By: Uberstadt on 8/26/09
The lighting fee structure sounds like a good idea. I suggest charging vacant property if it is privately owned since there is a benefit to the property owner to have the light in the street. The City should adjust the rate fee increase to help pay for the future conversion of the street lights to LED which could result in further cost savings.

By: Sunshine on 8/26/09
If someone walks by my house, can I charge them rent for using my light? If I'm blind, do I still owe? If there are 6 people in my family, do I owe more because more of us are getting the benefit of the streetlights? If I promise to stay in after dark, can I get a rebate?

This has to be one of the sillier ways to increase property taxes without just flat out increasing property taxes. It sounds like you're taking lessons from Pawlenty. After all, you can't be blamed for a tax increase if you call it a user fee instead. Talk about disingenuous!

By: comeon on 8/26/09
WHAT A JOKE!!
We need to start reminding these clowns that they work for us. I bet they find a way to come up with the funding for a rase.

Never mind I think they just did.

By: DHAnderson on 8/26/09
Who should pay for the light at 5th St. E. and Union? The folks who have the light on the Pole in front of their house? What about the 3 houses down the street, where the light does not shine. Perhaps we should pay a photon tax and count the actual photons that fall on a piece of property!

The whole idea sounds silly to me.

I do agree with Uberstadt that more efficient lighting would be great, but I doubt that the city had anything like that in mind when formulating this micro tax.

By: SDHO on 8/26/09
Pokorney is right that this isn't fair, but *all* of the city's money (except LGA) comes from real estate owners, so I don't think that is more unfair than simply raising taxes. I'd support something like a city sales tax, but that would be considerably more involved, requiring approval from the state legislature.

And, since property owners already pay for streets and sidewalks adjacent to their property, why is it so wrong that they should pay for streetlights? It's a modest fee and, unlike a general tax increase, this forces the colleges to pay. (Also, like streets and sidewalks, the argument could be made that homeowners' values benefit from having street lighting.)

I agree with Uberstadt's comments regarding LED lighting. LED is not only energy-saving and cheaper in the long run, it's more reliable than the HPS bulbs used now.

Sean Hayford O'Leary

By: Sunshine on 8/27/09
Real estate taxes *already* pay for the street lights. Think about it. The street lights exist. How were they paid for? With property taxes. By enacting this fee, the city is stripping out street lighting from current property taxes and making residents pay for them on top of their current real estate taxes. Don't get fooled. This is merely a real estate tax increase. Nothing more, nothing less.

By: Uberstadt on 8/27/09
What does it matter how the lights are paid for? Either you pay for it on your utility bill or you pay it via your property taxes. Either way, you pay. We could turn them off because no one wants to pay the bill. What is the difference if the city pays the electric bill from the general fund or with a utility fee? Who pays to accept and treat your waste water and pick up your garbage? You are billed for that monthly. Should be put that on the property taxes, too?

The State placed a cap on property taxes so the city cannot keep raising them. Creating ways have to be found to pay the bills another way. To me it’s just a wash. Big deal.

By: MOM on 8/27/09
As owner of Viking Terrace, I don't feel that we should be paying an additional $2,676 for street lights. We have thirteen street lights throughout the community and we pay for them ourselves. I think that would be unfair. I think more research needs to be done before this is implemented. Maybe the city needs to make some personnel cuts or decreasing staff hours to cover their shortfall, just like any other business is doing to balance the budget.

By: Observer23 on 8/27/09
It starts with the street lights and will keep going from there. Just watch.

By: deacond on 8/27/09
I agree with others who feel this is unfair and silly. But, it gives the city a great opportunity to get back some money from the two colleges who pay no property taxes. Sock it to 'em! Triple their share of the lights and let them pay for the public school lights as many college employees send their children to our many school campuses.

By: dapa2 on 8/29/09
Call it what it is..... a tax! A new tax.... and remember businesses do not pay taxes. Everything a business must shell out for taxes becomes higher prices for consumers .... thus a double whammy for consumers. Oh thank you bureacracy and elected nincompoops in Northfield!!! Another fine example of not living within the means of the taxes we already pay!

How about giving me the option to turn out my street light in front of my house? I have no sidewalk and do not need it anyways.

Sunshine said it exactly correct. Your property taxes already pay for city services like fire, police and street lights! We are we going to elect people who can say no?