Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones
Why don't you just admit that you don't like horses? I'm assuming that you have no idea how many people ride in the area that the bridge was replaced. It's probably a lot more than you would expect.
So, your estimate that hundreds use the bike path every day makes it a worthwhile tax funded project? Does that estimate include all the people using the path during the crappy weather and in the winter? I'd guess that the amount of use versus the number of people using it is probably less than you think.
As for taxes, stables pay high taxes because they're taxed at the business rate, not residential. Residential horse owners are taxed at the residential rate, but in order to keep horses on your property, you must own a minimum amount of land. The more land you own, the more taxes you pay.
|
Buckman's position is an example of "it doesn't benefit me so I think it's a waste." I think this is a fine opinion to have but instead of making up frivolous numbers and 'facts', just state that you disagree.
Personally, I support the project. It's a project that kept people employed, preserves access for anyone in the state to all areas of the Blue Hills and allows more oversized trucks to use that section of Rt 24.
Let's not forget that the local stables are commercial enterprises that pay taxes. Also, keeping horses is not cheap. Between vet appointments every 6-12 months, having the shoes replaced every 3-6 months, feed and all the other expenses, they generate tax dollars just like any other business. They also have employees (more tax money) and typically pay for services (vet/shoeing) from local providers and as such, keep that money in the community.
For the record, I've never been around horses, but my mother worked on a farm that bred and boarded them when she was a kid.