County commissioners punt on new taxes

First the reportage, then the commentary.

Two weeks after a spirited public hearing regarding whether or not to place two potential new taxes on the ballot for voter approval, and facing an August 31st deadline to act, County Commissioners, following the recommendation of Manager Mike Ruffin, declined to place either tax option before the voters.

The commissioners made their decision without taking a vote of their own tonight, although only Becky Heron spoke in favor of a November ballot measure. The others, citing concerns ranging from organized opposition to the taxes threatening the passage of three bond issues to the lack of time to give the taxes adequate public debate, chose to punt the issue to 2008 and beyond.

Chair Ellen Reckhow, citing the ongoing slowdown in the housing market, said it would be "prudent to exercise restraint" and not rush into a vote on the taxes. Manager Mike Ruffin spoke to potential organized opposition to the sales tax increase from the Durham People's Alliance and the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, and certain opposition to the transfer tax increase from the Durham Board of Realtors and the NC Association of Realtors, who have recently elected Durham's Wendell Bullard to be their new president.

A majority of the commissioners (Heron, Page, and Cousin) indicated their opposition to a sales tax increase. (Quick reminder - an affirmative vote from the public is required to implement either of the tax options, however, even with that vote, the commissioners must also vote in favor of the tax for it to be implemented.) All of the commissioners alluded to the large number of emails they have received in the last two weeks.

All right, now the reaction.

Aaaarrrgghhh!

What's the deal?

Commissioners have approved 3 bond issues to be on the November ballot, totaling some $210 million dollars in new borrowing. Property taxes to finance this new spending, and already approved spending, are going to go up by what, 10 cents per hundred dollars or so to pay for this over the next couple of years? Do they think there's not going to be opposition to the bond fund? Do they think that we're really not going to vote to approve the bonds if there's a separate tax option on the ballot?

Quite frankly, i found that argument insulting. We (the voters) know that approving the bonds means that somehow, taxes are going up. If we approve the bonds, we're also smart enough to make the decision as to how we're going to pay for them.

But most appalling, in my mind, was Chairwoman Reckhow's comment toward the end of the discussion. She mentioned that of the counties that have "rushed" to put the tax options on the ballot in November, none of them were in as strong a financial position as Durham. We have a "strong financial base," and we're not in a "desperate situation." We can afford to wait a bit.

Excuse me.

Haven't the commissioners been begging the Durham delegation in the General Assembly to give the county new taxing authority? Haven't we been saying for years that we can't pay for projected growth without some new revenue streams? Now, suddenly, we're in good shape?

Well, hell, how can you go before the voters now and ask for a new tax? You know that quote is going to be raised whenever a new tax is put on the ballot. And it's
going to make it difficult to support.

Bad enough that all it takes to scare the commissioners is a few emails from a lobbying group. Bad enough that nobody else seems to have noticed how the Durham Realtors played both sides of the impact fee issue to oppose the transfer tax.

Now we've got the chair of the commissioners saying we really don't need to raise the additional revenue. Kinda pulls the rug out from under anyone who was prepared to work for the new tax.

Let's hope this doesn't come back to bite the commissioners next year.

UPDATE: Herald-Sun and N&O reports are online.