| Author |
Message |
    
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 337
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:40 am: | 
|
I don't find libertarian ideology very threatening, at least not yet. I most certainly don't find it very realistic or workable. Most of us can't swallow it, which I see as a good thing.
it is actually as close to the original intent of the constitution as there is out there. unfortunately, this has become an entitlement society. no one wants to accept responsibility for themselves and their choices. they want government to provide for their choices in the form of social entitlements. then they all bitch when the tax bill comes to collect the money necessary to subsidize your neighbors.
real estate tax is a form of double taxation and taxation without representation. the government taxes your wages and then taxes the home you purchased with these wages. double taxation. you pay rent to live in a home you own. when i pay school taxes yet recieve no services from the schools, that is taxation without representation.
the libertarian view, which you cant swallow, says that everyone should take personal responsibility for their own choices. an idea that is anathema to our entitlement society.} |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5229
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
local, call it an entitlement society if you like, but with entitlement comes duties. I think it's a mixture of entitlements and duties. You are using the word "entitlement" as if it's a dirty word. I have no problem with it.
For example, you might say that you are entitled to be treated with respect. Another way to put that is that I have a duty to treat you with respect. The duties and entitlement go together, and they are intertwined and interdependent.
Yeah, it's painful around tax time, and sometimes we say we shouldn't be paying taxes, but we do enjoy the benefits that society brings us, and we have a duty to pay for them. We also have a duty to pay for that which everyone in society is entitled to. At least, that's how I think responsible people should see things. And I think most people do at least some of the time. We sometimes forget the correlation between what we give (taxes) and what we receive, or we think they are askew, but we know there is a relationship. I get the feeling you think there is none or should be none. And if that's the case, I'll probably be wasting my breath speaking about this with you. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 735
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
"that is taxation without representation."
Local, I don't think you are using this term correctly. You have every right to vote for a libertarian party candidate both on the local, state and national level, who will offer you the best chance to alter tax laws according to how you think they should be.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
TomR: SHU pays about $150,000 in taxes which is the municipal portion for the property they own outside the main campus. They also gave $10,000 to Main Street, about $70,000 to pay for the dugouts, and an extra $10,000 to the town. They also agreed to give SOPAC $1,000,000 (in the form of a bond ) which covered the cost of the improvements they made to the design of SOPAC. They plan to use the theater and run some productions at their expense.
The best solution (for changing the tax-exempt status of SHU and similar) is to get Trenton to change the legislation but that does not seem likely any time soon. We have repeatedly requested that they add $100.00/ year to the tuition to be contributed to a public safety trust fund. That would raise over $550,000 / year. Since the tuition is about $20,000 a year, I would doubt that any student or parent would complain about another $100.00 to help insure the safety of their children.
I do not know what portion of our county taxes goes towards Newarks' schools. I know the courts are a large expense (if not the largest).
By the way, NJ has consistently ranked at the bottom for getting money from the federal government and if we could get our "fair" share it would help free up money at the state level allowing them to give more money to local municipalities.
Every time the federal government cuts taxes, there is a ripple affect which contributes to a property tax increase. Since we get screwed by DC anyway, I guess it is better to see Bush cut taxes and have the state increase them so at least the money stays here. Of course that would assume they are not going to repeal the cuts or figure out some other way to increase taxes at a national level to pay for the deficit and the war.
|
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Tom: Agree with you, want to add that one also has a duty to act in a manner that deserves respect. In the tax and spend world, this also means that those who take taxes (government) have a duty to do so wisely and modestly--that rarely happens at the more than local level.
Mrosner--excellent post. Thank you. But is is just as hard to trust Trenton--should we keep everything at the Town level? Think nationally and tax locally! |
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 338
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
"that is taxation without representation."
Local, I don't think you are using this term correctly.
i dont know how to defend this other than to say that i am using it correctly.
