Misleading JG Story on Property Tax Bill

The end of Niki Kelly's story about property taxes in today's JG is misleading. Here's the part of the story covering the constitutional amendment to cap property taxes at 1%:

The Indiana House also was to consider House Joint Resolution 1 to place circuit breaker language into the Indiana Constitution.

House Democrats wanted to pass the bill in the form that Gov. Mitch Daniels preferred, but House Republicans wanted to debate additional issues.

“The Democrats packed their ball up and went home,” House Minority Leader Brian Bosma said. “It appears they were not sincere about entertaining constitutional caps.”

Even though the House resolution died, the Senate measure remains alive and can be acted on by the House.

Kelly doesn't mention why the bill was killed. As I wrote yesterday, the Republicans added an anti-gay marriage amendment to the property tax bill. First, that's just stupid and second it's against house rules since the amendment is clearly not germane to the bill. For Bosma to try and spin this as anything but his fault is laughable. And Niki Kelly should not have left the most important fact out of the story...

UPDATE: You can read Kevin Knuth's take at the Allen County Democratic Party's blog

UPDATE2: In the comments Kelly points out that the story does contain the reasons why the bill was killed - they are in the second paragraph. My confusion (and perhaps others) stemmed from the fact that Bosma's quote regarding this bill was at the bottom of the story

Tax Caps Do Exist With Referendums

The JG editorial exploring the potential problems with combining a referendum with property tax caps brings up a valid point - namely that voters who are already at the 1% cap may decide to approve a project because they know it won't affect them. However, they have a couple of statements in their editorial that are incorrect:

But it’s also true that Indiana has adopted a unique circuit-breaker feature that caps taxes at a percentage of a property’s assessed value.

This is incorrect. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that in fact there are 14 states that currently use property tax caps. The JG also adds:

The states that currently hold voter referendums don’t cap tax bills, so voters who support a bond issue understand they are approving a tax increase. A referendum process combined with a circuit-breaker is a different animal.

This is also incorrect. Of the 14 states that use caps 10 of them also have override provisions which allow voters to override the cap via referendum. In these cases the government body wanting to issue the debt must decide if the tax caps will prevent them from doing so. If it does, then they can initiate a referendum for the project to be exempt from the cap - this is similar to Senator Kenley's amendment that made it into Senate Bill 18.

Property tax caps have their problems. The CBPP's paper (linked above) on the issue highlights them in detail and is a good read for those that want to anticipate what problems might arise. If nothing else our state legislators should read it as it defines the difference between a cap and a circuit breaker...

Tracy Warner Weighs in on Property Tax Increase

Tracy Warner has a column in today's JG where he takes the same position I have over the Henry administration's property tax proposal. Specifically, he discusses the political problems I wrote about last weekend:

From a fiscal government standpoint, Mayor Tom Henry’s request for the City Council to restore $3.7 million it cut last fall from the proposed 2008 budget is sound.

But from a political viewpoint, the new mayor is essentially asking for authority to raise property taxes by $3.7 million as one of his first policy initiatives, a move few voters are likely to support and one that will undoubtedly face intense City Council scrutiny.

...beginning his administration with a proposal to raise property taxes could well set the wrong tone if popularity matters to the mayor.

It had better matter to the mayor. The reason mayor Richard was able to steamroll Harrison Square through the council is due in part to the rapport he had built with the councilmembers, the business community and the citizenry. Mayor Henry doesn't have that yet and hopefully his department staff realizes that they're not still in the Richard administration. It's one thing to hit the ground running but it's another to just hit the ground with a thud...

Karen Goldner Wins JG Endorsement

I'm sure most of you already saw that Karen Goldner got the JG endorsement but I wanted to post about it nonetheless:

Voters in the 2nd District can’t go wrong no matter which of the major party candidates they select for City Council. Nine-term incumbent Don Schmidt has a long track record as a fiscal watchdog. Democratic challenger Karen Goldner is a former high-ranking city official well acquainted with city government and especially knowledgeable about economic development.

While either candidate would represent the district well, we give the edge to Goldner.

I think this is the most interesting race to watch. Karen has run what appears to be an extremely effective campaign combining grassroots (knocking on every door) and traditional (impressive fundraising) campaign methods. Meanwhile the old-school analysts seem to think this won't make a nickel's worth of difference but I'm not so sure. Personally, I think this will be the only competitive district race come election night.

The real question is will Karen's efforts lead to victory? If so, I think you're likely to see a wholesale change in the philosophy of future local campaigns. This litmus test, if for no other reason, makes this the race to watch...

David Sirota Now in the Journal Gazette

I wanted to let readers of this blog know that David Sirota's column is now being carried by the JG. I e-mailed Tracy Warner a few months ago about picking up Sirota and he told me he was already looking into it. Now I see the decision has been made and I wanted to say thanks to Tracy and the JG.

