Our city is considering adopting the Mills Act, but one
of the issues to deal with is that by granting a tax break
to property owners, you are taking money out of other pots
(education, etc).
How can this type of argument be refuted? I don't have the
numbers in front of me, but I'm guessing that the money
taken "out of the other pots" will be a drop in their bucket,
but it will be quite a preservation incentive for the homeowner.