Once burned twice shy

I mentioned in a previous post that I agreed halfway with my friend Brent Oelson over at The Marion Contrarion about the LOST bill that that just passed in the Iowa House. Oelson supported the measure and another friend, newly-elected State Rep Renee Schulte, voted for it. I have to admit being very conflicted about the issue.

LOST stands for Local Option Sales Tax. The purpose of this bill is to give counties hit by flooding, specifically those included in a Presidential Disaster Declaration, a fast track mechanism to put a local option sales tax to a vote. Under the bill, such a tax could be on placed on the ballot for a March 3rd vote and if passed collection would begin on April 1st.

Like Oelson, I believe that local option taxes are generally a good idea as taxes go. I have had experience with these taxes in Linn County and over the years, voted for some and against others. The idea that these taxes are levied by a government body that is close to the people and the people have the ultimate say is appealing. In the case of some previous attempts to pass a tax to support schools in Linn County, we the voters told our leaders on multiple occasions to convince us. It took multiple attempts but eventually, the school districts came up with plans that the people supported and we voted to implement the tax.

So I like local option taxes. Local decisions. Local accountability. Local control. All good things.

THEN CAME SILO

Last year, after all 99 counties in Iowa enacted local option taxes for schools. The legislature then made the 1 cent local option tax permanent state-wide. Now I understand some of the reasoning. For example, small county districts near a larger county with significant retail outlets simply could not raise enough money through local options taxes. The problem is that SILO took away all the things about a local option tax that Oelson and I both think our good. Local control, local accountability and local decision-making have all been co-opted.

I also agree, that Cedar Rapids, city government has been negligent. According to Oelson, the city could  have put a tax on the November ballot under existing law. Ultimately this fast track rule was not even needed.

I think that Linn and Johnson counties need to raise revenue to fund flood recovery. I think that local option taxes might be a good way to do so. Our legislature has shown that they can't be trusted to keep their hands off. Therefore, no matter how good an idea — I will find it very difficult to support a local option tax in Linn County.

Comments

[Yoda]

David,

As the former lobbyist for Cedar Rapids and advisor to the mayor, I must tell you that you cannot trust anyone on the current city council (except Weineke) or the county supervisors for that matter to use this tax revenue solely for flood relief. Much of the "flood relief" will be used for palacial new offices for the city & county and a littany of special "progressive" pet projects for both governmental bodies that neither would be able to get support for in their own right. We already pay too much in taxes and our local leaders need to be more effective advocates for us when seeking federal disaster relief (taxes we already paid).

I advised the current council to retain a federal lobbyist in 2005 and was told one would no longer be needed because of the political connections of the current council. They are obviously wrong.

You are a wise man David, your suspicion is warranted for certain here.

[Brent Oleson]

Dave,

Good and constructive thoughts on this issue. Please remember I supported only the right of the voter to vote on it, not the actual tax itself. Tomorrow, the Linn County Board of Supervisors will vote on its language to be placed on the ballot as to how we will allocate the receipts IF it passes. Additionally, we will vote to sunset the measure. I have pledged to not support the measure if the sunset does not end the tax within five years. We will see how tomorrow goes.

Thanks Dave.

[Yoda]

Five years!?!?!?! Oh my God. Typical.

[paul pate]

Wake up no one should be talking sales tax, What is the fed and state role. Anything sooner gives the liberal spenders free rein,

[paul pate]

The city and county have done a very poor job of defining thge need for a sales tax as the solution to our flood problems. With NO POLITICAL LEADERSHIPno sales tax plan should be considered.

[Brent Oleson]

Update to my previous comment:

The Board of Supervisors put a sunset longer than five years. I put forward a motion to end the tax on Dec.31, 2013 and it was rejected on a 1-4 vote. Then a motion was put forward to put the sunset at June 30, 2014 which passed on a 4-1 vote. (I was the one both times).

I will not be supporting the Local Option Sales Tax because of this overreach by the other members of the Board of Supervisors.

[Yoda]

Some how gamesmanship just doesn't cover it. So in your estimation 5 years and 3 months is too long but 4 years and 9 months is about right? Have you considered that both are too long and neither timetable is justified due to a lack of coherant communication from the city and the county regarding what these dollars will be spent on. I'm certain the taxpayer's definition of flood relief is vastly different than what we would get.

[Todd Versteegh]

I too am very troubled by this desire to increase sales taxes in the name of "flood relief"..when NOTHING in the state legislation authorizing the LOST vote requires disaster affected areas to USE the new sales tax revenues for flood relief purposes.

Case in point, the Mayor of Mt. Vernon has a letter to the Editor in the Gazette today about how new sales tax funds are needed for "necessities". Mt Vernon suffered no flood damage.

There's the rub. In a time of economic downturn, raising taxes is the WORST thing that government can do. Yet, we have political "leaders" who are so desperate for more revenues because they weren't responsible with public dollars in the first place!

Brent, I am also very disturbed with the rush to place this on the ballot in March. This gives the public very little time for public scrutiny of this issue.

I have to give some credit to our leaders here in Johnson County--as they have decided to push any vote on a new sales tax back to May in order to give the public time to examine this issue.

That is the LEAST that Linn County should have done as well. The public deserves to give this issue the closest scrutiny possible, instead of having this shoved down their collective throats.

[Brent Oleson]

Todd Versteegh:

I think the voters of Johnson County have every right to wait. I think the voters of Linn County have every right to hold the election in March. We have done enough waiting around here. As you can see from this blogthread comments, it easy to criticize without providing voters options. They can vote yes or no. I made a promise to never support a local option sales tax with a sunset of more than five years. That is why I must oppose this one no matter how little it happens to fall over the five year mark. However, that does not make it wrong for others to vote for it. Decide it on your own utilizing your own rationale of whether it is needed or not.

Todd Versteegh and David Chung, at least your rationale for criticizing this particular ballot initiative is well thought out and not just rock throwing, which makes you a thinker and not just a mindless slave to ideology or a political hack trying to score points with no actually thinking involved. Good for you.