Over at RockridgeNation there is a posting up about Florida's new and so far hugely popular Governor, Charlie Crist, entitled A John Lennon Conservative?
As a resident of Charlie Crist's hometown, I can bring an up close and personal perspective. I have known Charlie Crist for over 20 years. One need make no mistake about Charlie - he is a consummate politician. I think he is doing these "progressive" things because he does believe in them. But I'm not so sure he believes in them in and of themselves, but as in where the political advantage lies.
Florida is one of those states that really makes people shake their heads, especially progressives. Florida is about 4 states in one. There is the very progressive Southeast Florida (tempered by the reactionary ant-Castro Cubans in Miami), We have the very conservative Southwest Florida. We have the moderate I-4 corridor through the middle of the state. And we have conservative North Florida (tempered by the two big university cities, Gainesville and Tallahassee.)
Boiling all this down, Florida actually comes out as much more moderate than folks on either end of the political spectrum want to admit. Charlie Crist knows this very well. His biggest political defeat, and his springboard onto the state political stage, came when he took on the moderate and hugely popular US Senator Bob Graham.
Charlie Crist is hugely popular right now because he is trying to be all things to all people. The RockridgeNation posting did not mention Charlies' number one priority - his "anti-murder" bill. He demanded and received it as the first bill he signed from the regular legislative session. This bill requires judges to keep probation violators in jail until the judge certifies the person is not a danger to society. The cost of building the jail cells needed for this could well bankrupt the state. My guess is the Florida Legislature is not going to provide all the necessary funding for this, thus creating an onerous burden for the County jails where most of these folks are going to be housed.
Charlie Crist also knows that for every progressive action he takes, he must do something to satisfy his political base. Thus his support of the failed school accountability test program and tax cuts. Crist is playing both ends against the middle. Whether he can continue to pull it off is an open question.
Stay tuned.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
The Property Tax Puzzle
Property tax reform is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, issue facing the state legislature this year. There has been much hand wringing all around. Many hare brained schemes have been floated. Civic Concern has just published a thoughtful, reasoned history of the property tax problems in Florida and proposed some solutions.
Some commenters on the St. Peterburg Times Buzz Blog piece on this report claim that
The foreseen consequences are that other property tax payers would pay a larger share of the tax burden if homestead property taxes were "capped". That is certainly happening. Business property owners, and by extension, renters have been seeing their uncapped property valuations and their taxes going through the roof with the recent boom in real estate prices. Chief among the unforeseen consequences are homesteaders being "trapped" in their current homes because they couldn't afford the taxes on a new property if they moved and had to step up to current market valuations.
One of the most curious scenes in this whole property tax situation is how local governments are made out as the whipping boys in this "debate". I say curious because just last fall Leadership Florida did a comprehensive survey of Florida residents. Among the key findings in this survey was the relative approval ratings of the various levels of government. Fully 61% of the respondents see the state government as doing only a fair or poor job. County governments were rated fair or poor by 55% of respondents. Only 38% of city dwellers rated their city governments as fair or poor. The state government, which people like the least, is pointing the tax reform gun right at the heads of local governments, which people like the most. I'm not sure how well that is going to work out for them.
Besides, the increasing revenue requirements of local governments are not entirely of their own making. One of the biggest drivers of increasing expenditures by local governments is growth. And that is not just on a linear basis, because growth does not pay for itself. The new taxes generated are not sufficient to pay for the increased capital needs (roads, schools, sewer) or service needs (police, fire, garbage collection) caused by the growth. Neither have we collected sufficient impact fees to pay for this growth. This, in effect, has shifted the tax burden for growth onto existing tax payers and not the new ones.That is the major reason I am not at all bothered by the apparent inequities in taxes paid for newly built homes relative to existing homes covered by the "Save our Homes" amendment. To the extent that local governments could have ameliorated this situation by charging higher impact fees, it is their fault. To the extent that the state did not do a better job of regulating growth and anticipating the increased costs, it is their fault.
But the question really is not about the blame game. The question is what to do to solve the very real property tax problems that do exist. First, here is what not to do. Arbitrary roll backs of local government revenues are not the answer. Most local elected officials are much more careful with their taxpayers dollars than the folks in Tallahassee ever were. Do you really want them deciding how much your local government can spend on your police and fire departments?
We can do something to stop the bleeding for non homestead property owners. We can change the way properties are valued. Currently, non homestead properties are valued on the basis of their "highest and best use". That is to say that the corner ice cream shop will be taxed as if it were a luxury condo building site if that is what the appraisers deem the "highest and best use" for the property. Changing the valuation method to one based on the value of the current use of a developed property would keep businesses and renters from being pilloried by higher taxes due to speculation in the real estate market.
We can fix one of the unintended consequences of the "Save Our Homes" amendment. We can make the tax benefit accrued by a homestead property owner portable. If the difference between the market value and the capped value of a property is X, we could let that homestead property owner take that X amount of benefit to a new homestead with them. Some say that this might not withstand constitutional scrutiny. I believe that problem could be overcome by carefully crafting the law and developing an appropriate legislative history. All citizens would in fact be treated the same for tax purposes because they could all accrue tax benefits on an equal basis.
These two measures would solve the most egregious issues involving property taxes that we currently face. Turning back the clock and pretending that local governments could maintain the same level of services with less money is nonsensical. Having Tallahassee decide what those levels ought to be really makes no sense. Providing solutions that will work into the future is what we should be striving for.
Some commenters on the St. Peterburg Times Buzz Blog piece on this report claim that
The people want major reduction in property taxesOthers argue
I don't think "the people" want a bunch of half-cocked, sound bite ideas. ... Recent polls show they're pretty skeptical of all the various proposals.Most of "the people", i.e. the voters in this state are already benefiting from the "Save Our Homes" tax cap. Homesteaders in the City of St. Petersburg saw their City taxes stay essentially flat this year in dollar terms. These are not "the people" clamoring the most for property tax reductions. The "Save Our Homes" amendment has worked exactly as it was intended. Homesteaders are not being forced out of their homes by rising property taxes. There have been some unintended consequences, some foreseen, others unforeseen.
The foreseen consequences are that other property tax payers would pay a larger share of the tax burden if homestead property taxes were "capped". That is certainly happening. Business property owners, and by extension, renters have been seeing their uncapped property valuations and their taxes going through the roof with the recent boom in real estate prices. Chief among the unforeseen consequences are homesteaders being "trapped" in their current homes because they couldn't afford the taxes on a new property if they moved and had to step up to current market valuations.
One of the most curious scenes in this whole property tax situation is how local governments are made out as the whipping boys in this "debate". I say curious because just last fall Leadership Florida did a comprehensive survey of Florida residents. Among the key findings in this survey was the relative approval ratings of the various levels of government. Fully 61% of the respondents see the state government as doing only a fair or poor job. County governments were rated fair or poor by 55% of respondents. Only 38% of city dwellers rated their city governments as fair or poor. The state government, which people like the least, is pointing the tax reform gun right at the heads of local governments, which people like the most. I'm not sure how well that is going to work out for them.
Besides, the increasing revenue requirements of local governments are not entirely of their own making. One of the biggest drivers of increasing expenditures by local governments is growth. And that is not just on a linear basis, because growth does not pay for itself. The new taxes generated are not sufficient to pay for the increased capital needs (roads, schools, sewer) or service needs (police, fire, garbage collection) caused by the growth. Neither have we collected sufficient impact fees to pay for this growth. This, in effect, has shifted the tax burden for growth onto existing tax payers and not the new ones.That is the major reason I am not at all bothered by the apparent inequities in taxes paid for newly built homes relative to existing homes covered by the "Save our Homes" amendment. To the extent that local governments could have ameliorated this situation by charging higher impact fees, it is their fault. To the extent that the state did not do a better job of regulating growth and anticipating the increased costs, it is their fault.
But the question really is not about the blame game. The question is what to do to solve the very real property tax problems that do exist. First, here is what not to do. Arbitrary roll backs of local government revenues are not the answer. Most local elected officials are much more careful with their taxpayers dollars than the folks in Tallahassee ever were. Do you really want them deciding how much your local government can spend on your police and fire departments?
We can do something to stop the bleeding for non homestead property owners. We can change the way properties are valued. Currently, non homestead properties are valued on the basis of their "highest and best use". That is to say that the corner ice cream shop will be taxed as if it were a luxury condo building site if that is what the appraisers deem the "highest and best use" for the property. Changing the valuation method to one based on the value of the current use of a developed property would keep businesses and renters from being pilloried by higher taxes due to speculation in the real estate market.
We can fix one of the unintended consequences of the "Save Our Homes" amendment. We can make the tax benefit accrued by a homestead property owner portable. If the difference between the market value and the capped value of a property is X, we could let that homestead property owner take that X amount of benefit to a new homestead with them. Some say that this might not withstand constitutional scrutiny. I believe that problem could be overcome by carefully crafting the law and developing an appropriate legislative history. All citizens would in fact be treated the same for tax purposes because they could all accrue tax benefits on an equal basis.
These two measures would solve the most egregious issues involving property taxes that we currently face. Turning back the clock and pretending that local governments could maintain the same level of services with less money is nonsensical. Having Tallahassee decide what those levels ought to be really makes no sense. Providing solutions that will work into the future is what we should be striving for.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Barack Obama Coming to Tampa
More on Barack Obama's fundraising stop in Tampa.
Obama will speak at the Cuban Club on April 15. Tickets to the event can be purchased online. Price of admission is $25.00.
Time: Sunday, April 15 at 11:00 AM
Duration:
Host: Megan Foster
Contact Phone: 813-908-0129
Cuban Club
2010 N Avenue Republica De Cba, Tampa, FL
Obama will speak at the Cuban Club on April 15. Tickets to the event can be purchased online. Price of admission is $25.00.
Time: Sunday, April 15 at 11:00 AM
Duration:
Host: Megan Foster
Contact Phone: 813-908-0129
Cuban Club
2010 N Avenue Republica De Cba, Tampa, FL
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The Big Lie - Iraq - Again - Part II
So many lies, so little time. I was going to write next about the lie that all these horrible consequences would necessarily follow a withdrawal of US troops from combat duty in the Iraq Civil War. I still intend to deal with this topic. However, a new Big Lie has emerged from the Iraq War Supporters.
I am sure you've have heard it. Any mention of placing conditions , or restrictions on the supplemental funding for the war brings forth immediate cries of "micromanagement" from the Iraq War Supporters. Is this really true, or is it just one more Big Lie?
Come below the fold where we'll deconstruct this one and perhaps find some Truth....
Let's start off by defining micromanagement. Dictionary.com gives us this:
House Republican Leader John Boehner had this to say about a recent plan by John Murtha to place restrictions on the use of funds in the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
So it would appear that Congress does indeed have the power to govern the military. In fact, Congress has done just that from the inception of the republic. There is 5 USC CHAPTER 99 - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL System passed in January 2005 (For those of you not paying attention, this was in the Republican controlled Congress). Then there is 10 USC TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES. This entire title of the code is devoted to the governance of the armed forces of the United States. It covers everything from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps.
So Congress has indeed exercised its powers under the Constitution
So, when you hear your Republican friends talking about Congress micromanaging the Iraq war, just point them to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If that doesn't work, direct their attention to 10 USC TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES. If none of that works, you know you've got the type of Republican who voted for Allan Keyes for the Illinois Senate seat now held by Barak Obama.
I am sure you've have heard it. Any mention of placing conditions , or restrictions on the supplemental funding for the war brings forth immediate cries of "micromanagement" from the Iraq War Supporters. Is this really true, or is it just one more Big Lie?
Come below the fold where we'll deconstruct this one and perhaps find some Truth....
Let's start off by defining micromanagement. Dictionary.com gives us this:
mi·cro·man·age : –verb (used with object), -aged, -ag·ing.
to manage or control with excessive attention to minor details.
