Comments on: Q&A: Daniel Guerrero on the issues

By: jmo

jmo — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:20:22 +0000

He needs to remember that he only won by 21 votes. If he were running against a “real” candidate he would most likely lose. I just skipped the Mayor part of the ballot as did alot of other people I know. Chain of command= get rid of Shane Scott,get greg frank elected in his spot so he can have another puppet, let John T run and win for mayor next election the daniel will run for commissioner Pct1 next election against Debbie Inglsbe. Hopeing that Debbie will retire after this election. Mark My Words ! Why else would he be doing so many fund raisers? He will need the money for the commissioners race next go round! Daniel you have let so many people down! hes the handout mayor. Or photo op mayor. You decide.

By: SMsince95

SMsince95 — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:18:51 +0000

Although brief, I think the mayor was at least honest. Tax incentives and a whole host of economic development incentives are the standard operating procedure these days. It’s not at all fair to existing businesses but if everyone is doing it it is hard to say no. A little like Lance Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs.

By: Keith Cunningham

Keith Cunningham — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:05:07 +0000

I suppose I’ll stop holding my breath now for an answer from our top local public servant. No surprise, unfortunately. Why should you bother putting yourself out there in print when the bulk of the public doesn’t grasp basic economic principles anyway? Thanks for the openness and clarity, I appreciate it.

By: Keith Cunningham

Keith Cunningham — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:36:15 +0000

Mayor Guerrero, I appreciate your candor. It seems your opponent thinks you two are competing for a spot in the Senate or perhaps for the head of the UN. I’m guessing you are not losing much sleep over the outcome of the upcoming election.

Anyways, I am curious about your above response to the property tax waiver for businesses who move here. If I were a business in competition with one of the companies whose risks you have minimized with said waiver (and therefore whose profits you have subsidized) in order to bring them to town, how is this fair to me? If we can afford to give a tax break to bring a new company here why doesn’t the existing company not deserve the same? It seems rather arbitrary to favor the new over the old.

And, as a taxpayer, where is my proof that such actions are economically good for the rest of us? If we bring X company here at the cost of Y% of the tax coffers, will my tax burden decrease by a similar %? I would really appreciate an answer to these questions that no one ever seems to even bother asking. Thanks.