Indy Tax Dollars

Agreement

For some time we have suggested that reasonable priorities in facing the city's transit problems would indicate starting with the local bus system.  We most sincerely congratulate the morning paper on today's editorial, a part of which reads as follows:

"Although a rail line must be part of the region's long-term future, the most feasible step for now is to invest in a top-notch bus system.  It's a move that would help economic development by enabling workers, especially those on the low end of the economic scale, to commute to job sites."

The editorial points out that an increase in users has held steady after high gasoline prices dropped, despite inadequate service with too few - and too short - routes and fare increases.  We appear to have two classes of riders; those who must use public transportation for lack of personal alternative, and those who are willing to trade their car usage for the bus when it becomes economically - or geographically - feasible.

As a result of "Unigov," the city of Indianapolis and the county of Marion constitute the same geographic area.  Is bus service still too much defined by old city boundaries?  Before we "stray" too far into serving our neighbors, should we not first make sure that those still living, and employed, inside county lines can get to downtown or cross-town destinations with some assurance of reasonably dependable service?

At the risk of ruffling a few feathers, we would even venture to suggest that the $15 million federal "transportation" grant now destined for the downtown "cultural trail" would be more appropriately spent on "transportation" - like a bus system, for instance.

At any rate, we heartily applaud the editor for supporting a position of "needs for citizens before niceties for neighbors."

 

The beat goes on

The cadence picks up as more attempts are made to increase numbers in the parade of supporters for transportation welfare for our suburbanites.  It is mystifying why so many proponents of "mass transit" for the area seem to have so little regard for the transportation needs of ordinary citizens who simply have to get across town to a job.

Two weeks ago the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ) carried a column by an architect with a headline reading, "All aboard the northeast corridor train."  In one paragraph the author does give a nod toward "comprehensive mass transit" helping people get to jobs.  The rest of the column tells us about the advantages of a rail system aimed at our neighbors on the north side.

Strangely enough, the same paragraph cited above includes the suggestion that mass transit will help "limit suburban sprawl.'  We admit to no expertise in moving people around, but we do fail to recognize how making the trip downtown easier will inspire folks to abandon the suburbs.

This week, the IBJ carries on the beat with a column by a professor from the University of Michigan.  This one is headed, "Light rail will move Indy forward."

This gentleman proclaims the city has an "overabundance" of a "...drivable suburban way of life...."  His major advocacy seems to support a "...walkable urban lifestyle, of which you (the city) have a significant deficiency."  (Actually, we were a little surprised that he did not oppose the rail line and propose spending the money downtown.)   Again, there is no indication why people who have moved out of town would be motivated to move back by easing travel woes. 

As an "alien" and possibly deficient in local information, the prof may be excused for missing one important phase of the situation.  Neither writer makes any reference to the propriety of concurrent planning for spending hundreds of millions of dollars each for two projects of pavement and rails, roughly parallel, and in some places not much more than a driver and wedge shot apart.

Will train usage reduce traffic congestion?  Will easier driving conditions be a drawback to rail riders?  Shouldn't we at least plan the projects in sequence and try to find out?

No joke!!

An old story.  Cop pulls over guy who "slowed down" at the stop sign.  Guy argues with cop that slowing down is the equivalent of stopping.  Cop pulls guy out of car and starts bashing him with a nightstick.  Guy protests.  Cop says, "Do you want me to stop or just slow down?"

The story comes to mind after seeing a headline in the Indianapolis Business Journal (IBJ)  of 12/29/08, reading "Tax caps thrill homeowners...."

We really do wonder how thrilled those homeowners will be when they finally are faced with the fact that the so-called "caps" are based on assessments which are subject to periodic review and are in reality quite flexible.

Media coverage, and a barrage of self-serving political statements, concerning the proposed constitutional amendment have led most taxpayers, we believe, to think that these "caps" will provide a complete limit on maximum, long-term tax liability. Will the "thrill" carry over to the concept of "slowing" property tax increases instead of "stopping" them?

And is that a concept we really want to write into our constitution?

Interpretations

About a week ago the local daily ran its "Point and Counterpoint" column concerning the property tax "caps" to be set in place by a constitutional amendment.  We thought Senator Tim Skinner did a creditable job in pointing out some of the potential problems involved.

In part, he said:  "Amending the property tax caps into the constitution does not prevent assessed values from rising, and bills will continue to rise as assessed values do."   (Our emphasis.)

He goes on to say:  "...we do not know the impact of the caps on future economic investment due to the extraordinary tax burden that may shift to business and agricultural taxpayers." 

These are both very valid points, and to the individual who may have been misled into the belief that a particular property tax bill will be permanently stabilized, the first point will come as a real shock when periodic reassessments begin to allow the same old increases in the tax levies again.

The senator also pointed out that legislative approval of the proposed amendment in the 2010 legislative session, while allowing time for some impact study, need not delay placement on the general election ballot for that November.

In other words, we thought the senator very adequately made quite important and relevant statements..

Unfortunately, just three days later, the paper printed a "letter to the editor" from a reader who thought Skinner's comments impugned his intellectual capacity.  His final words are:  "If the majority of the legislature takes Skinner's position, lawmakers will be saying voters are too stupid to make intelligent decisions.  We are smart enough to know what is best for us.  We do not need the legislature to take away our vote on this issue."

Without comment on anyone's I.Q., we would suggest the reader take time to realize he is being stampeded into support of a constitutional amendment which has gaping holes if it truly is meant to protect property tax payers from future increases and uncertainty.

Proposals for other government reform may well come into play.  Are we alone in our concern about a single "county executive" appointing a single "professional" assessor, and the possibilities this opens up for playing political games with assessments?  For instance, what might be in store for a farming community in a county where an urban majority elects that "county executive" over the active political opposition of the Farm Bureau?  Financial bushwhacking could become a pretty popular political game in many directions when in the hands of the wrong "county executive"  

It is a rare piece of legislation - or even a constitutional amendment - which trumps political tactics, and tax increases to benefit the spenders, for any great length of time.

Some personal Christmas thoughts

When he came down from the mountain, Moses carried two stone tablets upon which were carved the "Ten "Commandments."  Since then, peoples all over the world have used this title.

It now seems to us that this designation, unfortunately, leads us to a picture of a stern, forbidding God - a carry-over from the Old Testament of a God of wrath and retribution.    

Under the "new law" we learn of a God of love and forgiveness - a just God, but also one of reconciliation.  He is a God who loves us and wants us to love Him.  And we wonder whether the "commandments" might be re-stated - not substantively changed, but re-stated. 

For instance --

If you love Me, you will recognize Me as your one true God. 

If you love Me, you will love your neighbor. 

If you love Me, you will not kill. 

If you love Me, you will honor your father and your mother. 

And so on, through all ten concepts.  We would be encouraged to do all the same things through love rather than fear.  In this format, His request for our love makes it perfectly clear what He wants us to do.  But it is also quite plain that it is up to us to take that loving step toward Him, rather than cowering in a state of intimidation.

We can't re-write the Ten Commandments.  But in this season of love and warm relationships, we could all try to make these adjustments in our thinking.  We might even be able to carry them forward into and through the New Year.

We wish all our readers a very blessed Christmas, and a happy, healthy 2009.

P.S.  We don't guarantee these thoughts to be LC (Liturgically Correct), but we pass them along anyway.

The future???

A sports column in the daily paper bemoans the fact that high school football may be priced out of the new pro football palace downtown.  The author even suggests that maybe the Colts should subsidize the high school appearances there.

He goes on to point out that the team's usage "...comes with a lease that is extraordinarily friendly to the Colts.  And we're paying for part of the upkeep."  Our recollection is that the Capital Improvement Board (CIB) pays all maintenance and operational costs.

We might agree that playing there would be a thrill for those teenagers.  But we also believe placing the teams in that situation only tends to aggravate the near fanaticism with which society now approaches sports generally.  Does anyone else feel a vague sense of unease about elevating high school sports to a venue costing three quarters of a billion dollars?

On the specific subject of revenues to the CIB, especially considering the current local/state/national economic situation, we'd like to repeat a question we've frequently asked in the past - about the future.

We don't remember having seen any announcement from the CIB as to where it intends to find the additional $10 million it predicts will be needed to operate and maintain this larger, more elaborate, more expensive football stadium.

Current law allows the diversion of up to $16 million annually from state sales and income taxes to the CIB.  Releases from the governor's office about state budget cuts and falling revenue projections would seem to rule out any increase in support from that source.  Might there even be a decrease coming?

Our affluent neighbors to the north are finding that construction of a performing arts center - and going around in circles on Keystone Avenue - is significantly more expensive than they had been led to believe.  We'd guess they're not likely to be in the market for an increase in their share of the Food and Beverage Tax.

Every part of the national economy is looking to a serious belt-tightening.  It's time for the sports millionaires to join that parade.  They've already put a bigger bite on the taxpayer than they had any right to demand.  In many cases, they arrived where they are through extortion by threats to move their team.

We suggest a few points needing serious reconsideration in the CIB-Colts agreement.  (There are certainly others.)  First, the football team should receive none of the non-football revenues.  There is no reasonable justification for that giveaway.  Second, a major part of maintenance and operational costs should be the responsibility of the team.  (We don't know of any "convention facility" in the nation which has required a movable roof and a giant picture window which opens.)  Third, the building belongs to the city, and at least half of the revenues derived from hanging signs on all the walls of "our" building should go to the city.

For months of the political campaigns we have heard about the need for "transparency" and "openness" in our government.  It must be a popular theme, having been espoused by the winning candidate.  Why isn't this the time to localize that idea, and to combine it with fiscal responsibility?

Mr. Mayor, and members of the CIB, where do you intend to obtain the additional funds you claim to be needed to cover the higher maintenance and operating costs of our new football arena in the future?