Ben van der Meer of the Sacramento Business Journal recently reported on the ongoing effort to incorporate the Olympic Valley area of Lake Tahoe into a city and came to the conclusion that the effort would be unsustainable and be bad for the residents of the Olympic Valley as well as the Lake Tahoe Community as a whole.
The first issue is the size of the Olympic Valley. Many of the people that live in the Valley are not full time residents since many own vacation homes in the area. This means that the tax base to sustain the entire valley would be roughly 1,000 residents and that is not nearly enough tax revenue to fund the sort of projects that the campaign to incorporate Olympic Valley is looking for.
Moving forward with the city hood would essentially create a giant debt for the residents of the area at the latest by 2018. Once that happens the budget will essentially be running in the negative due to massive shortfalls in tax revenue. This deficit spending is predicted to start around 1 million dollars per year and grow to as high as 1.8 million within a ten year period.
A prominent land use development firm determined that it is not a good fiscal plan to move forward with the new developments. RSG or Resources System Group found that the proposed new hotels and vacation properties alongside retail properties could not be sustained without significant revenue shortfalls. The massive increase in commercial property will be a very high cost on the city and all of it’s residents while not necessarily providing adequate revenue outside of the tourist season.
For anyone not directly benefiting from the new land use plans it makes absolutely no sense to turn Olympic Valley as a single city. They should remain under the arrangement that they have now in order to save money for now and the future. The population of the valley simply cannot sustain forced growth and the entire area will become economically depressed as taxes increase and jobs and productivity decrease due to residents leaving.
Political debates between candidates are by far one of the most important tools used during presidential races. It gives candidates a large platform to base and debate their views on policy and reform. It also gives citizens a very wide view of their potential futures. Senator Bernie Sanders has officially entered the 2016 presidential race. The Independent serving to the great state of Vermont has expressed to his opponents that more political debates should be scheduled sooner rather than later. The debates are usually held during the fall, which is considered official debate season. However, Bernie has noted that with so many candidates on the ballot, the only way to ensure that their platform is well communicated is to have the appropriate number of debates. Fox News is currently scheduled to host the very first debate for this presidential season. It will air 6 months from now and focus on debates among the Republican candidates. As of lately, there are 16 Republican candidates. The news company has stated that only 10 candidates will be allowed to date. They will leave it up to the American people to vote on their 10 most applicable candidates. Bernie has used this notion to justify why there should be more debates on the campaign roster. If there were, Purina‘s Beneful team believe there wouldn’t have to be six candidates left out. Everyone will get their fair share at the eyes and ears of the American public.