The Unfairness of Privatized Tax Collection

Few dispute that real estate taxes, which fund schools and many other municipal services, are very unpopular. But so far, any and all attempts at "reform" have failed. Even if successful, the tax burden would simply be shifted to an increased income or sales tax. One thing is certain - taxes are here to stay. The last thing on the minds of most public officials is being fair about it. The story I am about to tell makes that very clear.

Lehigh County officials are a bit more fair than their counterparts in Northampton County. In 2012, Commissioners went ahead with a reassessment that was at least intended to spread the misery more evenly. Northampton County Council members, who worry about keeping their seats, prefer to kick the can down the road while school districts and municipal governments routinely raise taxes. Their last reassessment was done in 1995.

How the County collects unpaid real estate taxes

If you fail to pay your real estate taxes or make payment arrangements, the County can sell your home after you are delinquent for a period of two years. Before that happens, the county runs ads in the local papers. People love reading them to see who is behind. Most delinquent homeowners come forward at this time and make payment arrangements. But there are still a few homeowners who, for whatever reason, fail to pay their bill or make arrangements. Their property can then be sold in what is known as an "upset" sale, which is held once every year.

Northampton County's upset sale takes place tomorrow at 2 pm.

At an upset sale, you can buy this property, but it is subject to whatever other liens might exist. You get the property along with whatever unpaid mortgages and judgments are out there. So most properties remain unsold. That's when the county kicks it up a notch, and schedules what is known as a "judicial" sale of the property.

The judicial sale is unlike the upset sale in that the County gets a court order authorizing a sale free and clear of all liens, except for the outstanding taxes. At this sale, almost all the properties are sold.

When the County sells your property to collect unpaid real estate taxes, it moves very slowly, and for good reason.  People have a constitutional right to due process. County officials get very concerned when someone fails to respond to notices. Is the person really a tax deadbeat? Or is the homeowner an elderly person suffering from dementia?  If there is any doubt in the minds of county officials, the sale will be delayed another year

Enter the tax farmer

Most school districts and many municipalities are unwilling to wait two years or more to get their taxes. They want their money now. Instead of relying on county officials who recognize they have some obligation to be fair to homeowners, they have actually privatized the collection of taxes by employing tax farmers.

Throughout history, tax farming has occurred in Egypt, Rome, Great Britain, and Greece. It has always been accompanied by abuse. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin predicted that privatized tax collectors, "the most indiscreet, ill-bred, and insolent [men] you can find," would lead to revolution.

Nevertheless, nearly every Lehigh Valley school district, along with cities like Bethlehem and Easton, use Portnoff Law to squeeze homeowners. They make their money by assessing attorney fees that in some cases are ten times the amount of unpaid taxes. Portnoff represents 130 municipalities and handled over 40,000 municipal collections in 2015.

Unlike county tax claim bureaus, which schedule tax sales only once a year, Portnoff and other tax farmers will go to work immediately.

The first step is to file a municipal lien, and of course, assess attorney fees. About a month later, Portnoff will file what is known as a writ of scire facias, which is a fancy way of saying that it is going to enter judgment against the homeowner, even though the municipal lien pretty much makes it impossible for the homeowner to sell the property without paying off the lien. After that, Portnoff will enter judgment and, of course, tack on more attorney fees.

The final step is the Sheriff's Sale, with even more attorney fees. In 2015, Portnoff listed 512 properties for Sheriff Sale, and ended up selling 73 of them.

Sheriff Sales Confuse Potential Bidders

This accelerated process is extremely unfair to homeowners, many of whom are already distressed financially. The extra money they pay to prevent a sale goes into the pocket of the privatized tax farmer, not the municipality.  But  it also unfair to bidders at the Sheriff's Sales  They are accustomed to thinking that they are buying the property free and clear of liens. But the sale is actually an upset sale, at least at first.

Last month, in Northampton County, someone bought a property at a Sheriff's Sale. But on her way up to deliver her check, someone complimented her on buying a $50,000 mortgage. She panicked and withdrew her bid.

The Lehigh County Experience

The same thing happened in Lehigh County last week. Agent 99 was there, and told me what happened.

A downtown Allentown property was up for sale because of unpaid school taxes. Someone bid on the property.

The Deputy Sheriff handling the sale asked, "Do you know what you're bidding on?"

"You mean the address?"

"No, it's an upset sale. You're buying subject to any liens. Do you want to withdraw your bid?"

"Yes."

When someone in the back heard what was going on, he got very upset that bidders were not being told, in advance of each sale, whether the sale is "free and clear."

He was asked to sit down, but he was upset and refused, and eventually was dragged out of the room by two deputies as he complained, "This is not fair."

     

Of course, it's unfair.  This is no longer about collecting taxes, but enriching Portnoff at the expense of everyone, from homeowner to unsuspecting bidders.

After this guy was dragged out of the room, the very next property up for sale was another Portnoff sale. This time, the Deputy asked Portnoff's attorneys to explain whether it is an upset sale.

"I have no legal obligation to do so, but I will," huffed the attorney.

That's a problem. Privatized tax collectors have no obligation to be fair. This is why tax farming should be illegal.

I contacted the Lehigh County Sheriff's office and spoke to the Deputy who ran the sale. She was unable to speak to me, and said I'd have to talk to the Sheriff. But he failed to return my call. The Portnoff lawyers also refused to explain what the hell they are doing. And why should they? They don't work for us. 

DA John Morganelli: Why Privatized Liquor Is Bad For Public Safety

Yesterday, Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, the Democratic nominee for attorney general in 2008 and a potential candidate for Pennsylvania Lt. Governor in 2014, held a Press Conference in the Capitol Rotunda to explain why Governor Corbett's plan to privatize liquor sales in Pennsylvania is bad for public safety. He was joined by Stephen Erni, Executive Director, Pennsylvania DUI Association, and Felicity DeBacco Erni, also of Pa. DUI Assn. Morganelli is a Past President of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Below are his remarks verbatim.

