(click to enlarge images)

Are one-lane bridges in eastern Elbert County with minimal traffic a priority here?  If 1B passes, that’s not where the money will be spent.  Nor should it be, however, those images which represent a small fraction of road conditions in Elbert County are a much better sell.

So who paid for the 11″ x 17″ glossy flyer sent out by the Elbert County Transportation Initiative?  And how come no one’s home at www.saveyourroad.com?

Before you buy the “public safety” argument in favor of 1B, you should see; 1) evidence of harm caused by poor roads, 2) the value of that harm, 3) evidence that similar harm will probably occur in the future if the road isn’t fixed, 4) evidence that the road can be fixed to prevent future harm, and 5) a commitment to allocate tax funds to that specific problem.  

Tax 1B contains none of this information.  It’s a blank check. 

The Election Notice recently mailed to “All Registered Voters” in Elbert County doesn’t add up.

Here’s the relevant section:

 Consider:

Over the last 4 years spending grew by 92% from 2003.  If you extrapolate the historical rate of growth on a straight line to 5 years, (4 x rate = 5 x .92; rate = 1.15), you get estimated 2008 spending without the sales tax, of $29,380,195.  After adding in the sales tax impact, the new total is actually $31,349,745. 

This comes to a 19% total budget increase in one year!  (Not subject to Elbert County’s fiscal year spending limits of course.)

If we assume that county revenues continue to grow at the average rate of yearly increase, the county will see an increase in 2008 close to the amount they seek under the new sales tax.  So, why can’t the county allocate increased revenues from the general fund to road and bridge instead of going to the voters for more tax money?    

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)