FWCS Board President Redefines "Tax Increase"

Only a member of the Fort Wayne Community School board could argue that the city's decision to increase the levy by 4% is not a tax increase. You can read Fort Wayne Community School board president Mark GiaQuinta's letter to the JG here, but I also want to rebut a few of his points:

As I understand it, last summer the former City Council reduced the city’s budget by almost $4 million with no anticipation that the state legislature would cut municipal funding statewide by an even greater amount.

Anyone that didn't anticipate that the legislature was going to do something drastic regarding property taxes simply wasn't paying attention - and I hardly think our city council fell into that category. They knew it was coming but chose to play politics instead.

Mayor Tom Henry’s attempt to restore the $4 million is the right thing to do. To characterize his common-sense approach as a “tax increase” is nonsense.

I appreciate Henry for demonstrating the common-sense leadership he promised. Shame on those who would jeopardize key city services by mischaracterizing his attempt to preserve public safety and other key services we so desperately need.

The budget was passed with a 4% levy cut by the previous council. Everyone expected our tax bills to be reduced by that amount. When the new council decides to retroactively increase the levy that is raising taxes. What else could one call it? There is no mischaracterization here and no need to engage in an argument of semantics either.

I thought the previous council was acting recklessly when they voted for the levy cut but that doesn't change the fact that it passed. And it definitely doesn't change the fact that the cut was rescinded - even if it was the fiscally responsible thing to do. To most people that's tantamount to a tax increase but I guess that logic doesn't apply to members of the Fort Wayne Community School board. Let's not forget that board member Carol Coen once infamously stated that we had all received a tax break because she didn't raise our taxes...

City Council Budget Cut Redux - Part 2

The reason the new council had to retroactively change the budget is because the previous council irresponsibly cut taxes without cutting spending. At the time I felt like this was a decision driven by election year politics and not sound rational judgment. I should point out that I was not the only one at that meeting that felt the council went too far but I did speak out against it so as promised here is the video of my comments after last year's budget hearing

City Council Budget Cut Redux

During tonight's discussion on the property tax increase councilman Glynn Hines rightly pointed out that councilman Pape was a co-author (along with former councilman John Crawford) on the original ordinance to cut the levy. Hines wanted to know why Pape had changed his mind and Pape responded by saying that when the facts changed he had to rethink his position.

The facts never really changed and I personally spoke before council and told them it was fiscally irresponsible to cut the levy without cutting taxes. I'll have video of that as soon as I can, but here's what I wrote at the time:

The proposed tax cut is not followed by an equivalent cut in spending and this is a bad idea - they claim that the difference in revenue and spending would be made up from the city's cash reserves. Unfortunately, the city is facing a mountain of debt and the truth is we don't have any reserves once you take into account the unfunded pensions, combined sewage overflow fixes, etc.

Don't get me wrong, Crawford and Pape should be commended for trying to find ways to reduce spending and taxes. But the fiscally prudent decision would be to match the tax cut with appropriate spending cuts. If this is not done then the city will surely find themselves in a more financially precarious situation in the future...

It sure didn't take too long for me to be proven right. You simply cannot cut taxes without cutting spending - this is Government 101 folks. And Pape shouldn't be the only one singled out here as every member of council voted for the levy cut.

This council meeting was the same one that councilman Tom Hayhurst lashed out at myself and the other citizens that spoke before council and basically said he knew way more about all the issues than we did...

City Council Votes to Increase Property Taxes

(I will get video up tomorrow but for some reason ch 58 was completely scrambled for me tonight - coincidence? heh...)

The main focus of tonight's meeting was to deal with the administration's request to retroactively change the budget passed by the previous council. There was much legal wrangling between council attorney Joe Bonahoom, councilman Tim Pape and city attorney Carol Taylor. The gist of the debate revolved around two issues.

The first issue was whether or not a public hearing would be required to pass the administration's ordinance requesting a tax increase. Unbelievably the administration argued that a public hearing would not be required because they already had one. Now I want to explain this in detail because their argument was nuanced but quite ridiculous as well.