Sirota will fill a void that's been missing from the slate of JG columnists. He's a populist and staunch advocate for Fair Trade policies, open government and the middle class in general. Lately Sirota has been involved with the growing Western wing of the Democratic party having worked for Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer before recently moving to Denver. He's a Democrat but also a vocal critic of the DC establishment and neoliberal groupthink. As such he's not afraid kick either party when they need to be kicked - something I strive to do here at FWL.

You can read his blog here and for those interested you can also check out his book - Hostile Takeover - from the public library...

UPDATE: I've been told by Tracy Warner that the JG has a one month trial period on Sirota so check out his column, daily blog and book. And if you would like to see the JG stick with his column then send Tracy (twarner@jg.net) your feedback

Tracy Warner Shuns Local Libertarians

Every year the Journal Gazette interviews local candidates and gives their endorsements on the editorial page. However, this year the JG has decided to not interview any of the 8 Libertarian Party candidates. I find this absolutely ridiculous. Should the JG interview all 8? Probably not as a couple of them are simply not serious candidates. But I have seen a few of them - Bartels, Horner, Larsen - at multiple events around the city and they are running serious campaigns that are engaging citizens in the issues.

What purpose does it serve to not interview them? They have a point of view that should at least be heard and judged on its merits. How can the JG help move the political dialogue forward if it excludes certain viewpoints simply because of their party affiliation? I have little doubt that Warner would not endorse any of the Libertarian candidates - and in my opinion he probably shouldn't endorse any of them.

But to exclude them for no other reason than they are Libertarians seems grossly undemocratic and the antithesis of a free press...

Journal Gazette Attribution Policy Needs Updating

Today's JG covered the Matt Kelty birthday cake story on page 1 of the Metro section. The author, Ben Lanka, clearly got wind of the story from my post here at Fort Wayne Left. What made it quite obvious was that the story mentioned that a sign outside the Emerald City said "The Wizard of Ozz is in". Now I wrote the exact same thing in my post (2 days before it appeared in the JG) but it turns out that I was wrong - as Dan Turkette's higher resolution photo shows.

I decided to contact Lanka and ask him why he chose not to attribute this blog in his story. He was kind enough to respond and since it was a private communication I won't post his response verbatim. However, the gist of his response was that the JG only attributes stories if they can't be independently confirmed. Since the photos were still up on Kelty's website there was no need to attribute Fort Wayne Left.

Let me say that I understand this policy as it relates to competitors such as television newscasts and other newspapers. But blogs do not compete with newspapers - we supplement them. We not only point readers to their work, but also occasionally report stories and/or facts that might be overlooked or go unreported. In essence we help newspapers achieve their goal - to bring the truth to readers on stories that are important in the community. However, blogs continue to lack credibility because traditional media sources refuse to attribute stories that originate in the blogosphere.

In my opinion, this attribution policy is outdated and should be changed. I have written the editor of the JG and asked that he review this policy and make the appropriate changes. But I'm interested in what the readers think - should the JG attribute stories that originate in the blogosphere?

JG Editorial Misleads Readers About TIF Districts

There are a couple of points I want to quibble with in the JG's editorial about TIF districts. First they tell readers that TIF districts are not going to cause less money to go into the city's general fund:

Q. Does that result in less money going to the city’s general fund, schools and other uses?

A. No. Kelty suggested as much, saying, “We don’t have enough money to refurbish our schools, but we have enough money to build a duplicate baseball stadium.” Actually, taxpayers could have chosen to provide the money to refurbish Fort Wayne Community Schools and declined.

This is wrong. Of course TIF districts cause less money to flow into the general fund. By definition they sequester all the money from improvements within the district and use it on projects related to the district. The only way one can argue the JG's position is if they believe that development would have never occurred over the life of the TIF - 30 years. That is highly unlikely.

Kelty seemed to be criticizing this point but also described them as a “valuable economic development tool.”

They are. Say a new factory wants to move into the city. The government can create a TIF district, borrow money to build a road to serve the factory, then repay the bond from the taxes the TIF district generates. Only the factory, not all property owners, pays for the road. And keep in mind that without the road the TIF district made possible, the factory might build elsewhere, so there would be no new factory to generate new taxes.

Fort Wayne TIF districts account for about 3 percent of the city’s taxable property value, generating about $8.5 million in tax revenue – all of it going for projects that other property owners do not have to finance.

Using TIF districts in the scenario presented here might be a nice use but that's not what we have with Harrison Square. There is absolutely no data to suggest that any significant number of quality jobs will be created due to this project. It's been a hand-waving argument from the beginning - somehow building a baseball stadium, hotel and a national chain restaurant will cure our economic development woes. Again, highly unlikely.

