The News Sentinel? The Knox Area Chamber? Bill Baxter? Mike Edwards? Mike Arms? Mike Cohen? The Metropulse? KNOX? Hallerin Hill? Mayor Haslam? Mayor Ragsdale? Anyone on the Sixth Floor? Rachel?

All of the sins of storm water are set to be dropped in the laps of property owners. You folks need to understand when government does a poor job the balloon note is left to either the property owner or the taxpayer.

Chad is correct, there is no benefit for Metro for those outside the City limits that can justify the cost.

If only we had two daily newspapers...

Didn't the last proposal include an urban services district, which in effect kept taxes higher in those areas where more services like the ones you mention are provided? That starts things off with little change in taxes for any individual, and with the new govt not having to expand services real rapidly.

I need to do some reading up on this - I'm sort of speaking through a hazy fog of memory.

P.S. The deal breaker for me right now, as a City resident, is that much of Commission is outright hostile to the City. With a metro govt likely to be dominated by county-based officials, I'm very uncomfortable that City residents will get a fair shake.

I'm also pleased with the direction the City has been moving in things like public participation. Both the south waterfront effort and the new downtown design guidelines included extensive, meaningful public participation efforts. There also have been a # of govt/citizen task forces, which have made substantive recommendtions that have been implemented. If this continues, by the time Haslam leaves office, much of this will be institutionalized in the City.

The County is light years behind on this kind of thing, although they are starting to make a few efforts. I doubt that Paul Pinkston can even say "public participation."

My neighbor got so disgusted with the county commissioner antics, she looked into annexation. She ran the numbers and long story short, it would cost her less than $400 per year to be "citified". With county charging for use of dump - it's even less.

In the city there are advantages on insurance rates since being in the city gives you a better rating. You don't have to pay $400 a year for fire protection. File long form and your taxes are deductible. Bonus: getting to deal with city council instead of monkies in suits.

Ennui: "The convention center is also the elephant in the room."

But Ennui, wouldn't it also be the case that city residents would then pick up the debt associated with a 90-facility county school system, and with whatever number of facilities the county library system operates, among other types of county debt? It would seem that knowing how city debt compares to county debt is the more relevant question.

Chad, I just looked at my own personal home assessment from the county to get a handle on your thought that you would "lose" if your taxes went up by 50%.

I assumed a scenario in which I had to pay a 100% increase, at the same $2.69 per $100 in assessed value currently charged by Knox County. Since I post under my own name, and since you can look it up if you're insatiably curious anyway, I'll share it, as follows:

100% Value: $162,300
25% Value (to which tax rate applies): $40,575
Rate per $100 in Assessed Value: $2.69
Property Tax Due: $1,091.46

As I mentioned in another thread, county residents generally absorb $400-ish/yr for Rural Metro fire protection and $400-ish/yr for BFI garbage pick-up, and may absorb another $400-ish/yr for a monitored alarm system (I do).

As you can see, in my case, even a 100% tax increase wouldn't cause me to "lose." Because of the land associated with my home, its value exceeds the average home value in Knox County, and it also exceeded the average home value in my zip code, the last time I looked.

That being the case, I think I can say with certainty that *the majority* of county residents in my zip code, assuming they carry the same privately-contracted services I carry (and that they pay similar amounts for those services), would NOT lose given even a 100% tax increase.

If you would truly "lose" through a 50% tax increase, I have to assume your home is valued significantly higher than the majority of the county's homes. The "ability to pay" principle, though, guides taxation in the Western world.

So sorry to learn of your wealth? ;-)