August 21, 2012 at 10:36 am #3880
A recent post has raised the question as to the amount residents of the new city of Diamondhead will be charged.December 20, 2012 at 5:23 pm #3879
The amount of taxes required to operate the City of Diamondhead had been requested long before the area was incorporated. The group promoting the
incorporation would never answer. They either did not know or were unwilling to say. It was much like the Obamacare proposal. Congress had to pass the law
to learn what was in the law. In this case we had to incorporate to learn what the cost to the residence would be. And, unfortunately, too many were hoodwinked in my opinion. Did not think then and do not believe now that incorporation was necessary or a good thing for the residences. Guess I will just have to pay the taxes with a tear in my eye.December 21, 2012 at 7:50 am #3881
We just got our property tax bill for our condo; it went up 47% from last year. Haven’t gotten the bill for our home as yet. This is a hard increase to take for those of us who are retired. We had no idea when we bought our house last year that this would happen.December 21, 2012 at 10:49 am #3882
The general promise made to the Incorporation Petition Signers was that a new City would substantially reduce the POA Dues, elimate the threat of a BaySaintLouis Annexation and the menace of City Police, The Sheriff Department would continue to provide law enforcement as it has done for the past 30 years, The increased revenue from sales tax would more than offset any increase in taxes, The City Goverment would be more open and responsive than the secretive POA, etc … Is any of this to come to past ? Where is the City Charter we are supposed to be voting on ? Who are the individuals who are drafting(OrDraftED) the City Charter ? Who made the decision to have a PoliceDepartment specifically designed to harass the Diamondhead Tax Base ? Can the elected officials in the future ammend and correct the City Charter ? The new Diamondhead City has been deeded the Roads and drainage responsibility and the Golf Course is not the property of the Diamondhead Property Owners Association as court records show that Purcell still has title to the Golf Course. Is thee any basis to be paying any POA Dues ?December 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm #3883
I’m still trying to figure out why we are paying city tax for this year, when we were only a city for 2 months. Our tax bill went up almost $1000. I called the city and was told the mayor would call me back to adddress the issue. I still have not received a call.December 21, 2012 at 3:57 pm #3884
You will be in for another surprise when you renew your vehicles license plate. I am still trying to understand what we get in return for the extra fees and taxes.
I also don’t understand how some voters bought into the idea that making our street public would somehow make living in Diamondhead safer. We already were the safest and most crime free community on the coast. Most communities with public streets would welcome and support having their streets private. As far as I can see is the only thing gained, if you can call it a gain, is state and city traffic laws could be enforced when the streets become public. Is the trade off worth what we lose by having a private community. I don’t think so.December 21, 2012 at 4:07 pm #3885
Jerry P. MoreauParticipant
The City cannot reduce the POA dues. The reason why taxes have increased more than expected is that the city taxes are higher then we were told they would be. But more importantly, the POA did not reduce DUES as much as they should have. When the streets were turned over to the city, POA dues was reduce $180/year. It should have been double that figure. The POA has “retained” money to make more capital improvements. The POA is the culprit not the city. You are correct about the POA doing whatever they want. The POA Board which was in power when Corporation was promoted made many questionable promises. The current Board is under no obligation to honor any of those promise.December 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm #3886
I already know about the vehicle fees, they doubled. It was in a newsletter. I was wondering why the push to be a city and was told (don’t know if it’s true) that they wanted to be a city in order to get money from the casino they wanted built in DH. The story went, that they had to be a city to get the tax revenue or it would have gone to Hancock County. That makes it sound like a casino will be built soon.December 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm #3887
I have heard this story before. There are two companies talking about building a casino on the south side of Diamondhead. One, Casino World, has been trying to build a casino for about twenty years now. The other group presented a plan about three years ago. The Hancock Planning Commission approved the second groups request but it was denied by the Board of Supervisors. Some believe the same group will now get approval from the Diamondhead City fathers. Casino World has had a permit to build for many years but, as I understand it, have not been able to get financing or attract a company strong enough to build the project.
I often wondered, if a casino is so important, why has Waveland never incorporated the Silver Slipper into its city limits? Would not be very difficult to do. Just wondering. I think a casino will happen on the south side but I do not think it will ever be the giant casino many envision. The market for large development is on the east side of the State. The east side can draw 30 million potential customers from Florida, Georgia and Alabama. The west side market potential is only 3 1/2 million from Louisiana. And Louisiana already has gaming and that lowers the customer base. I could be wrong but I think this market will only support a casino the size of Hollywood or Silver Slipper. Perhaps a little larger but not much. At least this is my view.December 21, 2012 at 7:36 pm #3890
Who exactly is the mayor and who and when was the vote? This has been the most secretive takeover I’ve ever witnessed. Meetings at noon during the week when earners cannot attend. I want out.December 29, 2012 at 5:29 pm #3891
Who are you referring to when you state “city taxes are higher then we were told they would be”? I agree regarding the POA dues, and them doing whatever they want. However, it appears the new city government is going down the same street and the residents are left holding yet another bag.
I myself was at a meeting where the new mayor of Diamondhead gave a presentation, part of which was regarding the increase in taxes. He stated that taxes “should only increase the amount that dues are reduced”. When asked about the new license fees, he said “we missed that one. Ooops.” I may be wrong as I have not personally checked, but was told that Diamondhead now pays the highest taxes in the county.
And still we have to continue to pay POA dues along with the “rendered” services of the fire department.December 29, 2012 at 7:56 pm #3892
I heard the Silver Slipper Casino has pulled out of their lease on the south side restaurant and a private individual will assume operation of the property in January. It is my understanding the original lease was set at $5,000 per month and later reduced to $3,000 a month. Have not confirmed my information but I was also told the new lease will required the POA to pay all insurance cost on the restaurant. It will be interesting to read the terms of the new agreement.December 29, 2012 at 8:55 pm #3893
Since the lease is with the POA, will the lease be available for viewing by the members of the POA?December 29, 2012 at 9:19 pm #3894
I guess this will mean that we are back on the hook of paying the yacht club amenity and the airport amenity. Yes I would like to see the lease. Members are entitled to inspect all POA records. And Yes I would be most interested in inspecting the City Charter … and a list of all those who drafted/signed it AND their authority to do so ?December 30, 2012 at 8:50 am #3895
As I recall the POA appointed a committee to recommend the persons to serve as mayor, etc. Interesting to note that all but one of those chosen were members or former officers of the golfers association. As I understand the legal procedure, the petitioners of incorporation had to name the city officers when the
petition was presented. I may be wrong but I believe the proper way would have been to include the names of those persons recommended within the petition so when one signed to approve the incorporation they would also be approving the officers. There was no mention of the officials recommended in the petition. The committee chose them and we have no knowledge as how or what the procedure was to pick them. At the very least I would have expected the committee to request anyone interested to apply and resumes requested. I may stand corrected but I do not recall nor do I believe this was done. My quess is the attorney who handled the incorporation procedure also authored the city charter, but I have never seen the document.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.