Chairman Ritter posted a comment about the water bond thread of discussion. Rather than having it buried in the comments section, I am going to post it separately, below. Paul, I can certainly understand your frustrations with the legislature not finding a dedicated source of revenue to fully implement our
[This post has been revised since it was first published yesterday to reflect that the water bonds will not have to be paid for with general revenue. Since then, a reader has posted the fiscal note. It says that the bonds include both self-supporting and not self-supporting debt, and that
Representative Otto posted the following comment on the blog, in response to my argument that the proposed amendment to allow homesteads to be valued only as a residence violates the principle that taxation should be equal and uniform, and I wanted readers to be aware of it. Mr. Otto writes:
