According to The Express Times, 550 taxable properties in this district will be assessed 6.95 mills, which will lead to a property tax increase in this area.
Is it worth it?
Hey, I don't live there. But author and Lafayette College Adjunct Professor Ken Briggs does, and given me an advance copy of his remarks to Easton City Council.
"I’m here this evening to oppose the proposal to impose a special tax on those of us property owners who have been targeted as allegedly living within the Downtown Neighborhood Improvement District.
"My reasons for opposing this tax include the following three conclusions:
"* The process is un-democratic and arbitrary. Though apparently sanctioned by the state, it seems likely to be judged illegal. The boundaries that designate the Improvement District have no credible basis. They are drawn without sufficient rationale. So far as I’m aware, nobody on the city council lives within this so-called district and therefore wouldn’t be subject to the added tax. Yet the council presumes the authority to levy a tax on other citizens, a minority singled out for a special burden without their consent. This is patently unfair in my opinion, and runs against democratic principles.
"* The proposed tax isn’t tied to services provided and unjustly aids a special interest. While I applaud the Ambassadors, for example, the program has no bearing on my existence such that I feel responsible for purchasing it as a service. The council has every right to make me pay for services in connection with my decision to set up a fruit stand in the Circle, but would result from my choice. By contrast, dictating that I must pay for services I haven’t chosen or from which I don’t benefit is coercive. If those who profit from the improvement want services such as the Ambassadors for themselves, they should pay for them.
"* The proposed tax, to my way of thinking, further divides the city of Easton. The city is already sorely split economically, socially and racially. The proposed tax worsens this situation by asking me and others outside that special interest to subsidize its free enterprise zone that includes downtown business and high-end development and College Hill. It is a strategy designed to enhance an island of affluence with scant regard for sea of struggling residents who surround it. There is no serious attempt to look at improvement of Easton as a whole. The prosperity project, self-serving as it is, has a right to exist and pursue its ends, but I don’t believe I should be asked to support an enterprise that isn’t concerned for greater Easton. How is it possible to claim that the city is undergoing revival, for example, when virtually no living wage jobs are being created and profits are mostly in the hands of non-residents? The proposed tax would in my opinion further fracture the city’s social fabric and increase alienation.
"I take my position because I care about the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence that was read in this place when the ink upon it was barely dry – and in the belief that the major improvements taken by this city ought to serve the common good rather than boost the fortunes of the few. I hope that the limited scope of development will be expanded through the auspices of the many good people in this city. Improvement only means success if and when a rising tide indeed does lift all boats."
no sense of humor
ReplyDelete"the program has no bearing on my existence"
ReplyDeletemany federal higher education initiatives, that provide funding for schools like lafayette, have no bearing on my existence.
Wow. Ultra conservative opinion at Libfayette?
ReplyDeleteThe picketing of his home, harassment of his family, and Geeting's bleatings should commence forthwith.
The idea that he doesn't benefit from the services is absurd. If downtown as a whole becomes cleaner and safer as a result of the Ambassadors and Easton Main St Initiative's work, he benefits from appreciated property value. He and other property owners would be reaping the spillover effects, or positive externalities. The fee recaptures some of the windfall to pay for the program. Apparently the guy isn't an economics professor.
ReplyDeleteThese initiatives have absolutely no influence on Downtown economic development. The 1970s Downtown Improvement Group (DIG) was well run and very successful in organizing events that brought thousands downtown to enjoy arts and music and a variety of special events. They had no impact on economic development, as evidenced by the steady, unabated decline during and after DIG's run.
ReplyDeleteBefore lecturing on one's view of economics, one should learn a bit of Easton's history.
Good letter, Ken.
ReplyDeleteSome points worth noting.
This proposal will more than likely pass because of an uninformed opposition rather than majority rule. State law only permits property owners to object to the proposal. There is no general vote and majority does not rule in this case.
