One Cent Surtax Ballot Referendum

[Snowy]

Now it's unsolicited text messages:

View attachment 96904

Vote NO!

 

[Jim Tucker]

This tax and connector road is for 10,000 new homes in Watersound and another 100,000 north of the intracoastal. I'm guessing at the numbers from the amount of land St. Joe has for development. Watersound parkway across the intracoastal and all along HWY 79 in Bay County will add even more homes all the way up to I-10 and beyond.

Roads like these are how you make little old SoWal with all its supposedly protected lands open for development like everywhere else in Florida.

As for Seaside's money supporting the tax, I assume that is for their long desired plan to re-route 30A on the north side of the town, which will also have to be in the State Forest.

 

[Matt J]

JOE's long term goal is to sieze back the forest they view as their land. If you remember correctly they threw a LOT of money at lobbyists and attorney's to get back the land that is Watercolor and Water sound.

 

[Xenos]

Can someone please help me understand how the county can constitutionally impose this surtax? Admittedly I am not a lawyer, but if I read Section 212.055 of the Florida Statutes correctly they can not impose this. The statute states that a county cannot levy the infrastructure surtax and the small county surtax, indigent care and trauma center surtax, and county public hospital surtax in excess of a combined rate of 1 percent. To my knowledge, the county already imposes a 1 percent small county surtax. So how can they try to impose another 1 percent in addition to this?
Thank you to anyone who can help me understand this. I have attached some docs from EDR that discuss the infrastructure and small county surtax.

 

[30A Skunkape]

No. No. No. I read the language on the ballot today. It is a joke.

 

[Jimmy T]

Vote no. If this passes, we will be paying for it the rest of our lives. Let that sink in.

 

[delipug]

Vote NO!!! I hike the trails quite often back where they are wanting to put this road. It would be a shame to disturb this natural environment, the impact on the animals that live in this forest will be devastating. It should remain preserved for them and for us to enjoy now and for future generations.

 

[iloveflorida]

I am a no for 2 reasons. That report and the 30 years..

Agreed!!

 

[iloveflorida]

The state hasn't agreed to a road, but according to the plan the first step is $5 million for right of way acquisition. For some reason we're doing that before PD&E and even before the state agrees to it, not to mention the utilities that own the easement.

This tax is a boondoggle waiting to happen. Vote NO.

I vote No but the road is needed. minimal impact

 

[Matt J]

I vote No but the road is needed. minimal impact

Based on what? The whining of some rich people?

What is the minimal impact of subdividing one of the largest uninterrupted tracks of state Forest we have?