The city was required to have a public hearing for the original budget meeting. This process gives citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the proposed budget, but there's one other part of the process that is very important. Citizens have 10 days after the budget is passed to file their objections and those objections become part of the public record that is sent to the Department of Local Government Finance as the DLGF is ultimately the body responsible for approving the budget passed by council.

So here is the administration's argument in a nutshell. The original public hearing notice had the maximum levy increase included and nobody objected so there's no requirement to hold another public hearing. Now what is absolutely ridiculous about this argument is that they fail to mention that the levy was cut by 4% and that is why nobody objected. Had the council not cut taxes there very well might have been some objections from citizens. It is completely disingenuous for the administration to argue that since citizens didn't object to the 4% levy cut they also wouldn't object to a 4% levy increase - completely illogical. To her credit councilwoman Liz Brown caught the city's bamboozle and called them out on this.

The second issue was whether or not it was legal for the council to pass an ordinance that would retroactively raise taxes. Despite the administration's legal arguments Bonahoom insisted that it would not be legal to do so and went as far to say that he would not sign off on a such an ordinance. Bonahoom suggested the council amend the current ordinance to have the administration request that the Department of Local Government Finance change the levy and he cited specific state statute that gave the city the authority to request this change. Ultimately, with a few minor changes from councilman Pape, the council agreed that this would be the preferred method to take although to the citizenry it doesn't really matter as the net result would be a tax increase no matter how the council approached it.

In the end the council approved the ordinance 7-2 with councilmen Mitch Harper and Tom Smith being the votes against the ordinance. They did all of this without a public hearing or any formal process to get input or objections from the citizens of this city. I believe the DLGF will be required to hold a public hearing so all you have to do is drive down to Indianapolis to be heard...

Budget Smackdown

Regular readers of this blog have probably followed the story of the Henry administration trying to retroactively change the budget and increase property taxes by roughly 4%. They are doing this to try and offset some of the revenue losses that will be generated when the state legislature passes HB1001 or some equivalent - i.e. the governor's bill to cap property taxes at 1% among other things.

Today, councilmen Mitch Harper and Tom Smith held a press conference to give that idea (and the city controller) a public smackdown. You can see the remarks from both Harper and Smith below (again sorry for the shaky video). Before I delve into the politics of this I want to point out that Smith discusses some excellent ideas on how the city could go about using citizen input to help control government costs. The rest of the council and the administration would be wise to at least follow up on his ideas.





I expect this issue to get some discussion and debate at tomorrow's council meeting but why hold a press conference? Well, the Republican councilmembers haven't gotten the best press lately and this is probably a way for them to try and turn the tables a little bit and show the Democrats, including the administration, that they are willing to play politics if that's what it takes. In other words, this is probably a little retribution for Pape leading the charge against the illegal caucus held by the Republican majority.

I'm not suggesting that what Harper and Smith were talking about isn't substantive - it is. I'm merely pointing out that there's more than meets the eye regarding this press conference. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in tomorrow's council meeting...

Councilmen Speak Against Proposed Tax Increase

As mentioned in Ben Lanka's story in this morning's JG, councilmen Mitch Harper and Tom Smith held a press conference to discuss their objections towards the mayor's request to increase property taxes. Both councilmen questioned the legality of retroactively changing the budget as requested by the city controller. You can read the full press release here.

I will have video of the press conference up later tonight or early tomorrow but I wanted to touch on one specific part of their press conference that I found particularly troubling. During his remarks Harper mentioned that the administration had wanted to move forward on this proposed tax increase without a public hearing. Frankly, I was somewhat surprised by this and so I asked councilman Harper if he would elaborate on that point. (Apologies for the shaky video, I didn't have a tripod)



You can read the letter to the city controller that Harper mentions in the video here

It's certainly unusual for a new administration to try and retroactively change the budget after a new council is elected, but to do so without a public hearing or a formal opportunity for the public to speak for or against the idea is an outrage. I have to think this is the work of mayor Richard's holdovers.