We also have a duty to pay for that which everyone in society is entitled to. At least, that's how I think responsible people should see things
ah, this is the point i am trying to make. people in this country have grown to think that they are entitled to something paid for by the labor of others. FDR implemented many social programs in order to help us weather a poor economic time and people have come to expect these freebies even though though the economy has radically changed since the creation of these programs. this sense of entitlement is the exact reason government is bloated and taxes are destroying the middle class. If people would stop this selfish sense of entitlement and take personal responsibility for their financial, social, and reproductive choices then we could roll back over 70% of the current federal and state tax burden.
the problem with the discussion is that you dont question what you consider your entitlement as citizen. you just take for granted that you deserve these things. your discussion revolves around how to pay for these things rather than whether you should get them for free on the backs of others. you feel it is your right to expect everyone to pay for the things that you think you deserve. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 736
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Local: you have the right the vote and your vote is heard. You are therefore being represented in the government. You may have a problem with HOW you are being represented -- though I'm not sure the best plan of attack to facilitate change is to go around and telling a random population of people to stop being "selfish" and "entitled." |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Mark F: I am not sure we can trust Trenton, but I do know that S. Orange and Maplewood are residential towns trying to survive in a system that favors towns with a strong commercial base.
A large problem is that most elected officials do not have the stomach (ok, others would use a different word) to make the changes needed to fix the problems. There will be opposition at every corner resisting real changes to the property tax system. Part of the solution is shared services and maybe even consolidation of municipalities.
Call it the Florio effect or whatever, our legislators in Trenton are chickens and have no vision past their re-election.
|
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 843
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
One proposal that definitely would have benefited every taxpayer in the two towns, regardless of income or property value, was the "Abbott rim" legislation that was proposed several years ago. South Orange and Maplewood's position as two of the most "tax-traumatized" municipalities in the state is due in large part to its DFG status and the almost nothing amount we get from the state to educate our students, many of whom come from the four Abbott Districts surounding our towns.
The Abbott Rim legislation would have allowed additional aid to school districts which have at least one school where 20% of the school population receives free or reduced school lunches.
The proposal, although introduced with much publicity, just died in Trenton. Now with everyting focused on the convention (or whether one is necessary), we can probably forget about it altogether.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 446
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Mr. Rosner,
Thanks for the information provided, but I'm more interested in how much SHU's presence generates direct, or indirect, Village revenue on an ongoing basis. If you know, great; if not, OK.
As for changing the tax-exempt status of SHU, or other similar institutions, I'd rather not. If we change the status of universities; do we also seek to change the status of private elementary or secondary schools? Places of worship? Hospitals? As I wrote, I rather not.
Yeah, we pay more to, and get less from, the feds than most States; but as somebody else mentioned above, that's the way taxes work. If we only paid for benefits directly received, my school taxes would be zilch.
BTW, by my earlier comment regarding Trenton allowing us to use an income tax for local funding, I meant a local income tax. I should have been more clear.
As for the "Florio" effect, I presume you are not afflicted, but I must be candid; I can't vote for you.
Thanks again for joining the discussion.
TomR. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 447
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Rastro,
Yeah, that's the kicker. Like the woman said, "if it ain't one thing, its another thing. Its always something".
Personally, I'd rather maintain local control and raise the money to pay for what we want differently, but locally. (Think flat tax).
I've read about Woodstock's situation, but really don't know enough about the neighborhood, or how S.O. did its last reval, or how it has adjusted assessed values since.
When I brought up the middle income house poor thing, I was thinking more of the $75 to 125k income family who are more likely to stretch its budget to the max to get the home ownership part of the American dream. I think that far fewer upper income families get caught in the same crunch when property taxes, or other ownership expenses, rise faster than anticiapted.
By the way, I do have "the" solution. Just haven't found enough people willing to go along with it. ;-)
TomR.
Ps., It has been enjoyable to have a discussion without somebody calling someone else names.
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
TomR: Next Reval in S. Orange is in 2008, last one was in 1991.
If all towns were of similar size and make-up, I would not have a problem with the tax-exempt status either. In fact, I agree with you that it should not be changed. However, we need to come up with a fair balance. Having a large university in a small town is just too much of a burden. They require police and fire protection but they do not have to contribute to the cost. Since it is a state mandate, then let them come up with a formula for making up the money to every town. Clearly South Orange would get more than most but that would be "fair".
I do not think a specific study was ever done to see how revenue is generated by SHU or if more revenue would be generated by traditional homes and businesses. Some businesses see a large drop in business when school is on vacation so we have an idea.
I know there is no easy answer or one that is best for most towns. I just think the SHU situation is unique and S. Orange needs a solution that will help our tax burden.
I assume you can't vote for me because you live in Maplewood not because of some other reason.
I agree, it is nice to have a discussion without name calling, etc.
|
Walker
Citizen
Username: Fester
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Mark;
I thought that the reval had to completed by 2008 not done in 2008. Is that wrong? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 1657
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
It will take affect in 2008, which means most of the work will be done in 2007.
|
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 339
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Ps., It has been enjoyable to have a discussion without somebody calling someone else names.
i have not been calling anyone on this board names. i speak of society as a whole. if my argument that people in this country have become so used to the entitlement programs that they now cant distinguish what is fair from what they think they are owed by their government hits so close to home that you see it as an insult, then the fault lies not with me.
i was trying to participate in an informative manner on the side of an opinion that does not feel it is right to be forced to subsidize other peoples children. an opinion shared by more people than you think. i am sorry if you cannot conceptualize an opinion that is so radically different from yours and instead decide to dismiss it as an insult. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 629
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Local, no one was talking about you. I believe the comment was about the entire thread, not about everyone but you. Don't be so defensive.
As for your comment about taxation without representation, please explain how you are not represented. Being represented doesn't mean that your ideas are all put into place. That would imply that half the country (ok, 48%) is being taxed without representation.
You have a vote. Use it.
This thread is not about you, though.
Mark, when does the BOT have to actually put something into place so that this can be done? And do you think whoever is on the BOT at that time will have the political will to actually do it? |
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 341
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
sorry, i gotta switch to a decaf when talking about this stuff. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 450
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Mr. Rosner,
I can go with the idea of Trenton putting up some bucks to cover the Village's revenue shortfall arising from tax exempt properties; but...
When someone else write the checks, be ready for them to demand a voice in how the bucks are spent.
Some very unsolicited advice regarding your upcoming reval. Get information out to the residents out early, and repeat it often.
I think Jerry Ryan did a good job in trying to explain what HAD happened, but also think there would have been less angst if the explanations had started long before the the valuation's results were released.
In any event, good luck with the reval.
Your assumption is correct.
TomR. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 451
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Local_1,
Relax. Rastro is right.
The comment was a genuine expression of gratitude to the posters in this thread for keeping the discussions civil. There's some disagreement, but we've all been civil.
The BOE election is swiftly approaching, "No matter who you vote for, vote." (W. Bailey).
TomR. |
Local_1_crew
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 343
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
i said sorry. jeez! stop berating me! i am a sensitive person and your yelling is making me feel very bad about myself. i apologized already! LEAVE ME ALONE!! ::runs away crying:: |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7316
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
I have the impression that SHU mooches off South Orange more than most colleges and universities. I believe that they don't even provide effective security on campus and rely on the SOPD to do this.
My daughter graduated from a large, urban university in the mid west and the school had their own sworn police department. Even the 1,400 small college my son attends in very rural Pennsylvania has thier own sworn police force! I believe Seton Hall relies on rent a cops for whatever security they provide on campus.
This might be a place to start. I note that the SOPD has about the same number of officers as the MPD in spite of a considerably smaller population. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 845
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
The year after the Seton Hall fire, South Orange had to puchase an additional fire truck to cover its responsibility for Seton Hall. Seton Hall did not offer to pay anything toward this.
Contrast this with Monmouth University which contributed $250,000 to West Long Branch toward the purchase of a fire truck. Monmouth also has its own police force. It also makes an annual contibution to West Long Branch of approximately $175,000. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 632
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Just a question - what benefit does South Orange derive from having Seton Hall within its borders? I undertand the benefits of having it nearby, but what does the town get for having SHU within its borders?
Yes, I know about the million $ for SOPAC, and the dugouts. And I know they pay some amount of money in lieu of taxes (or maybe it is taxes), but are those things that we wouldn't otherwise get either from SHU? And do they outweigh the burden that SHU puts on the town? |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 848
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
Rastro - I'm not answering your question directly, but will clarify SHU's contribution to SOPAC. Originally, SHU was to have come in as a partner. The implication of this was that SHU would have some liability attached to its benefit of using SOPAC.
The final deal is that SHU requested modifications for its needs, which added $1 million to the total cost. In turn, SHU pledged to contribute the $1 million which was needed to meet its requirements. The $1million is actually being paid by SHU to South Orange Village (or SOPAC) in payments of $50,000 per year over 20 years to cover the $1million loan which SOPAC takes out to cover the $1 million changes requested by SHU. SHU has no other liability - thus, their liability is limited, but for a quantified amount ($50,000 per year for 20 years) they get the use of a theater. Pretty sweet deal. |
doublea
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 849
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
Please excuse me for being even more vocifierous than usual about taxes, after seeing South Orange's ranking in the table of taxes paid by municipalities in yesterday's Star Ledger. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 748
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 7:25 am: |
|
Still not serious about taxes
Monday, January 31, 2005
In the process of passing the current budget last June, with its obscene 16.4 percent increase, lawmakers gave an ever-so-slight nod to controlling property taxes when they imposed tighter spending caps on school districts. The state also jacked up rebates to homeowners by a total of $830 million to soften the impact of back-to-back 7 percent average jumps in property tax bills. But writing rebate checks does nothing to address the underlying problem of runaway spending. Budget caps do.
Now the Legislature is poised to repeal some of the budget restrictions, but fortunately, acting Gov. Richard Codey is hanging tough.
In a speech to the League of Municipalities the other day, Codey correctly noted that no one serious about easing the property tax burden could consider punching loopholes in the school budget restrictions.
In the campaign to erase the new rules, school officials argue that the restraints threaten the ability of districts to deliver quality education. Nonsense. They even say the more careful approach to school budgets could end up costing taxpayers more.
The new rules say school districts may not increase their budgets more than 2.5 percent or the increase in the consumer price index, whichever is greater, in the 2005-06 school year. The previous cap was 3 percent. Nor can they retain a 6 percent budget surplus; they must reduce it to 2 percent for 2005-06. And the districts can no longer bank an unused portion of one year's allowable increase for a future budget. The law allows exemptions for increased enrollments and for construction-related costs.
For decades, politicians have decried the state's confiscatory property taxes, the highest per capita in the nation. Education costs account for at least 50 percent of those taxes. Figures compiled by The Star-Ledger show that last year the average property tax bill jumped 6.2 percent, and that followed 7 percent increases in the two previous years. As of last year, the average New Jersey homeowner was paying $5,517.
In Millburn, Summit, Glen Ridge, Montclair, Bernardsville and 31 other towns, the average topped $10,000. Just four years ago, only three towns held that distinction. Eighty-one municipalities recorded 10 percent increases.
Despite all the empathy evinced by politicians, not much changes. Last year's modest move on school budgeting was the exception. More typically, Trenton papers over the problem, relying on increases in the income tax to pay for larger rebate checks. Easing the sting one year does nothing to ward off the bite the next year.
The Legislature is about to debate whether lawmakers or a special constitutional convention should attempt to ease the property tax burden and whether spending, as well as revenue sources, should be part of the discussion.
The move by legislators to repeal aspects of the school cap law shows they don't understand the problem.
|
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 766
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Sunday Star Ledger
The high cost of home rule
February 06, 2005
BY JOHN FARMER JR.
New Jersey needs a constitutional convention, but not the one recently proposed by a state task force. That convention would be limited to finding an alternative revenue source to reduce our reliance on property taxes.
We've been there and done that. We know better. We know that any relief will be temporary, and that we'll be left with higher property taxes and a new revenue source. So enough.
New Jersey needs to rethink taxation completely.
The reason is simple. For decades, political leaders have proven unable to address the root cause of our higher taxes: home rule, a system that assigns many of the responsibilities of state government to local officials, who rely primarily on property taxes to cover the costs.
In theory, home rule allows for flexible local decision-making. In practice, it has spawned ruinous municipal competition, encouraged sprawl, multiplied the opportunities for fraud and corruption, and heightened social inequities in a state where local property values correlate poorly, if at all, with social needs.
A constitutional convention that focuses exclusively on finding a new source of revenue to relieve the property tax pressure will do nothing to change that. Home rule will survive, and we will continue to feel its pernicious effects as our taxes, property and other, continue to rise.
As a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, the largely conservative Joseph Weintraub, once wrote: "It may well be that at one time there was a rough correlation between the needs of an area and the local resources to meet them so that there was no conspicuous unfairness in assigning State obligations to the local units of government. Surely that is not true today in our State."
Weintraub made that observation 32 years ago in Robinson vs. Cahill, the school-funding case that launched a thousand property tax "fixes." It was, in effect, a shot across the state's bow, a warning that the system of home rule was resulting in "conspicuous unfairness" that was not limited to school funding.