Also, the 3% number the JG uses is pre-Harrison Square. The JG says that TIFs should not be overused but what constitutes overuse? Much of the city's recent significant development has been done using TIFs. As I told the city council if we continue down this path we're going to have all these nice revitalized sections of the city with nobody left to pay for basic services...

JG Editorial Incorrectly Labels Clinton's Comments as an Attack

In today's Futhermore section the JG editorial board continues the meme that somehow Hillary Clinton attacked the integrity of General Petreus. Go ahead and do a search to see if you can find her actual comments (copying them from below is cheating). Wanna bet that nobody at the JG actually read them before they penned their editorial? Here's what the JG wrote:

With Clinton attacking the integrity of a respected general and Giuliani suggesting the First Amendment doesn’t apply to Clinton – she had “no right to disagree with his integrity” – one cannot help thinking that if these are their respective party’s presidential nominees, it’s going to be a very long campaign.

The JG is once again using the storyline that other traditional media outlets have glommed on to. I've posted Clinton's actual remarks below and I hardly see how it's an "attack" against General Petaeus' integrity:

The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

A vicious "attack" to be sure...

It Always Comes Back to the Nazis

A letter appeared in today's JG that left me baffled:

Suppose Kelty hid loan from unacceptable person

Once again, people are missing the point of what Matt Kelty did.

He lied about where the money he used in his campaign came from. I just wonder whether those people who are rushing to support him would be doing so if it had been a representative of the American Nazi Party who loaned him the money.

Does the JG editorial staff print these letters just to get a good laugh? Seriously, what is the point the author is trying to make here? Of course Kelty supporters wouldn't support him if the loan had come from the Nazi Party because his supporters don't support Nazis.

I need to start an archive of the dumbest letters written to the editor...

JG Editorial Page Weighs in on City Council Lockout

In today's "Furthermore" section, the JG editorial board writes the following:

SOME CITIZENS were shut out of last week’s City Council meeting because there wasn’t room for them in the council’s temporary chambers on the second floor of the City-County Building.

The meeting included two key topics: The council’s important up-or-down vote on Harrison Square and another appearance by a group of pro-smoking advocates who once again confused poisoning the air around them with a constitutional right.

A summer-long renovation project that includes new audience seating has shut down the council’s spacious chambers in Room 126, sending council members to the county commissioners’ chambers in Room 200, which has seating for about 50. The council had piped video and audio of its proceedings to the Omni room next door to accommodate larger crowds, but that room was booked for a different meeting at the same time as the council meeting.

We’re not sure that the arrangement was a violation of the state’s open meetings law – Indiana General Assembly committee meetings more often suffer the same problem.

And moving the meeting to another building could have cost the city unbudgeted rental fees and prohibited the meeting from being shown live on cable TV.

But city officials should have explored other options – IPFW, the Fort Wayne Community Schools’ boardroom and the Allen County Public Library among them – to accommodate citizens interested in seeing and hearing their elected representatives.

This is about what I expected from the JG. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that they rightly chastised the city for not doing everything they could to accommodate the citizens. But I'm somewhat underwhelmed by their support as I remember a time when the media were staunch advocates of open government; now I fear they're more concerned about maintaining relationships with those in power.

There's still one point that needs to be absolutely clear. The meeting that was scheduled in the Omni room mentioned in the above story was not for a public body and thus could've been moved. Also, the city council could've simply booked the Omni room for the duration of the renovations to their normal chambers.

Readers should also note that when the city needs meeting space to promote Harrison Square they always seem to book a large enough room. Why should city council meetings not receive the same kind of attention when booking its meeting space?

JG Editorial Board Obviously Didn't Follow the Valerie Plame Investigation

This the 2nd time the JG editorial page has been wildly off the mark with regards to the Scooter Libby trial. Their parroting of right-wing talking points is either proof that they didn't follow the case and have no idea what they're talking about, or that they believe in the doctrine of "both sides are equally right and we must give equal credence to both arguments".

I originally wrote a much longer point-by-point rebuttal but I ultimately decided to only focus on one specific portion of the editorial. I did this because it is most blatantly incorrect statement I have ever seen from the JG editorial page. And after exposing this the credibility of the entire piece is shot. The JG opines:

The conviction of I. Lewis Scooter Libby was highly suspect and did not serve democracy. Whether Plame really was an unknown CIA operative was questionable.

Her covert status was not under question whatsoever - except perhaps by the pundits on Faux News. Special Prosecutoer Patrick Fitzgerald publicly said she was covert:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Obviously that wasn't enough for the JG. But when the Bush-appointed director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, releases a statement to Congress telling them that she was covert - I mean what more do they need:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

Does it get any more cut and dry than that? Where is the "questionable" part of that statement? Tracy Warner should print an immediate retraction...