Just because they can make a legal argument for such action doesn't make it the right course of action to take. Mayor Henry showed a propensity towards open government when he hired a second public information officer but he needs to reign in his entire staff and make it clear that this is not how the city will do business.

More to come...

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

State Republican Leadership To Kill Property Tax Reform

Masson's Blog does an excellent job covering news from the state legislature and he brings us a story about the House Republicans' effort to sabotage property tax reform. The Republican leadership has decided to attach a poison pill amendment to HJR-1 which is the resolution to amend the state constitution to include the 1% property tax cap. Their poison pill is an anti-gay marriage amendment and will effectively kill the resolution - a resolution that until now enjoyed bipartisan support.

The Republicans at the state house need to get serious about tax reform and stop screwing around with election year games. This whole process has been about as bipartisan as anything I've seen and these idiots are going to wreck the whole thing. They can push their bigoted agenda some other time - for now they should just concentrate on tax reform...

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...

House Democrats Are Wrong On Referendum

The state legislature is moving on property tax reform but the Senate and House versions are beginning to diverge. The House Democrats decided that referendums should apply to everything but the schools:

Among the biggest changes made: The House voted 50-44, along party lines, to limit referendums on building projects to only those projects not used for education, such as sports stadiums and swimming pools.

Rep. David L. Niezgodski, D-South Bend, offered the amendment, saying he feared schools would suffer with needed buildings left unbuilt.

Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said limiting referendums tells voters the legislature thinks they're not bright enough to understand what's in their own best interests.
"Do you think the people we serve are stupid or dumb?" Espich asked Niezgodski, who replied that he thought nothing of the sort.

The idea that referendums will kill all school projects is simply not based in reality. Most states have a referendum for bonds and they still build schools.
The fact is nearly half of my property taxes go to the schools so any serious proposal to slow government spending and/or property taxes HAS to account for that.

The best way to account for that is by letting the people vote on how their money is spent. Electing school board members won't get the job done because the public doesn't know what the upcoming expenditures or projects will be and therefore they have no way of determining which candidates they should support. No candidate is going to say "I will never support any project" - their answer is going to be more nuanced, as it should be. Yet that's exactly what proponents against the referendum suggest voters should be able to determine.

Don't be fooled. This is a money issue pure and simple. The ISTA, construction interests, etc are fighting this because it will mean an end to their elitist ways. Allowing the people to determine how their money is spent on massive spending projects should be at the core of the Democratic Party agenda. It saddens me to see that on some levels we're still a party beholden to special interests. It will be up to the Senate to hold their ground and demand that referendums be applied across the board.

In fact call Senator Wyss and let him know that the referendum is a dealbreaker - (800) 382-9467

City Controller Discussed Property Tax Increase With City Council

At this week's council meeting, city controller Pat Roller gave a presentation describing why the council needs to revoke the $3.7 million levy cut passed by the previous council. Her argument is that if House Bill 1001 is passed then the 1% property tax circuit breaker CAP will have dire consequences on the city's finances. Here's a brief discussion of her projections that show the financial picture.




As you can see the city is facing a massive shortfall even if the council votes to reinstate the property tax levy cut by the previous council. Now HB 1001 does give local government the option to increase the income tax by up to 1% to make up the difference. What's important here for those that want something done about property taxes is to realize that your total tax bill might actually go up. The state is going to raise the sales tax AND your income tax could go up by 1%. So the old adage "Be careful what you wish for" applies here.

The council put a hold on this ordinance until the Feb 5th meeting and councilman Mitch Harper said there will be some sort of public hearing on the matter although the details were not set. If you feel strongly one way or the other then I suggest you plan to speak your mind...

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...

The Politics Behind Henry's Request to Increase Property Taxes

I've reported about the upcoming city ordinance that might raise property taxes. I've also talked about the policy behind it and why the original decision made by council may have not been the wisest choice they've ever made. But we haven't discussed the politics behind this ordinance and how it relates to the new administration.