The management of the NID will be turned over to a private corporation. Citizens lose the right to open meetings, public comment, open records, ethics requirements, public bidding, etc. There is an option available to guarantee these basic citizen rights. It was rejected.
This program does not address urban blight and the poverty in the downtown. Forget the 800 lb gorilla, we are not seeing the herd of elephants standing in the room. If anything, these problems will be displaced into adjacent neighborhoods-the West Ward-already unable to deal with mounting social problems.
Services are based on ability to pay and increase further an uneven distribution of public services. The downtown could benefit from attracting more investment and residents while adjacent areas such as the West Ward continue to accelerate their deterioration.
The voting structure is not within the concept of one man-one vote. Here, votes are counted on the basis of property ownership. I get votes based on the number of property deeds I hold. Tenants have no votes. The problem is that services will generally reflect the needs of property owners and not necessarily residents. How un-American!
Once established there is no government control. Loose accounting and financial reporting cannot be challenged. The elected officials do not appoint those who control the funds and the operations. We are at the mercy of unaccountability.
In my life I have never seen anything for governance as bad as this. Even the “blackball system” where one negative vote cancels several hundred positive votes is probably better. This is one of those “Aw Crap!” moves that cancels 10,000 “attaboys”.
Mike McFadden
30 year resident and property owner of Downtown Easton.
(Anyone know a good realtor?)
"...dictating that I must pay for services I haven’t chosen or from which I don’t benefit is coercive."
ReplyDeleteWhether you agree or disagree with this particular issue, this argument is a very slippery slope. It can readily be applied to Medicare (for the under-65 crowd), Social Security (for the under-62 folks), Medicaid (for those who have other options for health care), school taxes (for the childless), road improvements (for those who do not drive on those roads), parks (for those who don't use them), higher education programs (as pointed out by Anon 6:07), tax breaks for non-profit hospitals (if your insurance company sends you to another hospital), tax breaks for non-profits (for those who don't support the mission of those non-profits), national defense (for those who aren't worried about being invaded), and thousands of other expenses at all levels of government.
We can--and should--consider the proper role (or lack thereof) of government in any of these programs, but basing arguments on the limited view of self-interest won't advance public discourse.
Actually, self interest is part of the legislation that permits the NIDs. NID properties must meet the "rational nexus principle" that there is a rational definable benefit which accrues to any property owner. The distinction in this legislation is the fact that charges are not taxes but actually fees. The legislation further permits the exemption of certain properties where benefits are determined to be lacking or the reduction of fees based on a weighting where the basis of calculation demonstrates a clear difference in benefit for different classes of property ownership.
ReplyDeleteAs I already stated, this law is really bad. The US Supreme Court is the expert on determining the "rational nexus" between fee and benefit. I reject charges to me, a residential property owner, for activities that promote the rental and sale of retail space. I ask that my charges be reduced for these activities because they clearly benefit commercial properties and not residential properties.
On the other hand, if the city wants to tax everyone and provide that benefit, I agree there is little I can do to avoid the charge regardless of benefit. In this case, the city is permitting this district to exist for a twenty block area only. It would be much like charging someone in Allentown to fix Bethlehem's roads. If all Pennsylvania tax payers are charged, fair enough, If only Allentown taxpayers are charged, then it is not fair.
I wish Mike McFadden weren't too smart to run for mayor. So we're stuck with Panto.
ReplyDeleteanon 1:37 if you were there laast evening yu would have heard the mayor object to the same issues concerning finance and the absurd voting process in the satte law.
ReplyDeleteYou would also have heard the mayor have a dialogue with Mike about the NID and their mutual concerns.
You would have also heard the mayor say that he has a plan B and C but last night was the time to hear from the public not him.
You owuld have then heard the mayor say he would be setting up a series of meeting sfor individuala who would like to offer solutions.
We have a great mayor who brings people together to form a consensus that moves the city forward and doesn't care who gets the credit. If you want Mike to get the credit I don't think the mayor would mind at all.