In the early morning hours of April 29, 2001, a 19 year old Christopher Mowad, with his blood alcohol level at twice the legal limit for an adult – lost control of his SUV at 83 miles per hour. It rolled over killing him and two 18 year old passengers. Earlier that evening, a 43 year old adult, Judith Clare McCloskey, allowed dozens and dozens of teenagers to consume alcoholic beverages in her basement at a party hosted by her two teenage daughters. Although she did not buy the alcohol for the teens, she did have knowledge that they were consuming alcohol in her basement and provided a safe haven for them to do so. Shortly after the investigation by police in that case, I directed that charges of Involuntary Manslaughter – 3 counts be lodged against Mrs. McCloskey in order to hold her criminally responsible for the deaths of the teenagers as a facilitator of underage teenage drinking. In the case that was deemed a “landmark” case by The Philadelphia Inquirer in its article of September 30, 2002, a jury of eleven women and one man found Mrs. McCloskey guilty of 3 counts of Manslaughter. She was subsequently sentenced to prison by a Northampton County judge. The case was the first of its kind in the nation to hold an adult criminally responsible for the deaths of teenagers who had consumed alcoholic beverages while under-aged with the help of an adult facilitator. The case was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and was upheld and now is precedent in Pennsylvania.

Since that time, unfortunately, I have seen the devastating effects when you mix alcohol, teenagers and motor vehicles. Numerous organizations throughout Pennsylvania including but not limited to the Pennsylvania DUI Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Students Against Drunk Driving, Alert Partnership and others have worked in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to work in communities to combat underage drinking in order to protect our teens.

Since that time, I have been vigilant in supporting public policy that punishes adult facilitators of underage drinking and restricts the ability of teenagers to obtain and possess alcohol. I come here today to speak out against Governor Tom Corbett’s proposed privatized liquor sales plan which, in my opinion, puts private business interests and their profits above the safety of our young people in Pennsylvania. At a time when we continue to struggle with a weak economy, it is mind boggling that one of Governor Corbett’s top priorities is to allow alcohol, including hard liquor to be more accessible and available to our young people which will clearly put them in harms way. His proposal is bad public policy and, quite frankly, risky public policy. His only rationale for this move as indicated by his spokesman is to give people “choice and convenience” and “flexibility” with respect to the purchase of alcohol. Governor Corbett, as a former Attorney General of this Commonwealth is at odds with many people in the law enforcement community, including the Pennsylvania FOP which opposed the plan in the last legislative session. The Pennsylvania Fraternal Police have opposed privatization efforts that included transfer of enforcement to local police who are not trained for said enforcement nor have resources to do so. Many people in law enforcement oppose an expansion of the availability of hard liquor and other alcohol which will ultimately allow easier access to under-aged drinkers. As was noted in their March 20, 2013 letter, the Pennsylvania FOP also recognizes that expanded access to alcohol throughout the Commonwealth threatens the safety of law enforcement officers and citizens. The U.S. Center for Disease Control has linked privatization of alcohol sales to an increase in per capita alcohol consumption. The U.S. Department of Justice has documented the clear connection between alcohol consumption rates and crime rates. In the State of Washington, in the months following privatization of liquor sales, the Association of Washington Cities reported a 63% increase in liquor thefts and a 30% increase in alcohol-related crimes near grocery stores and similar private vendors. The Center for Disease Control recommended against any further privatization of alcohol sales.

The Governor’s plan is not even revenue friendly in that it brings in revenue on a one time only basis and ignores the fact that liquor stores provide more than Five Hundred Million Dollar a year in taxes and profits to the state. Governor Corbett’s plan means an increase in drinking by our teenagers, more social problems linked to alcohol abuse including but not limited to crime, domestic violence and child abuse. Groups such as Students Against Drunk Driving, the Pennsylvania DUI Association, the NAACP and other organizations concerned with excessive and underage alcohol consumption all have opposed privatization in the past and for good reason.

In addition, Governor Corbett is not being transparent and honest with respect to the law enforcement impact. The Corbett Administration has assured that this transition to the private sector will be made safe by increases in law enforcement as well as alcohol treatment and prevention methods. Unfortunately, this sounds like another unfunded mandate that will not materialize.

In January of this year, more than 100 Tennessee sheriffs and police chiefs including Knoxville’s Chief David Rausch declared opposition to legislation that would allow the sale of wine in grocery stores. Rausch and several other law enforcement officers, part of a Tennessee law enforcement for strong alcohol laws coalition, declared at a legislative news conference that they see wine sales in groceries and supermarkets as weakening control over sales and causing an expansion of underage drinking. Rausch noted that at the present time sting operations with the State Alcoholic Commission and liquor agents currently run operations and rarely find state owned liquor stores doing anything wrong in the nature of selling to underage youths. He noted that convenient stores which now can only sell beer are much more likely to have clerks caught in sting operations. He noted that grocery stores often have under-aged clerks willing to “wink and nod” for sales to under-aged friends. Law enforcement officers noted that wine and other alcohol have higher alcohol content than beer and make it much more attractive to underage drinkers and for binge drinking.

Also, with privatization will come more advertising which will promote more drinking and increase under-aged drinking. In Eugene, Oregon, this year, the Eugene Prevention Coalition noted how high risk alcohol use was twice the national average largely due to stores advertising and promoting drinking and drinking games such as beer pong in order to tie them to alcohol sales.

Governor Corbett’s plan is a plan to fix something that is not broken. In the past years, the legislature has rejected several bills to privatize. These proposals threaten public safety and put more youth at risk.
As someone who has for the last 20 years attempted to do all that is possible to decrease the availability of alcohol to our teenagers, I am highly concerned that Governor Corbett’s plan, if adopted will do just the opposite. It will be much easier for teenagers to obtain all kinds of hard liquor due to lax enforcement and profit driven motives to sell more alcohol. Today, I ask our legislators to defeat Governor Corbett’s proposal which will put more of our young people at risk. The Governor’s business friends are doing just fine.

