Not The Onion

18287 readers

1096 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

609

Oklahoma Town Faces 75% Property Tax Hike To Cover Sexual Abuse Settlement (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 6 days ago by throws_lemy@reddthat.com to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

148 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

They need $7,500 per resident and, according to the article, they intend to raise that money over three years. I don't know what their property values are like but if I assume an average house price of $300k, a current tax rate of 2%, and three people per house then they're currently getting $6,000 in property taxes per person over three years (which they need to spend on other things) and so an enormous tax increase really is necessary.

(I'm neglecting non-residential property tax payers. A tiny town like this probably doesn't have many.)

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 3 points 5 days ago

Your back of the envelope math is good, but small towns usually have very low property values due to not being super desirable places to live (and declining populations) a realistic average would be 100k average home value. Some will be smaller, older houses and only worth around 25-50k, some will be much newer houses built in this century worth closer to 200-300k but most will be older homes that people continue to live in and maintain worth around 100k

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And there's not really any guarantee that they're going to stop charging that money after the three years has passed because people will be used to paying it at that point.

That aside, can you imagine having to pay an extra $200 a month for your mortgage for at least three years to cover over the fact that people that work for your city sexually assaulted other people?

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

I don't know the details of the case but I expect that almost everyone who works for the city is as opposed to sexual assault as any normal person is. The mistake of the city government as a whole was having so little insurance - just one million dollars. I had 500k in liability for my house and I'm only one guy.

[–] Apollo98@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 days ago (4 children)

At this point I’d move across county lines to somewhere nearby that won’t have double the property tax rate.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

also just gonna write this one down, but it's only a mild killing

[–] chisel@piefed.social 8 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Some coach diddles kids and the families and kids have to pay for it through insane tax hikes and less school funding? In what world does that make sense?

They already put the coach in prison for 15 years and probation for 25 years after that. Why punish the local community too? Yes, the families should be made whole, but not at the expense of objectively innocent tax payers and schoolchildren.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days ago (27 children)

In a community that's small, there is no way many of these same families and homeowners weren't aware of that predator.

The community enabled him and now the community has to pay for that choice.

What's your alternative solution?

load more comments (27 replies)

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago (7 children)

The school was likely complicit in ignoring warnings. This is why board members should be held personally liable if they are negligent in their duties.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments