If you’re one of those registered to vote inside Charlotte’s city limits who hasn’t taken advantage of the early voting period, and so, to whom a last-minute appeal might make a difference, there are more than a few people who work with the City Council and the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce who want to get your attention long enough to urge you to vote in favor of the three Bond proposals on the ballot.
And no — they’re not talking about the issue that stirred up a lot of controversy over the past few months: the proposal to raise the local sales-tax a quarter-cent to increase salaries for local teachers and fund some other budgetary needs, like area arts groups. In fact, that’s part of the problem they’re most worried about. That, if you’re aware at all that there are ballot measures to be considered, you’ll think it’s that one.
It’s not.
To refresh everyone’s memory, the sales-tax proposal is on the ballot courtesy of a narrowly divided June vote of the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, which set off a firestorm resulting in frayed relationships between what might have otherwise been considered to be political allies, and evolved into several attempts to kill it at the state level in the General Assembly over the summer. The proposal survived — barely. Whether or not it can pass muster with the voters is assumed to be a toss-up, at best.
The City’s Bonds are on the ballot in stark contrast to the manner in which the Commission’s sales-tax measure got there — and without most of the discord and rancor. Where the Commission’s proposal seemed to come almost out of nowhere, with a main criticism being that there was little prior consultation done with those most affected and those who should be most involved in the process before a vote was taken, the Council’s Bond measures have been in the works for more than two years. They’ve gone through a series of systematic evaluations in regard to their needs and how they would be budgeted. The fear now is that the anger and political resistance focused around the sales-tax has resulted in a confused electorate that will reject everything in a kind of “a pox on all your houses” backhand slap, a knee-jerk reaction against anything that smacks of a tax increase, even though the Bonds have been so worked into the overall City budget that they will not result in your taxes going up at all.
One of the biggest problems is that most voters don’t seem to know that there are City Bonds on the ballot at all, let alone what they’re for or what they would do. That’s particularly frustrating to those charged with helping to get them passed. Elizabeth Barnhardt, through her work with the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, is the campaign coordinator for the “Vote Yes For Bonds” drive. Barnhardt highlighted a few points for me for the three measures, which focus on streets, neighborhoods and housing.
The $150 million allocated for streets would go for seriously needed road and intersection upgrades throughout town, along with bike paths and extensions, and would include the development of an extremely progressive, multi-use, cross-county greenway trail. The upgrades would eventually join together what already exists here into one system spanning more than 30 miles of Mecklenburg County, from York to Cabarrus. $15 million would go to increasing low-income housing resources, not just through governmental agencies but also through public-private partnerships, that would help address the growing need for affordable living quarters here. And $32 million would go toward neighborhood improvements for some older areas of town that were developed long before certain “amenities,” such as sidewalks, were considered as “standards.”
Barnhardt is hoping people will recognize the difference between the two sets of proposals, not just in what they would do, but in the way they were developed and in the impact they’ll have on your taxes. She wants you to hear, loudly and clearly, that the City Bonds will NOT cause your tax rate to increase.
But time is running out, and in the clouds of dust that have been thrown up as a result of more than $100 million being spent on attack ads in the Senate race alone, it’s not surprising that something as arcane as the merits of a Bond measure might be getting lost.
If you want to explore the Bonds a bit more for yourself before heading out to cast your vote, the Chamber-sponsored website is: www.voteyesforbonds.com.
This article appears in Oct 29 – Nov 4, 2014.
>> She wants you to hear, loudly and clearly, that the City Bonds
>> will NOT cause your tax rate to increase.
The Chamber Of Commerce is spending millions to elect Thom Tillis, so it’s not surprising that something they say about Bonds is mathematically impossible.
If the City issues a Bond, it is taking on additional Debt. That Debt must be serviced (i.e. the City must immediately begin making principal and interest payments). These are payments that were NOT required prior to the Bond’s issuance, therefore the City’s expenses have increased. Increased expenses require increased revenues (i.e. higher tax rates).
Bonds are simply a way of extracting wealth from the general populace and handing it to executives at the construction and real estate firms who dominate the local Rentseekers Guild (i.e. Chamber Of Commerce). Ms. Barnhardt was the governmental affairs director for the Charlotte Regional Realtor Association.
From PunditHouse.com:
Vote “Against” Trevor’s Tax on November 4
November 2, 2014 | Written by Christian Hine
On November 4, 2014, Mecklenburg County voters will be asked to vote “For or Against” a referendum entitled “Mecklenburg County Sales Use Tax”.