The Argument Against Pa. Liquor Privatization

When I was a kid, I used to spend every Summer at the Jersey shore, on Long Beach Island. We lived pretty close to the Bishop's house. He liked us and bought us ice cream all the time, but he did not care much for my Dad. You see, my father used to take Duke, our German Shepherd, for long walks on the beach every morning. That very well-trained dog would only shit on the Bishop's property. The Most Reverend Joseph McShea, aghast at this disgusting behavior, confronted my father.

"Ahhh, go tend your flock!" my father retorted.

That's just one of many fond memories I have of that time. Another was going to the store to buy punks, or cattails. Too young to smoke, we were allowed to light those and walk around with them to keep mosquitoes and sand flies away. It made no difference to us that they were completely useless because we looked like smokers.

While I bought punks for a penny, another group of bigger kids bought bottles of booze. I became one of them. I learned it was a lot easier to get booze in Jersey than here in Pa.

And to me, that is part of Pennsylvania's charm. Jersey might have the ocean and beach houses with Bishops, but Pennsylvania is a place that made it hard for a kid to get drunk. It is a state that seemed to care more about its residents. It also just happens to be the state with the lowest rate of death by alcohol consumption, although it's true than drunk driving and underage drinking prosecutions are near the national average.

Because I think Pennsylvania has a more responsible approach to alcohol sales than other states, I oppose privatization of wine and liquor sales.

Although that measure has passed the House, its fate in the state senate is far less certain.

LV Labor Council President Gregg Potter, concerned about the loss of union jobs, is sending emails urging people to "Call Senator Boscola!!! and get ten of your friends to call!!" While I do not share his advocacy for public sector unions, especially when they have poster boys like two of his Vice Presidents, Jim Gregory and James Schlener, I believe his arguments on this issue make sense.

Here are his points:

The cost to dismantle the system – unemployment, social costs, criminal justice costs, liquidated assets – is greater then what can be earned through privatization. This will put the taxpayers on the hook for more then $1 billion in transition costs

PA has the nation's lowest rate of deaths related to alcohol diseases in the country, according to the CDC. Why do we need to add to it?

Groups such as MADD, Students against Destructive Decisions, the PA DUI Association, the PA the NAACP and other organizations concerned with excessive and underage alcohol consumption all oppose privatization.

Sen. McIlhinney’s proposal would lead to the eventual elimination of 5,000 family-sustaining, Pennsylvania jobs. This would put an added burden on our tax base as the current jobs would be replaced by minimum wage, part time positions.

Recommend that as part of the modernization, that if retail stores do expand and include Wine & Spirits sales, that they do so with state employees and create appropriate leases with the stores

Privatization would destroy current jobs. Most would not be replaced, and those few that are will be low-wage, no-benefit jobs that do nothing to grow our state's economy. This would put an added burden on our tax base as the current jobs would be replaced by minimum wage, part time positions

Modernization of Pennsylvania's Wine and Spirit stores is a continuing effort that would provide consumers more convenience, generate $75-$100 million more in revenuefor the Commonwealth, and help the PLCB run as a more efficient agency.

A majority of Pennsylvania voters now oppose privatization, according to independent polling. The F&M poll showed privatization of liquor ranked 10^th out of 11 of the list of issues Pennsylvanians care about.

Allentown's Richard Fegley Rages Against City Council Muzzle

Secrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public's effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society. Those aren't my words. They're contained in the state Sunshine Act. But Mayor Edwin Pawlowski and his bobbleheads on Allentown City Council have pretty much thumbed their noses at any attempt at transparency, both with respect to a controversial special tax zone for rich gazillionaires as well as their most recent scheme to unload their water system. Because the Lehigh County Authority's high bid on the Allentown water deal is probably the best solution to a very bad situation, the general feeling is that the public would go back to sleep, as they have done for most of King Edwin's reign. But that's not happening. At last night's City Council meeting, local Brew Pub owner Richard Fegley nearly led a revolt after being denied the basic right to speak, which is also guaranteed by the Queen City's own Home Rule Charter.

Because I believe democracy is dead in Allentown, I've stopped going to their sham meetings.But there may be hope. Fegley posted video of his altercation, in which City Council was unable to provide any excuse for muzzling him other than "tradition".

"You guys cheated, you broke the rules," asserted Fegley.

He and several others wanted to address the water lease at the beginning of the meeting, but Council Prez Julio Guridy shut them down, asserting they had to wait until whenever it came up on the agenda. Fegley argued this "tradition" is contrary to the Home Rule Charter, which he called the City's Constitution. It provides,

The Council must provide reasonable opportunity for interested citizens and taxpayers to address the Council on matters of general or special concern. Citizens' right to be heard shall be the first order of business at all public meetings and before a vote on any Council business. The public shall be granted the opportunity to comment at Council meetings without time limitations, except when the Council President, imposes a reasonable time limitation deemed necessary. Council members, by a vote of a majority plus one (1), may override the Council president's time limitation.

"You guys are trying to stop the voice of the public," Fegley charged, as the room burst into applause and cheers. "Where is this proper government? ... This is all about stopping the public from talking about anything that has to do with this water lease."

Eventually, a police officer showed up to cart Fegley away.

"I am not breaking the law," Fegley stated. "I am speaking up as a citizen of Allentown." Eventually, the officer was asked to stand down, and he did.

Fegley is unwilling to go gentle into that good night. He rages, rages against the dying of the light.

It's a good thing he owns a bar because he certainly needed a drink.

Ben Franklin would be proud.

LCA Approves Bid On Allentown Water Privatization

You can read the details on their webpage. The resolution to bid was approved by a 6-1 vote.

Upper Nazareth to Consider Single Trash Hauler

Upper Nazareth Township Supervisors will consider a single trash hauler proposal at their Monday night meeting. As in Bethlehem, this plan faces stiff opposition by independent haulers.