Journal Gazette Agrees on Election Board Whitewash

I gave out quite a laugh when I saw the "WHITEWASH" headline above this morning's editorial covering the Allen County Election Board hearing. As readers might remember that was my exact sentiment after leaving the hearing:

As I was leaving another local blogger asked me what I thought about the hearing and I flipped to the last page in my notebook where I had inscribed a single word that encapsulated my feelings

WHITEWASH

I guess I should just be happy that I actually agree with the JG editorial board as that's become somewhat of a rarity lately. However, an attribution would've been nice...

Job Creation is Not a Valid Reason to Support the FWCS Facilities Project

Karen Francisco pens yet another editorial in support of the FWCS facilities project. The latest reason to support the project is "economic development" and "job creation".

The projected tax impact of the $500 million Fort Wayne Community Schools building project gets much attention – and deservedly so.

But the jobs impact of the largest public project in county history seems to rate little discussion, probably because people most conscious of it are hesitant to speak up.

Uh, no. The reason why the jobs don't get any attention is because taxing everybody to provide a select few jobs is considered income redistribution and, in general, inefficient. If we take Karen's argument to it's logical conclusion then the government should significantly raise taxes in order to stimulate the economy and provide jobs.

That just isn't how a capitalist society should work. There is room for government services but the primary purpose of these services should not be to provide jobs. This latest Francisco piece reads like something out of Governor Mitch "privatization" Daniels' Little Red Book - namely that the government replaces the bourgeoisie by creating state-regulated monopolies that dole out contracts directly to the proletariat.

Even worse, she continues the JG's weak practice of anonymous "criticisms":

But critics are wrong to suggest the property tax money would sink into a black hole or that it will benefit only a handful of business owners.

Who exactly are the critics making such suggestions? I think the JG is in danger of becoming the Fort Wayne Strawman Press...

Has the Journal Gazette EVER Disagreed with a Tax Increase

I continue to disagree with the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette's editorial page. Today they advocate, once again, for a tax increase that will hurt businesses and therefore hurt economic development. They seem to agree that it's a good idea to increase the circuit breaker from 2% to 3% for businesses. For those that don't know, the circuit breaker is a state law that was passed to limit the amount of property taxes we must pay to no more than 2%.

Now, the state is changing the law to increase the maximum rate for businesses to 3%. This is a potential 50% property tax increase on local businesses. Does anyone stop to think about the adverse impact this would have on businesses? Isn't it reasonable to assume that some will be put out of business and/or choose to open their doors somewhere else? The JG obviously doesn't think so:

That’s why a compromise that preserves the circuit-breaker but blunts its worst effects is about the best anyone could have hoped to achieve in the recently ended legislative session. Residential property owners will still see their property tax bills capped at 2 percent, but the cap for businesses and rental properties is raised to 3 percent, effective in 2010.

The effects won’t be known until those values are final, but the higher cap minimizes the damage to local government budgets.

Ah yes, heaven forbid we damage the local government's budget - THAT must be protected. But businesses that provide jobs, in a state with a horrible job creation record, well to hell with them.

Such is the logic of the JG editorial board that's never seen a tax increase it didn't like...

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Has Finally Gone Off the Deep End

I've found myself at odds w/ the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette editorial page more and more of late. But yesterday's editorial criticizing public officials for signing the Fort Wayne Community Schools building remostrance takes the cake.

The decisions of Allen County Commissioner Nelson Peters and City Council members Tom Didier and John Shoaff to sign a remonstrance challenging Fort Wayne Community Schools’ $500 million long-range building plan are disappointing. The example of high-profile public officials is certain to sway the opinions of some property owners in deciding the fate of the much-needed improvements.

Imagine the audacity of a local official that doesn't want his property taxes raised tune the tune of $800 Million. So if these officials disagree with the current proposal they should remain silent? I see, only the Journal Gazette gets to use their bully pulpit, everyone else should just shut up and pay the taxman.

Public officials who protest measures approved by other elected officials should be prepared to demonstrate they’ve studied the issue in detail, listened to the public and weighed their fiscal responsibilities in protecting school buildings and other vital community assets.

This is UNBELIEVABLE. The school board didn't even BOTHER to study what the impacts of an $800 Million project would be on home and business owners or the overall economy. But the elected leaders who speak for their constituents' concerns about massive property tax hikes HAVEN'T listened to the public and weighted their fiscal responsibilities? Good grief - that's the most twisted logic I've seen in some time.

The community doesn't HAVE to defer to the JG editorial board. We all have voices - some louder than others - and we should ALL use them. For some reason the JG doesn't want this debate and they seem to feel that everyone would be better served if they just went about their business and didn't get involved in local politics.

They're wrong.

Again