 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« I Want At Least the Bronze | Main | 3:10 to Yuma » August 26, 2007Clement, Dean, Pointlessly Debate Tax Issue
Bob Clement, in attempting to put some daylight between himself and Karl Dean on the tax issue, has repeatedly mentioned the Metro charter amendment voters passed overwhelmingly in November 2006 that requires most property tax rate increases be approved by voters. charter referendum. But there's no significant daylight between the two on the issue. Clement has pledged not to seek a tax increase; Dean has indicated he doesn't want to raise taxes and pledged to abide by the charter amendment. Today's Tennessean reports on the issue: Dean, while insisting he wouldn't propose an increase, called Clement's pledge "a gimmick." He asked if the former congressman would veto any vote by the council to put a tax-increase proposal on the ballot. "What does your pledge mean?" asked Dean, a former Metro law director.Frankly, it wouldn't matter now if either or both candidates came out in favor of raising taxes. The bottom line is, Nashvillian's property taxes aren't going up unless voters approve the tax increase in a referendum. Neither Clement nor Dean is going to raise taxes - if taxes go up in the next four years it will because the people vote for it. If you live in Nashville, there's no reason now to make property taxes the number one issue upon which you base your mayoral vote. I don't live in Nashville, but if I did I'd be asking myself which candidate - the former congressman or the former Metro law director - is more likely to be a "change agent" who is truly capable of providing both leadership and break-the-mold proposals to improve Nashville's schools, lead its economic development, and make the right decisions on crime and other key issues. I wouldn't be worried about the tax issue - that was settled by voters last year. Posted in Nashville
Comments
You have missed the point on taxes badly. Tax increases are always initiated by the mayor. Bill Purcell proposed two during his administration. Bob Clement has pledged to make no such proposal. Karl Dean has not. Dean has opined, however, that the charter amendment was illegal. If he is correct and a challenge in court is successful, what then? Will Karl shirk his sworn duty and fail to challenge an amendment he says contravenes state law? If the amendment is contested in court by someone else, what position will his Legal Director take? Or are Karl's principles circumscribed by his political needs? Karl is parsing with words and he knows it. That is the difference between a lawyer and a leader. Posted by: Gary Blackburn at August 27, 2007 7:43 AMNeither Dean nor any other mayor in the near future is going to go to court to challenge a charter amendment approved by 77 percent of voters, and which won in virtually every single precinct in the city. To challenge it in court in order to raise taxes would destroy the political career of the mayor that tried it. There is no requirement that the Metro Legal Department challenge it in court, and I don't see how anybody except the mayor or the council has the legal standing to make such a challenge. Further, the "opinion" that Dean's office issued when he was Metro Legal Director was laughably weak and basically ignored two state AG opinions that such referendums WERE legal. Dean's political position is that he will abide by the will of the people on the issue of taxes. It's hard to find fault with that. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 27, 2007 8:00 AM Bill, Jon, I have no problem with the tax rate being raised back to $4 after a reappraisal and the revenue-neutral requirement lowers the rate. A city that funds itself on property taxes SHOULD get more revenue as property values rise. Bottom line is, the charter amendment makes the threat of a major tax increase over the objections of voters impossible and, therefore, as long as both Clement and Dean are willing to abide by the charter amendment and put big property tax increases to a referendum - and they are - this is not a major defining issue in the race. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 27, 2007 1:40 PMBill, Although I disagree with Jon on almost everything else about the Mayor's election, he is correct and your response does nothing to refute his point on this issue. So you and Karl agree that despite the overwhelming vote of the citizens, the council can raise taxes after a reappraisal without a vote; and there is a significant difference between the two candidates on this point. Posted by: George Rand at August 27, 2007 2:19 PMwhile off the topic-Bob Krum's blog was not found when i used your link. Additionally i got a "404" when i linked to it--can you translate? Is his blog gone for good or a temporary bug? Posted by: George Rand at August 27, 2007 2:23 PMBill, The Legal Director is not the mayor's lawyer. He is the City's lawyer. Nonetheless, the mayor is sworn to enforce the law regardless of his political needs, is he not? Will