Yvonne Plakotaris, from East Penn Sanitation Inc., raises many of the same objections presented in Bethlehem.

“What good does a controlled single hauler system do for the citizens?" asks Plakotaris. "Why do local municipalities think they can do a better job than private enterprise? Cheaper rates the council says. I say not. The council is not fully explaining the expenses of additional staffing, legal fees, etc. that these contracts incur.”

I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with Upper Nazareth Supervisors, but will try to do so on or before Monday. .

Bob Freeman: Keep Lottery Here

Which of these two just won the lottery?

Plans to privatize the Pennsylvania State Lottery system are being questioned by State Rep. Bob Freeman. He joined over 45 Democratic State House colleagues at a Capitol news conference this week to reiterate their concern about the governor's quick decision to award the management of the state lottery to a private firm based in the United Kingdom.

The Pennsylvania Lottery was first established in 1971. It funds older Pennsylvanians with the Property Tax/Rent Rebate Program, free and reduced-fare transit; low-cost prescription drug programs known as PACE and PACENET, long-term living services as well as 53 area agencies on aging and senior centers throughout the state. But Governor Corbett has stated that privatization will give him another $50 million for these programs.

Freeman is unswayed.

"There is no need to privatize the lottery," Freeman said. "The Pennsylvania Lottery is the most successful state lottery in the nation. With profits of $1 billion, that funding goes directly to programs for senior citizens. It has increased profits substantially in the last few years and has proven to be a well-maintained program.

"The expansion that Camelot, the private management firm, promises to develop is something that can be handled in-house. We don't need to divert funding from programs for Pennsylvania seniors to hire a private management firm to tell us how to run the operation. Instead of wasting millions of dollars on consultants, let's make sure that money goes to benefit senior citizens directly.

"Beyond these concerns, there are others, such as the limited legislative oversight and the many unanswered questions that still remain with the governor's contract. This week's Senate committee meeting was lacking in answers. I hope these items can be addressed when the House Aging and Older Adult Services Committee explores the privatization plan next week," Freeman said.

Inky columnist John Baer has questioned why Governor Corbett would want to fix something that isn't broken.

Water Lease Foes Have Questions For Allentown City Council

Dan Poresky helped lead a successful referendum drive designed to stop Allentown for a long term lease of its water and sewer assets. Mayor Edwin Pawlowski claims he has no choice because of the City's pension crisis. Tonight, City Council will decide whether the people will decide. Poresky has sent this statement:

Greetings Allentown City Council Members,

At the special meeting, January 8, Council will be debating whether the public should have the right to vote on plans by the City to sell or lease any asset valued at ten million or more dollars. It is the goal of dozens of people who will be attending the meeting to convince Council to vote in favor of putting the referendum the would create this rule on the May ballot.

We are, of course, most concerned about the current plan to lease Allentown's water and sewer operation for fifty years.

We believe that having decisions of this magnitude go to referendum provides time for everyone, the administration, Council, the public, and other parties who may be affected to become informed, to evaluate options and to get involved in the process.

Council rules limit each member of the public to three minutes for comment to inform and influence Council’s decision. It is essential, therefore, to make our case, that the public have some critical information prior to their comments.

We ask that you address the following questions before hearing public comment.

When is the final RFP going to be available for the public to see?

Will there be opportunity for input at Council meetings on the final RFP?

How long from the time the RFP is made public will the bidders have to respond?

How long will Council have to evaluate the bids?

Who will be negotiating the final agreement?

How long will neighboring communities have to evaluate the impact on them of the agreement before Council votes on it?

Council has said it wants to wait until it sees the ‘numbers’ from the bidders prior to doing a thorough examination of alternatives such as forming an Allentown or regional water authority as suggested by the PA Economy League.

How much time and what resources is Council prepared to use for evaluating alternatives?

What opportunity will there be for public input?

We look forward to participating in your deliberations on Tuesday.

Thank you,

Committee for Allentown's Water

Updated 8 AM: Blogger Michael Molovinsky notes that this evening's special meeting starts at 6 PM.

Att'y Blake Marles Argues Against Single Waste Hauler in Bethlehem

After several years of watching municipal bodies, I can tell you with some certainty that you'll be hard put to find a better advocate before them than Bethlehem Attorney Blake Marles. He's a good guy to have in the foxhole with you. His patrician appearance alone will give your cause gravitas. He knows the Municipalities Planning Code inside out, and prepares.

Isn't that cheating?

Sterner Sanitation, a fourth generation trash hauler with 3,000 customers in Bethlehem, has retained Marles to represent their interests in connection with Mayor John Callahan's proposal to centralize trash collection under one hauler. His most troubling argument, at least to me, is that the City may lack the legal authority to take a slice of the single hauler contract to help pay for its underfunded pension. He calls it "legally suspect."

Here's the letter he sent to Bethlehem City Council:

Marles Argument Against Single Waste Hauler in Bethlehem

Voters May Get Last Word on Allentown's H2O Privatization

The Lehigh Valley's three cities have all been stung by a budget-busting pension crisis. So in Easton, Mayor Sal Panto pushed through an unpopular commuter tax that he himself hates. In Bethlehem, Mayor John Callahan is the midst of a full court press for a single trash hauler and the money it brings into City coffers. But compared to Allentown, this is penny ante stuff. In the Queen City, Mayor Edwin Pawklowski wants to unload his water and sewer systems with a long-term lease. With $150 million, he'll be able to fund that pension debt and build every city employee a man cave to boot.

Environmentalists have concerns. Will water quality suffer? One of the bidders has purchased water elsewhere to supply to frackers. Will rates skyrocket? In power points and video, Pawlowski insists that won't happen, but many of his usual supporters are skeptical.

One of these supporters is "Camera Dan," or Dan Poresky. He, Glenn L. Hunsicker, Glenn S. Hunsicker, former Controller William Hoffman, and former Council member Michael Donovan have formed a petition committee to give the voters a direct say in this question.

