Perhaps some new people are tuning in after the articles in the local papers announcing the three questions on the ballot. [I love the way the Landmark said the voters are "facing" three referenda - as if it were a daunting prospect - instead of "have opportunity", etc.) Anyway, perhaps we ought to discuss them pro or con in a separate thread like this one.
The questions Should we have a TIF is what the CCR wanted, and is a straightforward question, whatever the mincing about its inadequacy. Personally, I am going to vote no for all the reasons discussed on this forum.
The other two questions placed on the ballot by the board on their own initiative seem from articles in the newspapers covering their discussion to be phony red herrings, meaning they are not really seeking public feedback at all, but are just trying to manipulate the answer to the first question.
The second question of whether we should have an increase in our property taxes implies it is the only alternative to a TIF, and begs the question that has not yet been answered, namely: what do we need the money for. This question is a simple one that has not been adequately answered since none of the funds seem targeted for village operations.
The last question of whether we want all residential development in the central "business" district is also designed to imply we cannot expect businesses without a TIF. This is despite the common representation that villagers have been clamoring in their thousands for more businesses. No one, contrary to the trustee's pretend question, has ever said they wanted all residential development, but rather that they don't want any development, don't want ugly development like the Village Center building, and/or don't want non-market driven, government supported development. The trustee DOES raise the interesting point that all residential development would result in substantially greater tax revenues to the village. Again a trick question because new dense condos will also necessitate spending to increase water/sewage capacity etc., thus likely obviating most if not all new tax revenues to the village.
The intent of these latter two questions, as suggested by the newspaper coverage of their discussion, do not appear to seek public advice or input, but to manipulate the advisory vote in favor of the TIF. But since they asked, I am going to vote yes to the last two questions.
It appears from the documents we have seen that all TIF money thus far is not targeted for maintenance or improvement of the village as it is, so it does not represent a benefit to us as we stand. The infrastructure improvements contemplated are all to support new development. Therefore, why do we need TIF? If there is no support for a business here, it will fold, government incentive to come here or no. If there is no further demand for condos, they will not be built, or will go unsold [as so many now are], or end up as rental units. Again, no government incentive will make it otherwise.