Much has been discussed recently about property taxes, commercial development and other related items.
That is why I find a recent article in the KC Star to be very interesting. The article can be viewed at http://www.kansascity.com/318/story/559888.html
The item I found interesting was that Lenexa homes are valued at approximately 13% more than homes in Shawnee. Now, in the article that is appraised value, but the assessed valuations would have to follow the same pattern. On top of that, homeowners in Lenexa are also paying a higher mill levy than homeowners in Shawnee.
There are other interesting things to consider. Lenexa’s population is considerably less than Shawnee’s. And, it has a larger municipal work force.
Now here is the irony to all of this. Just drive anywhere in Lenexa and it appears that they have quite a bit more commercial development than Shawnee. So, why are its citizens paying more in property taxes with all of that commercial development? Could it be that tax abatements are actually hurting the city? Could it be that all of that commercial development in Lenexa is not carrying its share of city’s expenses so it is falling back on the home owners? Most of those businesses do not generate income (read that as sales tax) as retail expansion would.
And yet, there are certain infrastructure costs which have to be covered and which will increase as more commercial buildings are added. A Shawnee resident, Paul Cunard, wrote a very interesting letter to the Shawnee dispatch about this subject. It can be read at http://www.shawneedispatch.com/news/2008/apr/01/growing_costs/
Is it possible that commercial expansion could actually hurt rather than help the city?
Or, does the emphasis need to change as to exactly what kind of commercial development would be best?