As a rule, I tend to oppose direct democracy, sometimes called initiative and referendum, especially on complicated matters like this. People let their emotions, and not the facts, dictate their votes.

But this is Allentown, where democracy is dead. Three of its seven Council members have not even been elected. Of its 63,806 registered voters, it took just 7,908 of them - a scant 12.4% - to elect Edwin Pawlowski to his second term as Mayor.

Instead of a democracy, Allentown is an urban growth regime in which politicians and select members of the business world co-opt each other, not for the benefit of the community, but to advance their own business interests.

So in this instance, I'd support giving the voters a direct say in the privatization of its water supply.

Poresky and friends have already announced they have enough signatures, but that means nothing unless the City Council Clerk agrees. Last night, I was surpprsed to learn that he does.

Poresky's announcement follows:

The Petitioners Committee that was formed October 12, in response to Mayor Pawlowski’s attempt to privatize Allentown’s water and sewer system, received notification December 4, from City Clerk, Michael Hanlon, declaring that petitions submitted to him on November 28, by the committee, have been declared sufficient. Sufficient is a term used in the city charter meaning that the petitions have met all legal requirements.

One hundred-one petitions containing over four thousand signatures were submitted to the city clerk on November 1. The petition asks that City Council establish an ordinance that requires the city to go to the voters for authority to sell or lease any city property or asset valued at $10 million or more.

According to Mr. Hanlon, the initiative will be introduced at the City Council meeting December 21. Council then has 60 days during which it can act. According to Section 1007 of the Home Rule Charter, Council has three options. It can pass an ordinance consistent with the intent of the initiative. Council can also choose to decline to create an ordinance or do nothing. In either of those two instances the initiative goes to the voters as a ballot question in the May election.

Dan Poresky, a member of the petitioners’ committee stated, “We encourage council to adopt the initiative as an ordinance without delay. Doing so would require any proposed water/sewer lease agreement to go to the voters as early as May 2013."

Poresky says, “The petitioners' committee is preparing action to prevent the city from finalizing a lease agreement until their initiative becomes an ordinance. The ordinance could be created either by Council’s action in the next couple of months or, should they not do so, then by a successful ballot question in the May 2013 primary election.”

Water Privatization Foes: Let the Voters Decide

Water Privatization Campaign to Deliver Petitions to City Clerk

WHAT: The petitioners' committee to amend Allentown’s home rule charter will be submitting over 3600 signatures to Allentown’s City Clerk as part of an initiative that, if approved, could give Allentown citizens the opportunity to vote for or against the privatization of Allentown’s water and sewer system.

A press conference will be held at City Hall outside council chambers prior to delivering the petitions.

WHO: The petitioners’ committee consists of Dan Poresky, Glenn L. Hunsicker, Glenn S. Hunsicker, William Hoffman, and Michael Donovan.

WHEN: 1:00 PM Wednesday, November 28, 2012

WHERE: Allentown City Hall, City Clerk’s Office.

Three thousand valid signatures are needed to give voters a direct say in the privatization of Allentown's water and sewer.

Updated 9:16 PM: My sentence above is inaccurate. Around 2,000 signatures are needed to get the question on the ballot. It appears that around 3,600 signatures have been obtained. My apologies.

Bethlehem's School Tax Farmers Cometh

Bethlehem Area School District, which wisely cancelled classes today, last year made the not-so-wise decision to hire tax farmer Portnoff Law Offices to collect its delinquent property taxes. So far this year, this privatized tax collection agency has filed 408 municipal liens for the school district. And that's just in Northampton County. A good chunk of Bethlehem, along with Fountain Hill, is located in Lehigh County. I am certain that at least another hundred liens are on file there.

Portnoff is notorious for its excessive attorney fees, which are usually imposed on struggling homeowners dealing with financial difficulties. They're usually in no position to fight. After filing the lien, Portnoff immediately starts the process to sell the home on which the tax is based.

Privatizing a nursing home or a water and sewer system is quite incendiary. But amazingly, government officials are privatizing one of their most important governmental functions - the collection of revenue.

Benjamin Franklin once sarcastically predicted that tax farmers like Portnoff will ultimately be the cause of the next revolution. "Let these have large salaries out of extorted revenue. . . . If any revenue officers are suspected of the least tenderness for the people, discard them."

In the meantime, another group of lawyers is filing Revenue Appeals Board challenges against local small businesses in Bethlehem Area School District, demanding higher assessments. In Hanover Township alone, there may be as many as fifteen such challenges pending, according to a report at last week's Supervisors' meeting.

Archibald Johnston on Pawlowski's Privatization: "Criminal Negligence"

None of us is old enough to have experienced the frequent cholera outbreaks of the 19th century. They were all the result of contaminated food or water. And in 1918, the United States was reeling from the deadly Spanish flu, a pandemic that may have killed as many as 100 million people worldwide. Many blamed "swamp gas", electricity in the air, and of course, a vengeful God. This is the world in which Archibald Johnston became Bethlehem's first Mayor.

His city, which had both a strict quarantine and a makeshift hospital at the Steel Company, suffered only about 100 casualties. More corrupt cities like Philadelphia, which failed to plan for or react to this calamity, dumped close to 13,000 bodies outside police stations and in trench graves.

Johnston, an engineer, believed in planning. He opposed private water sources. In fact, in his first message as Mayor, he explained why.

"The municipal problem is primarily and essentially one of human welfare," stated Johnston. "Every municipality is morally bound to furnish to its inhabitants an abundant supply of pure water, the purest air possible, and a well-drained soil (which means proper sewerage), street cleaning, garbage and refuse collection and disposal. Any other than these sanitary standards in a city will be considered, some day in America, as criminal negligence and sufficient cause for just punishment; since public health is a public duty."