Fearing "convulsive implications," the court "hesitate(d) to turn (the school-funding) case upon the State equal protection clause," which provides broad guarantees of equality. Instead, the court based its demand for a greater state role in public education on New Jersey's constitutional guarantee of a "thorough and efficient" education.
The court, in effect, left the broader social justice implications of home rule to be met by the political branches of government.
Right. Now there's a good bet.
If one thing is clear from the past three decades, and from the testimony before the task force, it's this: Any hope that the "conspicuous unfairness" of home rule would be solved by the political establishment has been dashed.
Proposed fixes have included a state income tax, the NJ Saver and Homestead Rebate programs, the Senior Citizen Property Tax Freeze, REAP, READY (or REDI), Density Aid, Distressed Cities Aid, Rural Aid, Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Act Aid, Supplemental Municipal Property Tax Relief Aid, School Takeover Aid, County Court Takeover Aid, Gross Receipts and Franchise Tax Aid -- and even, for Asbury Park, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band Aid.
There has been no shortage of gimmicks -- most of them bipartisan, all of them stop-gap -- and they have all proven ineffective.
Every measure adopted over the past 32 years to reduce our reliance on property taxes has served, instead, to dilute fiscal accountability while leading to dizzying levels of overall taxation. Not one measure has effectively promoted restrained spending; the one that was designed to do so, the so-called Local Government Cap Law, was amended to add so many exceptions that its operation as a restraint is laughable.
Local officials have simply absorbed increases in state aid and continued to raise property taxes. They're playing with house money. In the past five years alone, despite unprecedented billions of dollars in state aid, the annual statewide property tax levy has grown from $14.2 billion in 2000 to $18.4 billion in 2004; the rate of increase has been twice that of inflation.
Meanwhile, as the record before the task force establishes, the social inequities have, if anything, grown worse.
University of Minnesota law professor Myron Orfield, for instance, noted that not only do New Jersey's urban areas continue to suffer, but recently "dozens and dozens of older suburban communities are losing their ability to provide services, as they face greater challenges. They face more children, they face a more diverse socioeconomic and racial mix. They face old infrastructure ... they face brownfields and redevelopment issues."
As they face these growing challenges, Orfield said, "they do so every year with less ability to provide services; they do so with less ability to provide revenue. That leads to a spiral. As places grow in social and economic needs with high tax rates, their tax rates go up to chase declining levels of services."
Even among affluent communities, the record before the task force suggests, the property tax is socially corrosive, leading to internecine municipal warfare and promoting sprawl as those communities compete for ratables to fund their schools and other municipal services.
The conclusion is inescapable: There has been, over the past 32 years, a colossal failure of government, a failure that cannot be addressed within the constraints of the limited convention proposed by the task force.
Such a convention would become not only the latest "quick fix," but perhaps the most dangerous, since constitutional conventions are so infrequently held.
Contrary to popular belief, home rule is a tradition, not a commandment. The property tax, although levied and collected locally, is a state tax. This is not an opinion; this is a matter of law.
Reliance on the property tax represents the 19th-century judgment that a host of government services -- schools, police and fire departments, libraries, etc. -- were best administered by local officials, and were best funded by allowing local government to tax local property to meet its needs.
That judgment -- the product of an age when property values correlated more closely with actual wealth, and when social ills were less geographically isolated -- may already have been antiquated in 1947, when our current constitution was adopted; it was certainly a feudal relic in 1973, when Weintraub exposed its constitutional frailties. That it remains in place 32 years later is our shame.
Those years are the best argument for a convention, and for giving it a broader scope.
If we are to have a convention, let's put the right questions to the test: What is the best way for New Jersey to function, to tax and spend in the 21st century? Should problems of governance be committed to local governments for decision, or is there a better alternative at the county or state level? Can home rule survive without property taxes? Should it? Do we really need all these layers of government in New Jersey or can we, like other states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan and Minnesota, achieve real reform, the kind of reform that improves services while saving taxpayers money?
Ironically, the organized opposition to a constitutional convention has come mainly from the forces behind the original school- funding case: the New Jersey Education Association and the NAACP. These organizations have, believe it or not, become defenders of at least some reliance on the property tax, because they fear that any convention might result in the elimination of the "thorough and efficient education" requirement. This, in their view, could lead to a reduction in school spending.
