My burning question after reading that piece is this:
So the original formation of the CFD required a vote, which is fine. But what about a possible extension, that would require a vote by the CFD district, right? which would be fully populated with actual voters instead of the vote of 1 scenario the article illustrated.[/quote]
Hi OCR. Yes, I am very curious about that as well. I asked Joanne from KPBS if they could address these issues. She said that she would be doing more articles on it addressing several of my questions which is great.
Like you, I’m very curious about it. I think they keep it all fairly murky for a reason. I’m sure that most homeowners that are buying in a CFD area just bite the pill and swallow and accept they have to pay CFD taxes. So they might just accept the fact that they have to pay CFD taxes for the next XX years.
But I’m sure they WOULD care quite a bit if these things can get extended beyond when they originally were told they would be paid off! But again, the sad thing is that most homeowners have no clue about these, when they are slated to be paid off.
And at least taking from the article, at least one homeowner didn’t even know when he was being charged over 100% more on his CFD tax. I’m looking forward to reading these future articles on the issue.