At the time Johnston took office, Bethlehem had both a municipal water supply serving West Bethlehem and a private supply for the rest, furnished by The Bethlehem City Water Company. This private company gathered its water from the Lehigh River. It met state quality requirements of 1918. But according to Johnston, it was still contaminated by sulfur, sewage and manufacturing waste.

As Johnston points out, a private company is motivated more by profit than concern for a citizen's welfare.

One important difference between a privately owned and a municipally owned public water works is, that the former is considered in the light of an investment upon which the fixed interest and other charges must of necessity be earned at not less (let us assume) than the legal rate of interest. Hence the water company must consider extensions and improvement of plant and service in the light of probable returns on capital investment, otherwise bankruptcy might result; but a municipality, owning its own water works system, may elect at any time, on the score of public policy, to make extensions and betterments and distribute the cost by general taxation. The facilities and SERVICE ARE PARAMOUNT in the latter case, while in the former, they MAY be subordinate.

Those words are as true today as they were in 1918. They demonstrate clearly that Allentown Mayor's short-sighted water privatization plan, is nothing short of what Johnston himself would call "criminal negligence."

In numerous power points, Allentown Mayor Edwin Pawlowski essentially claims he has no choice but to privatize the Queen City's water and sewer. There are no other options, he argues. But that is simply untrue.

First, while demanding state protection for a pension mess caused by the state, Pawlowski could demand some help from Harrisburg while refusing to make the MMO payment until he gets it. If state legislators are so willing to create a gigantic NIZ to help out J.B. Reilly, perhaps they'd also be willing to help out the people they are actually supposed to represent.

Second, Pawlowski could send the pension portfolio to an outfit that actually can generate a higher annual return, instead of one of his campaign contributors. Even a small, 1.5% increase in pension performance can sometimes reduce the annual required payment (MMO) on a pension by as much as one-third.

And of course, there's always the possibility of doing a combination of small tax hikes and borrowing.

None of this three options has even been mentioned, probably because they would work. Besides, I thought the NIZ was supposed to "transform" Allentown. If that is so, why the hell does he need to privatize what Archibald Johnston regarded a moral imperative?

But what the hell did Johnston know? He just steered Bethlehem through a pandemic. He was never a Chicago community organizer.

VOR: Why Allentown Must Keep Its Water System

Because democracy is dead in Allentown, the privatization of Allentown's water and sewer systems is a done deal. Its urban growth regime has already decided the matter, and everything else is window dressing. Those who are opposed are naysayers or whatever.

One of these naysayers is a regular contributor to this blog. He goes by the moniker VOR, i.e. Voice of Reason. He posted a comment yesterday, and I have to share it with one and all, especially since many readers stay away from the comments.

As a basic human need, water service should be a responsibility of governments. Transfer of control to a private entity that seeks to maximize profits reduces public accountability and can adversely affect the quality and equity of service.

* Water privatization can negatively impact low-income and underserved communities by unfair rate increases and poor service to these communities.

* Water privatization may lead to lower quality service and higher rates. In cases where communities have tried to reclaim their water systems from private entities, poor water quality, unresponsiveness to customer complaints, and rate hikes have been the most frequent complaints.

* Private multinational companies don't have a stake in the community in which they operate. This can have negative effects on small communities when it results in firing city employees and hiring new staff or significantly cutting benefits to long-time employees.

* Many privatization agreements fail to include adequate public participation. In addition, many of these contracts do not include enough provisions for contract monitoring and accountability.

* Many privatization efforts ignore the impact on local ecosystems and downstream water users, and may have long-term negative effects on the environment.

* Private companies, which stand to make more money for the sale of more water, may neglect the potential for water use efficiency and conservation improvements.

Think Allentown, THINK!

ABW's Fegley Critical of Allentown Water Deal

Although CACLV's Alan Jennings reluctantly supports the privatization of Allentown's water and sewer systems, Mayor Ed Pawlowski is beginning to experience opposition from inside the ranks of his other usual supporters. Last week, environmentalist Dan Poresky urged caution. Now it's Richard Fegley's turn.  He's the owner of the popular Brew Works, and has been long regarded as one of Pawlowski's biggest supporters. But not this time.

Here's what he posted as a comment. Since many of you steer clear of them, I decided to republish it here.

I'll do my best to make sure that Allentown's water system is not given away to a private entity. No matter how you look at water privatization the citizens will always lose. Private=Profit. I run a privately owned brewery. I run it to make a profit. The City and Citizens own the water system. Our water system makes BIG profits for the City and Citizens.

Umm. Mr. Mayor, if you would like to ask me AGAIN if you are "stupid and you don't know what you are doing", in this case I say, "YES" you are stupid and what you do know is that what you are trying to do is WRONG for the citizens of Allentown.

If I'm wrong, PROVE IT! The shit financial analysis that was presented to City Council and the citizens was filtered so Council and the citizens would be somehow convinced that privitization was OUR ONLY OPTION. PFM pointed out that "more white space on the graph was good"! WTF? Seriously. No explanation of what was good about it. Why was it good? WAKE UP PEOPLE! They are not lying but they are not showing us the whole picture.

This financial presentation was just like the trash and sludge incinerator presentation. When I asked Scott Shearer why City Council was only given the "safe and best case" incinerator projections they were given, he told ALL OF US that "this was what Mayor Pawlowski asked us to present to Council". No one really looked at the missing data and graphs that I provided.

I'M CALLING BULLISHIT! Just like I did in Council chambers last week at 11pm when, unfortunately, most people had left.

If the Mayor wants us to trust his financial decisions, WE the citizens need proper financial analysis of this proposed leased.

In the end, the City Administration will NEVER be able to show us how selling or leasing the water system is beneficial to the citizens of Allentown.

Also, I don't think I really want to sit on Council until I know that there are more people out there paying attention. Maybe I just don't feel like working with power-crazy Julio. (He is starting to scare me up there as president)

Finally, I'm glad Mr. O'Hare and Molovinsky provide these blogs. I just wish there were less anonymous "trolls", but that's the internet.