[Origin: 1985–90]
—Related forms
mi·cro·man·age·ment, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v
1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
House Republican Leader John Boehner had this to say about a recent plan by John Murtha to place restrictions on the use of funds in the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill:
Not to be outdone, Condoleezza Rice said:“His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to ‘stop the
surge.’ So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations
bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to
micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to
do.”
proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to "the worst of micromanagement of military affairs."Even Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline program is getting in on the act. They quote :
Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline, in the same story, also had this:ROY BLUNT, REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: It's hard to imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about specific troop deployments than 535 members of Congress.
NANCY PELOSI, DEMOCRAT HOUSE SPEAKER: No more blank cheques for President Bush on Iraq. Our taxpayer dollars must go to protect our troops, to keep our promises to our veterans and to provide for the safety of the American people. In light of the facts, President Bush's escalation proposal will not make America safer.and this:
TOM LANTOS, DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN: We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are attempting to referee a religiously based civil war, which saps our strength and destroys our fabric as a society.So what is all this talk really about? Does Congress in fact have the power to set policies that control how the military operates? Has it been done before?
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power to ...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States
So it would appear that Congress does indeed have the power to govern the military. In fact, Congress has done just that from the inception of the republic. There is 5 USC CHAPTER 99 - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL System passed in January 2005 (For those of you not paying attention, this was in the Republican controlled Congress). Then there is 10 USC TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES. This entire title of the code is devoted to the governance of the armed forces of the United States. It covers everything from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps.
So Congress has indeed exercised its powers under the Constitution
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;They have done it under Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses. They have done it before there were Democrats and Republicans. And they should continue to do so now.
So, when you hear your Republican friends talking about Congress micromanaging the Iraq war, just point them to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If that doesn't work, direct their attention to 10 USC TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES. If none of that works, you know you've got the type of Republican who voted for Allan Keyes for the Illinois Senate seat now held by Barak Obama.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Mary Mulhern Victory Party
Campaign manager Mitch Kates speaks at Mary Mulhern victory party. He is a raising star. He guided Mulhern and Justice to victory while being vastly outspent.
Mary Mulhern Wins
Congratulations to Mary Mulhern for winning the winning the the district 2 Tampa City council race. Democrat John Dingfelder also won. Democrats I'm not too fond of like Gwen Miller, Tom Scott and Pam Iorio won.
Jim Johnson liveblogged the election and has the play by play details. I can safely say after the election that I thought Shawn Harrison's money advantage was going to give him the edge. So I can't get on Jim getting the Mulhern/Harrison race wrong. Wow, Harrison is even more of a sucky candidate than I imagined.
The good news for the left is we got a progressive on the City Council.
Jim Johnson liveblogged the election and has the play by play details. I can safely say after the election that I thought Shawn Harrison's money advantage was going to give him the edge. So I can't get on Jim getting the Mulhern/Harrison race wrong. Wow, Harrison is even more of a sucky candidate than I imagined.
The good news for the left is we got a progressive on the City Council.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Florida Legislature: What to Do, What to Do
The annual Florida Legislative session opens today in Tallahassee. The chambers of both Houses will be decked in flowers, a signal that hope springs eternal. But what do you hope the legislature will accomplish this year? Today, I'd like to start a conversation about what you would like to see the legislature accomplish this year.
Of course the big issues that everyone is talking about are the twin terrors facing property owners: insurance and taxes. The St. Petersburg Times has an excellent article today about the tax issues. Inevitably, every other issue facing the state is intertwined with the tax issue. There are education challenges both in K-12 and the university system. Managing growth and transportation issues loom large. How about crime and the cost of Gov. Crist's Anti-Murder bill?
There are plenty of challenges and opportunities facing the legislature this year. How about we get the on line conversation going? Maybe our legislators will take notice of what we say. After all, hope springs eternal.
Of course the big issues that everyone is talking about are the twin terrors facing property owners: insurance and taxes. The St. Petersburg Times has an excellent article today about the tax issues. Inevitably, every other issue facing the state is intertwined with the tax issue. There are education challenges both in K-12 and the university system. Managing growth and transportation issues loom large. How about crime and the cost of Gov. Crist's Anti-Murder bill?
There are plenty of challenges and opportunities facing the legislature this year. How about we get the on line conversation going? Maybe our legislators will take notice of what we say. After all, hope springs eternal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