he shirk this responsibility, if that is what he believes? The question of standing is complicated. I see no reason why a single councilperson among 40 would not have standing to sue. So might a taxpayer or an organization interested in some cause. If the Legal Director takes orders from Karl, will he tell him or her to violate the law as he has seen it? He will "abide by the wishes of the people?" Well Bill he must PROPOSE a tax increase before any referendum might even occur. So when will he do this? And in what amount? Jon Crisp is correct in any event. Those who wish to grab our tax dollars will simply reappraise. Posted by: Gary Blackburn at August 27, 2007 6:42 PMGary, Your interest in this issue is laudable but I think you have some misunderstandings. First, reappraisals are automatic every four years. Mayors don't do reappraisals in order to raise taxes. State law requires them to be done every four years. Second, you are right, the mayor of course is sworn to uphold the law. That's why Dean's pledged to submit tax increases to a referendum should he decide to seek a property tax increase - the metro charter requires he do that. Dean's legal opinion on whether the charter amendment is constitutional under the state constitution is just that - an opinion. It has no force of law. Zero. He does not have to, as mayor, sue to test the constitutionality of the charter provision. Nothing in his oath of office requires him to challenge the constitutionality of any portion of the charter. He could chose to, but has indicated he won't. Gary, you wrote, "If the Legal Director takes orders from Karl, will he tell him or her to violate the law as he has seen it? He will "abide by the wishes of the people?" Again, it doesn't matter if Dean thinks the charter provision might violate the state constitution. He has no obligation to file suit. In fact, no one can file suit until Metro Council passes a tax rate increase that triggers the amendment's referendum requirement, and perhaps not even until the referendum is held. (I've gotten conflicting opinions on that. If no referendum has been held there may not be a cause of action giving anyone standing to sue. Or the mere scheduling of a referendum might be enough. But it appears to me neither Dean nor Clement, as mayor, would be politically suicidal enough to file suit to cancel a referendum on a tax increase, or to file suit to force a tax increase rejected by voters. Rather, I would expect the next mayor who wants a tax increase will work very diligently to convince Nashvillians that his proposals are good proposals and are worth the extra money. As for outside groups, as they lack the authority to raise taxes, I fail to see how they could initiate a lawsuit challenging the amendment given that the amendment in now way affects their constitutional or statutory authorities. That leaves the council. Remember, the amendment passed in virtually every precinct in town. It is popular with rich and poor, white, black and Hispanic, male and female, young and old, married and single, educated and uneducated, blue collar and white collar. It may be the single most popular law on the books in Nashville. Both Dean and Clement recognize this political reality and both Dean and Clement are saying they have no intention to raise property taxes. Which means that, whoever is mayor, property tax rates will not rise above the current $4.00 per hundred without approval by voters. That's good enough for me. If I lived in Nashville and was voting in the city's mayoral election, the tax issue simply wouldn't be the issue that would decide which way I would vote. ... Now, will some district councilman file suit to kill the amendment? Perhaps, but the political fallout will be this: he will be loathed by all but a few council members, who likely are secretly relieved that they don't ever have to bear the political burden of passing a major tax increase again. They can merely pass legislation that puts a proposed tax increase on a ballot. That's an easier vote to defend to one's constituents. Which means that the council member who sues to overturn the amendment will have zero chance of actually passing a tax increase through the Metro Council. One more bit of forecasting: The amendment does allow for Council to raise the property tax rate back to $4 per hundred after a statutorily mandated reduction of the rate post-reappraisal (mandated by state law to keep the reappraisal revenue-neutral on properties that existed at the previous reappraisal). If the rate is dropped to $3.50 per hundred post-reappraisal and the mayor wants to raise it back to $4, I would suspect there would be strong support in Council to pass an ordinance raising it to $4.01 to trigger the referendum, to lessen the political impact of voting for a tax increase. One thing's for certain: Ben Cunningham's charter amendment certainly has changed tax politics in Nashville. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at August 28, 2007 12:07 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