This opposition is misguided. Even assuming that the convention attempted to thwart the "thorough and efficient education" guarantee, education advocates could challenge any substantial change based on the broader protections of the state constitution. As Weintraub put it, "there is an implicit promise in the concept of local government that the state may not distribute its fiscal responsibility through that vehicle if substantial inequality will result."
In any event, I dare say that education advocates three decades ago would have been dancing on the Delaware at the idea of a constitutional convention. They should reconsider their opposition now, and throw their weight behind a convention to reconsider comprehensively the ways in which the state raises and allocates taxes.
The bottom line here is unavoidable. The state has been fiscally irresponsible; "conspicuous unfairness" persists. The time to act is now, and the right way to act is through a constitutional convention. After all, the likely alternative -- having our courts reconsider and perhaps answer the questions raised by Weintraub more than three decades ago -- is the last thing anyone wants.
Isn't it?
John Farmer Jr., a former New Jersey attorney general, is a regular contributor to Perspective. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 793
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Jersey's shell game on taxes
Sunday, February 20, 2005BY JOHN FARMER JR.
Sorting out the mess that is government spending in New Jersey is a little like a field biologist studying, say, the vampire bat: You can see the role the rodent plays in its habitat, maybe, but without knowing its history there's simply no accounting for the evolutionary extras -- for the sonar and wings, not to mention the fangs.
The baffling extravagance of New Jersey government spending -- the sharpness of its fangs, if you will -- is that it's set up in such a way that no one can control it. Not the state, not the Legislature, not the courts, not local government.
That's right. The state is charged with balancing a budget whose growth is fundamentally beyond its control. The examples are everywhere. (The latest is a poorly conceived plan for the state to take over a handful of county prosecutors' offices, but more about that in a moment.)
In education, the level of state funding for schools is determined, in essence, by local spending decisions made by the wealthiest districts with little or no state direction. The state must fund the poorest schools at least at that level. The result is a loss of budgetary control, to the tune of billions of dollars.
That's just the beginning. In the 1980s, the state agreed to assume the cost of retirement benefits and pensions for teachers statewide. How generous. But the level of benefits is affected directly by local labor negotiations, and the state plays no part in negotiating these contracts.
So the amount that the state will have to pay is determined not by the state but, in effect, by local school officials and union representatives. The incentive to resolve disagreements by sweetening retirement benefits, thus passing the cost through to the state, is clear; the loss of budgetary control is patent.
There are other examples. The state is required, for instance, to provide State Police service for those towns that decide not to police themselves -- at no expense to the towns. The state spends tens of millions every year satisfying this mandate.
A few years ago, the Legislature passed the so-called Senior Citizen Property Tax Freeze, under which the state agreed to pay all property tax increases for seniors that occurred after the effective date of the bill. Again, because the state plays no role in determining local property tax levels, this measure provides an incentive to raise property taxes in areas with heavy concentrations of senior citizens. After all, the state -- not the senior property taxpayers -- will be footing the ever-escalating bill.
A similar problem plagues the so-called NJ Saver rebate program: Local governments know that any property tax increase they enact will be largely offset by the amount of the rebate.
How does this happen time and again? Why do so many programs violate the basic principle that spending of tax dollars should be controlled by the people accountable for raising the revenue?
In a sense, there is political alchemy at work here, if not political genius: By separating the discretion to spend from the obligation to tax, our lawmakers have created a system where everyone is responsible, but no one is accountable. And it keeps right on going.
Take the current proposal to have the state assume the responsibility for funding the county prosecutors' offices in Essex, Hudson, Mercer and Camden counties.
Like many prior measures, the state takeover bill, in its original form, was based on sound, if debatable, public policy concerns. The four counties covered by the bill are among the highest-crime counties in the state, but also contain most of the poorest municipalities.
Essex County, which has one of the highest crime rates, has had annual budgetary problems, and is beset by the lowest homicide conviction rate of any urban county. The prosecutor's office has suffered from comparatively low salaries, high turnover and the inability of local political leaders to agree on a permanent prosecutor.
Not surprisingly, wide disparities in local property values have led to differences in criminal justice decision-making; it is undeniable that similar offenses are treated differently in different counties.