If anyone has anything to say, put your name behind your words. Otherwise, your words don't have REAL POWER with people.

I've been highly critical of Fegley, and am taking nothing back. But it's one thing for me to take potshots at Pawlowski from Nazareth. It's quite another to do that when you live in the City and are operating a small business there, as is Fegley.

Perhaps there's hope for Allentown after all.

Allentown Inches Closer to Water Privatization

Michael Donovan

To avoid a tax hike, Allentown Mayor Edwin Pawlowski wants to unload the City's water supply. After all, somebody's gotta' supply the frackin' water for the fracking industry up north, and it might as well be him. Environmental consequences be damned. And never mind that, instead of a tax hike, City and even suburban residents in Whitehall and South Whitehall will see their water and sewer bills skyrocket.

This is perhaps THE most important issue facing the Lehigh Valley. But instead of taking their time with it, Allentown City Council have their rubber stamps out, ready to approve whatever outfit is associated with Pawlowski Pal Marcel Groen. Earlier this week, they refused to appoint a committee that would look into the pitfalls more closely.

"Citizens for Common Sense" forced the matter on the agenda via petition. But Allentown City Council members want nothing to do with common sense. Only Jeanette Eichenwald would listen to them.

Former Council member Michael Donovan, a member of this group, made this statement to City Council. They ignored him, but you might be interested.

Thank you Mr. Guridy.  Council Members.  In responding to our petition, you have an opportunity to change the way government is often transacted in this city.  By adopting an often used technique to make critical civic decisions through collaboration and consensus building, you will earn the trust of your constituents and more likely produce a better solution than what we have now.  Many, many scholars in Public Policy agree on the practice we propose.  Many, many communities throughout the country embed this technique in their review processes.

The problem:

We believe that the administration has not adequately presented in a collaborative and consensus building manner to the public its proposal to privatize and lose control of our water and sewer system.  We also believe that city has not suitably examined how it can manage and restructure our fire and police pension obligations to obtain a better solution than what the administration has proposed.  

The solution:

Building on proven results occurring throughout the country at the local level to deal with challenging problems like Allentown's, we recommend that a study committee comprised of the administration’s consultant, PFM, the Council's consultant, Economy League of PA, a third professional, 2 people currently in favor of the administration proposal, and 2 people currently against this proposal.  Members of that committee would work with their constituencies to facilitate trusted communication.

To build (and some would say rebuild) trust, the committee must help us understand or know vital areas of study that we do not understand or know.  

For example, we do not understand (repeat)

     * Pension Financial Position
       *  Market Value of Assets
       *  Liability of Fund
       *  Annual Minimum Municipal Obligation
       *  Impact of optional funding solutions

     * Financial position and cash flow of the water and sewer department

     * Legal options to change pension obligations or to capture water/sewer rate surplus for use to satisfy obligations without losing control

     * Independently produced results of all privatization that have occurred in other cities and regions around the country

     * The impact of privatization on social criteria such as the environment and health

     * The impact of privatization on political criteria such as Allentown's ability to negotiate in the Lehigh Valley

     *
The impact of the proposal that potentially shifts the pension obligation costs to non-taxable properties and the suburbs, as well as achieving operational efficiency

The reason for a committee.

Council will soon be faced with a resolution authorizing a Request for Proposal to lease our water and sewer system. This is a critical decision that requires collaboration and consensus building.  In that resolution, we understand that there will be conditions that are expected in any proposal submitted by bidders.  We believe choosing the leasing option with incomplete and less than trusted information is not best for the city because we all know serious mistakes have occurred before, one of which causes the current crisis.  We believe that Council cannot and should not make a decision on that resolution or any of its specifics until it is knowledgeable of all the costs and benefits associated with this option to the pension situation. We believe that the best decisions occur when a collaborative effort is made to bring the community together with good information.  That can only occur with a bi-partisan review of the data that is then brought to the people in an objective analysis that examines the consequences of all options.    We believe the facts will bear out a better solution.   The need to have the public trust that our decisions are wise is imperative 

On a personal note, I will be saddened if we do not take this action continue to conduct business in this community with poor analysis rammed down the throats of the public. I often felt that way during my tenure here. It is not the way government is supposed to run.  It is not the way public policy should be determined, and most of all it is not the way for citizens to grant authority to its leaders.

Yes, politics and government are messy. Yes, officials are elected to make decisions. However, collaborative leadership is successful. Collaboration is supposed to include us, your constituents.

Our request is to do this as quickly as possible.  An ordinance would delay the process, and we hope that the Council President will authorize an ad hoc committee to perform these duties.

Altieri: Privatization of State Stores is "Crony Capitalism"

Leslie Altieri, who is Marcia Hahn's Democratic opponent for the state house, has blasted a bill to privatize Pennsylvania's state stores as "crony capitalism.” This will be debated on the House floor today.

Noting that state stores provide a steady revenue stream of $500 million per year, Altieri questions what will happen if they are privatized. "What will we do then? How will Corbett and his cronies make up for the revenue shortfall that we’ll be left with?”

According to Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who is spearheading the privatization drive, the state would realize a $1 billion windfall.

In addition to complaining that big box retailers like Wal-Mart will buy all the licenses, Altieri notes that 5,000 state store workers will lose their jobs, too.

Those are union jobs.

I have contacted State Rep. Marcia Hahn for her position on this issue.

Numerous factions are involved in this debate, from unions to beer distributors to bars to grocery stores. So even if this passes the state house, I think it is highly unlikely it will make it through the state senate.

Panto Reviewing Portnoff Collection Practices in Easton

In my weekly Patch column, I've criticized the privatized tax collection that's become all too common in so many local municipalities, including Easton. Portnoff Law Associates, the tax farmer of choice for most municipalities, has scheduled Sheriff's Sales when property owners fall behind on relatively low bills. To stop a sale, an owner must sometimes pay ten times the amount of the original lien. All that extra money goes into Portnoff's pocket. Easton uses Portnoff.

