Impact fees, not gas tax, should pay for new roads
Letters to the EditorPublished August 31, 2005
Re: Raising gas tax is a hard but right road to take, Jim Fowler letter, Aug. 26.
The letter by Citrus County Commissioner Jim Fowler states, among other things, his reasoning for his approval of the board's raising the gas tax next January. He states four reasons why he thought this was the appropriate thing to do. I would like to point out the lack of factual basis for several of these reasons.
(1) He states that our local roads are becoming congested, and under state law and our own Comprehensive Plan, we must expand their capacity.
This isn't a fact. If your roads are getting congested, according to the state law and our own Comprehensive Plan, you stop issuing development permits for projects that would feed into those roads beginning to become congested.
(2) He states that the cost of expanding our local roadway system has exceeded our annual road project income derived from impact fees, gas tax and ad valorem taxes.
This, too, is not a reliable fact. Granted, projected costs have exceeded what is in our coffers, but if new development is outstripping what it costs local government in services, we must raise the impact fee.
Currently in Citrus County, growth does not pay for itself, even though it should. Impact fees are the vehicle the state allows us to enact to cover the impact of new growth, not gasoline taxes.
If nothing is "bondable" (or borrowable) but a taxpayer tax on gasoline per Commissioner Fowler, then delay development approval on traffic-generating projects until the impact fees are raised to the point where they can generate the needed money to widen and improve the roads for the new folks to use.
Longtime residents should be paying a gas tax to repair the bumps and holes in our roads that came about through our years of use. But we shouldn't have to pay a tax on the gas we use now to build bigger and better roads for bigger and better developments and overdevelopments.
-- Helen L. Spivey, Homosassa
Parents can prevent underage drinking
Contrary to public perception, most underage students do not drink alcoholic beverages.
The 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates that 71 percent of adolescents, 12 to 20 years old, do not drink. The percentage of college freshmen who reported drinking beer frequently or occasionally is 6 percent lower than in 2000 and down 38 percent since 1982, according to the 2004 American Freshman Survey.
This is good news, but there's more work to be done.
When the Roper polling organization asked youths ages 13 to 17 what is the greatest influence on their decision to drink alcohol or not, 75 percent cited their parents as the No. 1 influence.
That's why Anheuser-Busch and Bernie Little Distributing offer Family Talk About Drinking, a free parent guide designed to encourage open, honest communication on this subject.
For parents of college-bound freshmen, the "College Talk" guide can help continue this discussion as their children move to the next level of independence. To download these free guides, visit familytalkonline.com, collegetalkonline.com, or call toll-free 1-800-359-8255.
When it comes to the fight against underage drinking, responsibility matters.
-- Ken Daley, Ocala president, Bernie Little Distributing Inc.