Can you imagine Essex County, for instance, with its crush of gang-related homicides and outright executions, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to pin an aggravated manslaughter rap on Jayson Williams?
Relatively wealthy counties like Monmouth, meanwhile, are much more likely than Essex to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to seek the death penalty in homicide cases.
Putting aside the legal question of whether a criminal justice system funded by property taxes violates the state Constitution -- there is, after all, no "thorough and efficient" prosecution clause -- the county-by-county differences in how criminal cases are handled is troubling as a matter of simple fairness. Is there a better way of funding the county prosecutors' offices, a way that will promote a greater degree of uniformity in the way cases are handled?
The county prosecutor takeover bill, in its original form, was a good-faith effort to address that issue. A funny thing happened, though, on the way to passage.
On Feb. 7, when the bill was scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, an array of interested parties showed up to fight it. The County Prosecutors Association opposed it because of the prospect of increased state oversight, with its attendant bureaucracy and resulting loss of independence. The state Policemen's Benevolent Association and the Assistant Prosecutors Association also opposed it because of the prospect of becoming state employees and losing their collective bargaining rights. The New Jersey Association of Counties complained that the bill's funding was limited to only four counties.
For a while, there was high drama. It looked like the bill was in trouble. Assemblymen huddled with lobbyists, then finally emerged smiling. Good news, they said, beaming. We've reached a compromise that satisfies everyone, guarantees an adequate level of funding to the four counties, and -- you guessed it -- brings property tax relief!
Wow! you might say. How did they do that?
Here's how: They screwed you.
Under the new bill, assistant prosecutors, investigators and clerical staff are allowed to remain county employees, even though the state will be paying for their offices. They will negotiate their raises and benefits not with the state, which will be paying for them, but with the county freeholders. The state treasurer will be allowed to set ceilings, but the counties may exceed them; any disputes will be settled through binding arbitration (a forum notoriously friendly to the bargaining units, even after attempted reform in the 1990s).
Once again, in the name of property tax relief, our lawmakers have assured that our total tax burden will increase by disconnecting the discretion to spend from the responsibility to tax.
If the amended bill becomes law, the amounts the state spends on the county prosecutors' offices in the four counties -- and don't you think others will follow, once they see what's going on? -- will be determined in negotiations between the prosecutors' offices and the counties; the state can come in only to protest a deal that's already been made.
There's a better way.
In the long term, the state's proposed constitutional convention on taxation should consider prohibiting the types of arrangements that have caused the state to lose control of its budget.
More immediately, the Legislature should reject the county prosecutor funding bill in its amended form, and focus on the equal-justice issues that gave rise to the original bill.
The most serious equal-justice issue is the treatment of homicide cases. The solution, I believe, is for the state to pay for all homicide prosecutions statewide, under the aegis of the Office of the Attorney General and the County Prosecutors Association. The legislation should provide that in every homicide case, a homicide review board consisting of the attorney general and each of the county prosecutors, or their representatives, should meet, hear a presentation on the merits of the case, and consider the charging recommendation of the home county from a statewide perspective.
The board should defer to the local recommendation, but may overrule it in the interest of the statewide administration of justice. In return for this theoretical sacrifice of autonomy, the state should absorb the cost of all homicide prosecutions; county prosecutors and investigators can be cross-designated as deputy attorneys general for this purpose, without sacrificing their employment rights.
This approach will promote a more even-handed system of justice in the most sensitive of cases, while assuring that the decision to spend state tax dollars is made responsibly, by those accountable for the fiscal health of the state.
John Farmer Jr., a former New Jersey attorney general, is a regular contributor to Perspective.
|
Earlster
Supporter
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
fringe, thanks those are great reads.
Now I need to go get a shovel, so I can dig a whole in the ground to stick my head in. |
fringe
Citizen
Username: Fringe
Post Number: 798
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Apparently some groups are concerned enough about the spending limitation potential that could be part of a constitutional convention that they have developed a legislative plan and a bill. The group composed of the NJEA, NAACP, Education Law center some catch -all organization called the Coalition for Property Tax Reform has posted its plan at http://www.theplan4NJ.com |
gj1
Citizen
Username: Gj1
Post Number: 127
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Hmmm, imagine what I could do with the $8 windfall I'd get according to The Plan 4 NJ!  |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page