This ordinance provides an ideal example of the dangers of carrying over department heads from a previous administration. Tom Henry kept Pat Roller on as Controller and that wasn't a bad decision considering her experience in the position. However, Roller has been insulated from recent politics due to her position in the Richard administration and the fact that he wasn't seeking re-election, so it's not surprising that she would advocate for a property tax increase at the worst possible time. But where is mayor Henry's political advisor? Somebody should've been in his ear telling him it's not the right time or circumstance to fight this battle.

This situation has been mismanaged from a political point of view. First, there's no guarantee that the governor's property tax bill will even pass so why in the world would Henry want a front page story in the JG discussing a future property tax increase that he is asking for? Second, you simply can't author an ordinance to increase property taxes in this environment on your 3rd day in office - nobody has that kind of political capital. As Clinton used to say, good policy doesn't always make good politics.

So what should've happened? The administration should've worked on a contingency plan behind the scenes in the event that HB1001 or something similar was passed. In the meantime they could've been publicly discussing the problems to warn the citizenry and council about the likely effects. This way if they couldn't build the necessary council or community support they could save face because they didn't advocate for a specific ordinance calling for a property tax increase.

Now what we have is an ill-conceived ordinance being thrown to the council as a political hot potato. And I'm sure the Henry administration is lobbying all the councilmembers, especially the Democrats, to support the ordinance. The problem is the administration is on the verge of starting a major financial battle with the council that wasn't even necessary. Budget battles can get ugly and it's not what Henry or the city needs right now...

Tax Increase Comes Before Council

Before the last council meeting I warned readers that a new ordinance being introduced would likely increase the property tax levy by retroactively changing the 2008 budget which has already been passed by the previous city council. Today, the JG fronts a detailed story confirming my original report:

One of Mayor Tom Henry’s first acts as mayor will be to ask the City Council to undo a $3.7 million tax cut, potentially forcing homeowners to pay higher bills this year.

The City Council next week is expected to discuss a proposal to increase the city’s tax levy from $99.4 million to $103.1 million for this year. The tax levy is the total amount of property taxes the city collects.

With Gov. Mitch Daniels’ plan to cut property taxes across the state, it was appropriate to reintroduce the issue to the council for discussion, city Controller Pat Roller said.

“We have new proposals being made that substantially impact the city of Fort Wayne,” she said.

Roller said the governor’s plan would cut the city’s budget by nearly $10 million a year starting in 2009. Combined with the council’s cut this could force the city to make some drastic decisions.

Now before everyone goes ballistic over this tax increase I want to remind readers that the original tax cut was fiscally irresponsible. The council didn't cut spending they cut money that was "earmarked" for paying down the police and fire pension debt. Here's what I wrote at the time:

I fully agree with the controller and I think the council went too far with their tax cut. I think the council did a great job cutting spending - to the tune of $1.3 Million - and I have no problem cutting that exact amount in taxes. But they went above and beyond that and their tax cut will be funded by money that was going to be used to pay down the mountainous amount of debt the city has accumulated. While citizens might be happy to see their tax bill go down even more than it would have, they need to remember that the council simply kicked the can down the road and those debts will have to be paid at some point.

But there's a broader issue here besides whether or not that tax cut was wise. The most prescient issue seems to be whether or not it is legal to retroactively change the budget and levy after it's been approved by the previous council. That's something the current council will have to figure out before even discussing the issue. But even if it is legal, is this the kind of precedent that council wants to set - that our council will retroactively raise taxes after plans and budgets for local businesses might've already been set?

And I want to add a little context that readers won't get from the JG story. I think the biggest reason the council was able to cut the money "earmarked" for the pension debt is because it was never really earmarked. What I mean by that is that the money was actually in the general fund and not a dedicated sinking fund as Mike Sylvester suggested it should be. So the controller can say the money was earmarked for the pension but the administration could essentially use it for anything they wanted - their own slush fund if you will.

