Utility, stormwater, and sanitation are “business-type” activities and are funded more on a usage basis, not via property taxes. And repaving roads is not something new.
Before we look at the impact of Amendment 3, it also would be helpful if governments publish homesteaded properties vs. not. It’s a much smaller number so the impact is less. With valuations going up, we’ll be lucky if we get below 2025 tax levels in 28.
@PhilipWegmann@scottlincicome@schwartzbWSJ@jdawsey1 Nothing better than our reporter stating Bessent threw his briefing book as a fact in his post. But then he has to rely on the WSJ’s new “People familiar with the matter said” attribution. And the Secretary denied it! But, hey, it’s election season so let’s go with anonymity.
@ARatOfRat@Mark_Penn@DavidLimbaugh@WSJ Many of their reporters are from Politico or the Atlantic as well. And their sourcing is usually “people familiar with the matter.”
@davidclain@rebeccaballhaus I agree, but it is quite a story! Maybe they’ll follow up on it. The Journal didn’t make it up, but the source(s) wanted to be on background, and it’s fair to ask why. No one will go on the record, but it checks out enough to bury in another story?
Here’s a story in today’s paper about Egypt warning Israel before October 7th.
“The call from Kamel to Netanyahu, which hasn’t previously been reported, is one of multiple advance warnings Netanyahu and other Israeli officials received before the attack, said the Arab government officials and other people familiar with the matter. Those allegations have sparked renewed focus…”.
I have no idea who the ‘Arab government’ is except it’s likely not Egypt or the UAE. The other people familiar with the matter are back, of course, and then we see ‘those allegations.�� And right before Israeli elections too!
Correct. Remember, this was not the main point of the story. It’s a stunning claim, but it is alleged.
Allege (verb): to claim something as fact without proof.
Another word the WSJ uses consistently.
I think most would agree that a sitting US ambassador saying (threatening?) that to any minister of a NATO ally is a huge story. Much more so than mystery man. Yet it only garners a single paragraph.
The Journal’s standards for publishing once were the highest in the industry. That is no longer the case.
Correct. We don’t know who the sources are or are even close to her - only that one was at the dinner and the rest just heard about it. The story was about the mystery man (headline), not this comment, which is understandably getting the attention. We have no idea if the dinner source is a US official, Greek or was even part of the discussion. It’s too vague but this sourcing is now common practice at the WSJ.
On the Marafatsos part, I have no issue with the reporting. She would not be my choice for any role in government. The “We can do that to any country we want. We can do that here” about a government collapse is a serious charge. And it was in quotes, with the sourcing being someone who was at the dinner and others who were told about it. “Others” is just third hand gossip. If you read the Journal, you will notice this sourcing style in more and more articles.
@enricofermi22@Chuck_NOLA7@rebeccaballhaus Nope. The editorial page may be right, the news division isn’t. But my gripe is the sloppy journalism and the Journal’s overuse of “people familiar with the matter“ or less sourcing.
@JacquiHeinrich Yes, a lower case ‘p.’ Freedom of the press means the written word like speech is the spoken word. It was not written for the corporate media, as much as they want it to be so.
@ElonsDealer@Chris__X__ Oh…okay, good one. Here’s another - Biden signs the Inflation Reduction Act in August ‘22 and 30-year interest rates go from 5.2% to 6.9% in two months. That must have been Trump too. What was the word? Transitory. What a crowd.