The text of the measure is as follows:
“Local sales and use tax at the rate of one-quarter percent (0.25%) in addition to all other State and local sales and use taxes.”
There are a number of reasons I strongly encourage you to vote AGAINST. Here are just a few.
No Guarantees – The sales tax increase is being sold to the public as a way to fund teacher raises, CPCC, libraries, and the arts. There is NO REQUIREMENT that the Board of County Commissioners must use the new revenue for these purposes. It is general revenue.
In fact, and call me cynical if you like, but in order to satisfy their never ending thirst for spending other people’s money, the BOCC needed a ploy by which they could extract more of our money from our pockets. What better way than to use organizations with built in constituencies and activist arms as the pawns?
We already know that the highway trust fund money didn’t go to highways, the education lottery funds didn’t all go to education, social security money was used for other purposes…but somehow we are to believe that just because they “promise” us this money is for teachers it will be? I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. Odds are the money will go to other uses and in just a couple years another “crisis” will be created whereby yet another tax is necessary to fund “teachers, libraries, and the arts”. Those seem to be the big three when it comes to masking true intentions. It’s all a shell game.
The reality is the County already collects more than enough money from the taxpayers to run. It is not the taxpayers fault that the elected board is not more responsible.
State Help Already Coming – The North Carolina budget signed into law on August 7th already includes average pay increases for teachers of 7%. Those new to the profession will see the highest increases.
Frankly, with a budget of nearly a billion and a quarter dollars, CMS seems to carry a very administratively heavy burden. Perhaps if some of the six figure salaried paper pushers who have never taught a day in their lives would take a pay cut, or be better stewards of the resources they already receive, teachers wouldn’t be “underpaid” to begin with.
No Discussion, No Vetting – The small majority of commissioners who voted to put this tax increase on the ballot did so unilaterally. They failed to seek input from community leaders, other elected officials, or even city and county staff. It was poorly thought out, poorly implemented, and shows truly poor leadership.
Other Ideas Ignored – There was a proposal by Commissioners against the sales tax to fund teacher bonuses without raising taxes…while simultaneously providing a property tax decrease. This was voted down by Trevor Fuller and a majority of the Board. This seems to bolster my opinion that this isn’t about teacher raises in the first place…it is simply about the BOCC getting more of our money to spend as they wish.
Hurting Families – Relying on sales taxes can place an unfair burden on people with lower incomes because they spend a greater percentage of their income on basic necessities. True, food, gas, and medicine are exempted from this tax, but the point remains.
In fact, beginning teachers in CMS with no experience earn $35,418 per year. In effect, people who make less money than this will be taxed to provide raises to people who make more than them.
Hurting Local Business – If passed, this sales tax would generate an estimated $34 million per year for the government. That is $34 million that can no longer be spent at local businesses.
The organized campaign that we have seen in support of this is mostly coming from those who think they will benefit from it…and they are crossing many lines in doing so.
cpcc
This just isn’t right…
CMS is sending home pro sales tax propaganda with students homework folders. The libraries were made to take out pro sales tax posters that were in clear view of early voters at their locations in violation of no campaigning rules. CPCC has posters up around their campuses encouraging Yes votes.
All of these organizations seem to be using taxpayer funds to lobby for additional taxpayer funds. This just isn’t right.
Much of the pro argument also continues to be a naive assumption that the money will be used as promised.
I commented on the pro sales tax Facebook page and received the follwoing answer from one of their moderators.
“While it’s true the money could at a later date be used for another purpose, I truly don’t believe the Commissioners would dare defy the public on this.”
The gentleman who responded seems to trust government a great deal more than I do. I already mentioned other “revenue streams” that were supposed to be used for specific purposes but weren’t. Another example would be the Charlotte Arena referendum in 2001. The public voted down taxpayer funding of the arena, but the City Council voted to build it anyway while citing the referendum was “non-binding”….just like this one.
The final reality is that Charlotte is already one of the highest taxed municipalities in the Southeast. Looking at demographic trends, people are leaving the county for the lower taxes and better schools of surrounding counties. Raising taxes is rarely, if ever, the right answer to solve problems. It certainly does not bode well here.
Vote Against the referendum on Tuesday.
Share this post with your friends.
Join our Facebook Page at http://nosalestaxhike.com