With that context, if the council decides to raise the levy they should demand that those funds be placed into a dedicated fund for paying down our debt. The other part of this that bothers me is that the controller uses the governor's property tax changes (HB 1001) as the reason for needing to increase the levy. However, that bill hasn't even passed the state legislature, yet there's nothing in our city ordinance that ties our levy increase to the passage of HB 1001. In other words our taxes might go up even if we don't see a shortfall due to changes in state law.

Like I said before, this will be an interesting one to watch

Mayor Henry to Explore Casino

After months and months of listening to politicians tell us there's no way to get a casino to Fort Wayne we find out that Steuben County might just be a little more resourceful than the Fort Wayne folks. You mean we could get a new business that local government wouldn't have to massively subsidize and would actually create millions in annual tax revenue? Say it ain't so. And guess what that might mean? Yep, your property taxes could go down. Or you could fix some of the Fort Wayne Community Schools without breaking the public bank. There are a number of possibilities that become instantly viable with a casino.

Thankfully our new mayor is picking up the previous mayor's slack and plans to look into the possibility:

The topic of gambling has crossed the mind of Henry at the start of his administration.

Concerning the idea for a new casino at Buck Lake in Steuben County, Henry wants to push to have that re-located in Fort Wayne, and he will try and lay the groundwork for such a change through the spring and summer months.

H/T: Fort Wayne News

Tax Abatement Bamboozle at City Council Meeting

In Tuesday's city council meeting, councilman Glenn Hines mentioned that blogs have been critical of the council's decision on several recent tax abatements. He reminded everyone how important they are and wanted Elissa McGauley to help explain to everyone why they give these abatements and why they are considered economic development.

Now the problem with this is that the entire discussion came about after the council approved the expansion of a UPS facility here in town that will create several well-paying jobs. Nobody is arguing against such abatements, yet Hines and McGauley use this example to explain why abatements, in general, are important. Specifically they talk about how employers could leave the area or not choose to expand their business without the abatement.

Now readers of this blog will catch their bamboozle right away. We all know that the abatements we've been critical of were for a McDonald's (that was already built), a Subway (which violates the city's own downtown design guidelines), and a subsidized housing project that will create one job. Are we really afraid that Subway and McDonalds will choose to take their business elsewhere if we don't subsidize them? More importantly, do we care? Clearly nobody comes into the community or spends more money in the community because we have 1 more McDonalds or Subway. That's the real point here - the abatement was unnecessary and irrelevant but it's now opened the floodgates.

Go ahead and watch the video below, it's almost unbelievable that they attempt to use a legitimate use of abatements to explain why bloggers shouldn't be critical of all abatements. (Note: The audio and video are slightly out of sync due to YouTube's processing but I don't feel like fixing it)

Ax The Townships

The JG has an excellent editorial in today's paper describing why the state should eliminate township assessor positions:

Of Indiana’s 1,008 township assessors, 567 lack the certification that qualifies them to determine the values of property. In essence, more than half of the people in key positions to determine the amount of property tax bills are unqualified.

Accurate assessments are the foundation of the property-tax system, essential in determining whether property owners pay their fair share in comparison with other property owners. When assessments are wrong, some people get an undeserved break, and others pay more than they should.

The fact that we have unqualified partisan assessors makes absolutely no sense. In fact I would suggest we go one step further and eliminate the entire township construct altogether. It's a wasteful, antiquated bureaucracy that adds no real value. Does anybody really believe we need a layer of government for every 6x6 mile square in the state?

The services provided at the township level could easily be rolled up to the county (or city) which would likely save taxpayer dollars and provide better service. If state officials are serious about saving money then they can start by axing all the townships...

