Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > October > 20
Monday, October 20, 2008
Approach Amendment 2 with great caution
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If you have the least bit of concern that government and business are too cozy, you should approach Amendment 2 on the November ballot in Georgia with great caution.
If you believe, as I do, that property tax dollars levied to educate Georgia’s children should not be spent for other purposes — as the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously declared on Feb. 2 — you should stand in long lines, if necessary, to vote “No” on Amendment 2.
The shame of the Georgia General Assembly is that no sooner had the Supreme Court spoken than did legislators swing into action, passing a proposed amendment that invites you to negate their opinion.
This was not, in the least, judicial activism. It was, in fact, the opposite. It was a Georgia Supreme Court strictly interpreting constitutional language. Conservatives should have rejoiced. Instead, led by Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, they found bipartisanship and invite taxpayers to revise the State Constitution to allow education dollars to be handed over to developers. No.
Politicians, in rushing to negate the unanimous Supreme Court ruling, demonstrate the lack of fiscal discipline that on the local level will turn this into a on-demand giveaway. It is corporate welfare.
Amendment 2 is the worst of the proposed state constitutional amendments on the November ballot statewide. The other two, whether desirable or not, depend on your perspective.
Amendment 1 also has a cost that affects all of the state’s taxpayers.
At present, all agricultural holdings of less than 2,000 acres are eligible for property tax breaks if individuals and family owners agree not to subdivide or develop their land for 10 years. This proposal affects forest land and about 150 individuals and corporations who own more. It extends breaks, with no acreage cap, to those who agree to keep forest land in what is called the “conservation use valuation assessment” program for 15 years.
Counties and schools would lose money. The proposed amendment contains language that partially protects them. If the total county tax digest is reduced by 3 percent or less, the state’s taxpayers will reimburse the locals for half of their loss. Anything about 3 percent will be covered by the state. Projected cost is about $40 million per year.
The decision for voters is whether the preservation of large tracts of timberland for wildlife, environmental and possibly biofuel purposes justifies the cost. You decide. There’s no right or wrong answer.
Amendment 3 is the most interesting of the lot.
It allows the creation of what are called “Infrastructure Developing Districts.” The argument is that they’ll be a boon to poor rural counties. It’s far more likely that they’ll speed development along the coast and in the mountains, but in theory they could speed large-scale housing developments in counties without the financial base to develop the infrastructure needed for them.
The attraction of such districts for developers and for potential home buyers is that they allow the first wave of buyers to get far more in amenities than they could otherwise afford.
In the typical subdivision, a developer borrows money from the bank, paying market rates, to build homes, golf courses, tennis courts, community centers and other infrastructure. Those costs are built into the mortgages of home buyers. IDDs allow developers to borrow money at lower rates and to charge fees to homeowners until the bonds are paid off that were issued to provide the infrastructure and amenities.
This started off as lousy legislation and was considerably improved in terms of disclosure and other protections afforded the first and subsequent home buyers.
The districts are probably a good deal for the first wave of home buyers. They get more amenities than are built into the price of their homes.
The disadvantage is that they are forced to pay for their own schools, fire stations and other infrastructure as well as those provided elsewhere in the county. In that sense, they pay twice. Those who buy in the development in later years could be paying fees to cover maintenance and initial construction costs for aged facilities. But disclosure is such that purchasers should know what they’re getting into.
Amendment 3 is an amendment that started out giving virtually all power to developers; it was changed in the process to add disclosure and to give greater protections to homeowners. It’s unlikely that I’d buy into any such development, but to each his own.
Here, as well, there’s no right or wrong answer.
The worst of the lot, by far, is Amendment 2. It should be defeated.
Permalink | Comments (108) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Trashing Joe the Plumber
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“Joe the Plumber” helps to explain why Americans are so turned off by politics — and why they are so reluctant to run for office, even against incumbents who deserved to be kicked to the curb.
Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Holland, Ohio, complains that the media has invaded his personal life and made it difficult for him to work. “The media’s worried about whether I’ve paid my taxes, they’re worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America,” Wurzelbacher said on Mike Huckabee’s Fox News talk show Saturday. He was also demeaned, he said, by criticism posted online.
The Left tore into Wurzelbacher after he expressed concerns that Obama’s tax proposals could keep him from buying the small plumbing company where he worked. John McCain mentioned him in the final debate with Obama, setting up the feeding frenzy into whether he’d paid his taxes, whether he was really a licensed plumber and anything else that might have diminished his appeal — the same thing that had been done to Sarah Palin. Palin, by accepting the vice presidential nomination, asked for the attention. Joe didn’t.
“You know, I am a plumber,” said Joe the plumber, “just a plumber…when you can’t ask a question of your leaders anymore, that gets scary.”
On two other political notes:
Pray that Barack Obama wins or loses Ohio by more than 200,000 votes. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to let the Democratic Secretary of State take a pass on verifying about that many new voter applications containing discrepencies means another close election there will keep this campaign going for four more years.
Obama first agreed to abide by public campaign finance limitations and then changed his mind. Good political decision. He’s now raised more than $605 million and is able to outspend McCain 4-1 and 5-1 buying commercials in battleground states. The “dam has broken” for future White House races, said John McCain.
Services »
