Comments about ‘Bond burden comes due for Salt Lake City residents’

All these bonds were approved by the voters and now property taxes are going up for those who own property to pay for them. The question is, why does state law allow people who do not own property to vote on bond issues thus allowing property taxes to go up for somebody else? Sounds like some progressive agenda to spread the wealth.

I don't know why people vote for nearly every bond that gets on the ballot. Do people not understand that ultimately it's the taxpayer who is on the hook for these bonds.

There are not that many people who pay taxes. (i.e. they get most or all of their money back in tax refunds from credit's etc.)They have no "stake in the game" it's no "money off their backs" why not make someone else pay for it? If everyone realized that ANY AND ALL federal, government programs, and services had a price and if they had to pay for it, how much differently would people vote? I think they'd be more careful. I think it's a good thing if people have some cost involved themselves, because they care about it more. That includes poor people. To go to a doctor someone on Medicaid only has to pay three dollars for the visit, but at least for $3 they can decide if it's really that important to go to the doctor for. That's why health care services shouldn't be free. If they have to pay for it, people will be more careful about whether or not they need some services, instead of not caring, because, hey, it's free! Nothing is free.

As taxpayers most people want the services but think they're going to paid for out of invisible sources. We absolutely want the police ready when we need them, but opponents to taxation want somebody else to pay for the service. Services are NOT free...................and both the recreation complex and the new police building were approved. The latter is needed desperately....would you want to work in a building with leaks, mold, safety issues? Well no, so why expect our public safety officials to do so? There are other costs we could save through enforcing immigration, but that's a whole different topic. It is what it is. Services have to be paid for by the citizens.

Who were the geniuses at the city that negotiated bonds that came due at the same time? Great work on that one SLC! One more reason I'm glad I don't live there!

Dutchman, when was the last time you saw someone NOT pass along a rise in costs. You can bet that every landlord in the city is passing that increase in property tax along to each and every tenant. I am. What it sounds like is everyone complaining when the bill comes due for living high the last few years, not some progressive agenda.

Not to worry about non property owners voting for bonds that they think only home owners will have to pay for. The property owners of the rentals that they live in will raise the rents to cover the increase in property taxes. The only problem is the renters may not have been able to figure this out.

SLC has been like the shopper who buys new furniture, but doesn't have to make payments until next year. The next year eventually arrives. Can we even expect better, when this is normal fiscal behavior these days, not only for citizens but government as well? Buy now pay later!!

The article mentions the Police building and the soccer complex but ignores the "Judgment levy and emergency services issue". The building costs the average homeowner quite a bit more than the Judgment levy but the judgment levy and emergency services issue costs quite a bit more than the soccer field (which is pretty nominal). My question is obvious, why doesn't the article explain the other item? My second question is, the money for the soccer field has already been borrowed and is being repaid but the soccer field is apparently not completed, why?

Mine is an average home and my increase was 300$. Can somebody tell me why?? Time to vote all the crooks out of office. After they are gone it's time to impeach the chosen one.

CaseyA--the soccer fields cost a pretty penny more than the judgment levy.

Last year the county assessor decreased the market value of my home by $45,000. But that didn't stop them from raising my property taxes by $200. I went down to the assessor's office to have someone explain and do the math for me. Guess what they answer was? "We raised taxes because we can. If you don't like it, call the legislature and have them change the law." As a property owner, I am sick and tired of paying for everything the city and county wants to spend money on. "We don't have the money now? No problem, we'll just raise property taxes. What? No money for a new school district? No problem, we'll just raise property taxes. The zoo needs a new display for the bears and they blew through the cash they got from the last bond issue? No problem. We'll put another bond issue on the ballot and raise property taxes." UT needs a Prop.13 like CA. No more than a 2% increase per year. And NO, that didn't cause CA financial mess no matter what anyone says.