The Modern Republican Party is a Joke

The national Republican party has become a complete laughingstock. They have no principles and lack anything resembling fiscal responsibility. This last week Democrats have worked to pass an AMT bill that would patch the system for this year and keep 25 Million people from paying higher taxes. Of course the Democrats wanted to keep the "pay-go" system in place - pay-go is the simple idea of "pay-as-you-go" meaning any new program or tax-cut must be paid for and cannot simply be added to the national debt. Democrats brought pay-go back this session after Republicans had abandoned it in favor of Bush's tax cuts - it was much easier for them to give tax cuts without reducing spending.

So the Democrats want to actually pay for AMT relief by closing the loopholes given to certain investors in the Virgin Islands and other wealthy expatriates that relinquished their citizenship to avoid paying their taxes. But the Republicans filibustered that bill and even went so far as to say they wouldn't approve any bill under pay-go rules.

If you want to see how out of touch and fiscally irresponsible the modern Republican party has become just listen to the Republicans top senator on the FINANCE committee, Charles Grassley:

The Finance Committee’s top Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, said it was time for Democrats to abandon their “pay-go obsession,” referring to the “pay-as-you-go” principle that tax cuts or spending increases should be paid for so as not to add to the federal deficit.

Well there you have it in black and white. The Republican Party is officially against fiscal responsibility. Just add another $50 Billion to the national debt what the hell - it's not your generation's money right?

Just another reason why Republicans are going to get their clocks cleaned in 2008...

Indiana House Democrats Take the Right Approach on Property Tax Vote

The JG front-paged a piece about the upcoming vote on Governor Daniels' property tax package. Democrats, who control the house, have rightly decided that the Governor's plan should be treated as a package and voted on as a package:

But he said Thursday that House Ways and Means Chairman William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, would author Daniels’ bill as one piece of legislation and that early hearings were in order.

“I took the time and deliberation to determine how you do a major, complicated bill,” said Bauer, who has often sparred with Daniels. “I believe when the governor proposes a package you treat it as a package, and the governor concurred.”

This is the right approach to take. Any plan will begin to fall apart if they treat it in a piecemeal fashion and begin removing bits and pieces. Unfortunately, that's the way Republicans that control the Senate have decided to tackle the problem:

Senate Republican leaders said earlier that they planned to introduce at least 10 bills incorporating parts of Daniels’ plan Nov. 20 and have hearings on them in December, when lawmakers usually are not in session.

That is simply a terrible idea. If the Senate wants to use the Governor's plan as a framework to develop their own plan - fine. But carving a plan up into individual bills is surely asking for disaster...

Tom Henry on Mitch Daniels' Property Tax Plan

Here's what mayoral candidate Tom Henry had to say about Governor Mitch Daniels’ new property tax plan - you can read the press release here:

Finding a real solution to the property tax crisis is a priority issue for me. I know firsthand the pain it is causing Fort Wayne residents. Back in July, I challenged state elected officials to give emergency relief to those in need and to begin work immediately on a long-term solution.

I also pledged to do my part as mayor by delivering cost-effective, high-quality services and getting the most bang out of every buck. It’s why I will create a collaborative purchasing network when elected. Buying in bulk and passing the savings on to our citizens just makes sense.

So does addressing the property tax crisis. It is a leadership imperative for me. Because it is, I offer these comments on the issue and the plan put forth by Governor Mitch Daniels.

I commend the governor for his ideas, for acknowledging the need for immediate relief and for his willingness to consider all options, even amending the Indiana constitution. But I offer this caution: Before we write anything into this historic document that has served Hoosiers well for 156 years, I counsel the governor and state legislators to make sure that any changes made to it are in the best long-term interests of all citizens, in particular, the people of Fort Wayne.

I also urge that the choices made give more control, not less, to local jurisdictions. The people

of our counties, cities and towns and those they elect know best how to meet their own needs. Local leaders are already doing more with less and with fewer options to make their communities’ competitive and attractive. Flexibility and greater local control must be part of any long-term solution.

I know what I’m talking about. When I was on Fort Wayne City Council, I led the bipartisan effort to shift some of the burden away from property taxpayers. You can be sure I will continue that fight as your mayor on the home front, at the statehouse and anywhere the battle against higher taxes is waged.