Q. A question about Portnoff. Portnoff is your private tax collector. It's a privatized tax collection firm. I've noticed at the courthouse that Portnoff - and Easton is by no means the only municipality that uses Portnoff, it's used by 26 municipalities throughout the Lehigh Valley. My question to you, sir, is don't you think that they're charging just a bit too much to the people who can least afford to pay it?

Panto: "Well, yeah, and that's a great point, the people who can least afford it. We're evaluating that. I know, in my own business, it's a public record, you know. We starved. We were behind. My dad's business. Great business. Great success. But when things catch up to you, its tough.

Q. It was a great business.

Panto: "It was. It was financially successful, but yet, it was week to week, like every other small business is, and I know that they're really difficult to deal with personally. I've dealt with them.

"I'm a little more compassionate than them. I'm consistently fair, I want everybody to pay their fair share. But certainly there's a way to accomplish that.

"I don't like the contract that the City has with them. It's being reviewed, where they get paid even if we don't get a dime. Their fees get paid first. Well, that doesn't seem like it's a quid pro quo at all. I mean, it's just for them.

"We are looking at it, we are evaluating. I think you're going to see some changes for the 2012 year."

Dave Reports: Slate Belt Howls About Proposed Federal Detention Center

Because I was at a marathon meeting of the Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Board last night, I was unable to attend some other important meetings. Allentown is considering a forty per cent hike in earned income tax, and private prison operator GEO was getting an earful from slate belt residents about a proposed detention center for illegal (aka undocumented) immigrants.

On of my regular readers, Dave, lives in the slate belt, and attended last night's meeting. Here's his report.

"Here we go .. GEO called it a night at 8 PM sharp amid howls of complaints yet unanswered by the citizenry present. A lot of rude folk despite the BASD super asking for civility and written questions from the audience. Ron will be on the local news at 10 PM as they were interviewing him as I exited. Sat by Bill White the MCall blogger. I estimated the crowd at 300 or better. The GEO show was glossy and high tech and they did answer the big questions and you can tell they have done this a lot. The ACLU contingent handed out flyers and urged people to call ALL their local gov't rep's and say NO to this project. Gracedale petitions were everywhere but they were polite in asking for signers as well as a guy selling NO PRISON signs for $10 outside the doorway to the parking lot. I want to hear more . .. a lot more before advising anyone how this goes down. Good and bad in any endeavor. Political activism alive and well in the Slate Belt. Hang on ... it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

"Page two. Did not see John Stoffa there and not sure about the Twsp. supers as I only know Ed Nelson on sight. All local construction crews to be used at union scale. 300 officers and another 200 support staff at prevailing community wages, whatever that means? Use local vendors and attempt to hire from the surrounding area where possible and qualified. They admit the abuses do occur and they have paid heavy fines. They have some baggage, in other words, and say they are improving as they grow. They said also that they will be giving the public access to communities that have similar facilities ... phone numbers and contacts for anyone to call and ask about GEO and how they feel about them. Ron took some shots from the crowd at times but did not respond or acknowledge the hecklers."

Thanks, Dave. I understand that Northampton County Exec John Stoffa was there, too, and in fact left with Ron.

An Express Times story is here. The Channel 69 Video Dave mentions is below.

Portnoff's Tax Collection Tactics Ruled Illegal

Today's Morning Call reports that Portnoff Law Accociates has been ordered to pay $5.2 million in damages to more than 16,000 state residents being charged illegal fees. In doing so, a Montgomery County judge has condemned Portnoff's "cavalier attitude towards the Rule of Law."

That ruling is no surprise to many of us. I first told you about Portnoff's tactics long ago - on November 2, 2006. hey actually make the dreaded IRS look reasonable.


This privatization of tax collection, called tax farming, has historically been quite unpopular. It led to civil war in ancient Egypt, and was a grievance before the French Revolution. In 17th century England, privatized "chimney men" were allowed to enter homes at will to collect a chimney tax. "There is not one old dame in ten,/And search the nation through,/But, if you talk of chimney men/Will spare them a curse or two."

Rather than taking a lesson from history, state and local officials have passed laws and signed contracts with profit-driven private tax collectors. Property owners now face the predatory practices of Pennsylvania's very own chimney men. The most prominent of these? Portnoff Law Associates, a law firm that specializes in sucking the blood out of taxpayers in 75 municipalities throughout Pennsylvania. Portnoff is the "tax farmer" for seventeen municipalities in Northampton and Lehigh County.

How did this happen?

The way our real estate tax laws are set up, a person behind on property taxes ordinarily has two years before he has to worry about his home being sold at tax sale. The county conducts annual tax sales for properties two or more years delinquent, giving a homeowner ample opportunity to set up payment plans with no attorney fees. And if a municipal lien is filed for an unpaid garbage or sewer bill, the lien must be paid before the property is sold. A municipality will always get its money. But that wasn't good enough for many local officials, who wanted their money right away.

This is where tax farmer Portnoff enters the picture. It lobbied state legislators to modify tax sale laws in 1996 so it could stick taxpayers with court costs and its "reasonable" attorney fees. And all was well for the chimney men, who made money hand over fist. But then something terrible happened. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, in an uncharacteristic nod to the little guy, concluded in 2003 that the procedure was all wrong. So Portnoff went back to the boys in the land of midnight payraises. Five months later, a brand new law not only cured these procedural problems, but was even made retroactive all the way back to 1996. That way Portnoff wouldn't lose a dime. The vote was unanimous in the senate, and only three house members opposed this draconian law. No Lehigh Valley legislator spoke against it. It's amazing what you can do with a lobbyist like Malady and Wooten!

The net result is explained quite well by the Commonwealth Court's Judge Pellegrini.

"Imagine your credit card company has consistently charged you unlawful fees - tripling your bill. Upon realizing that illegality, you sue the credit card company to recover those fees. A month later, a law is enacted that says the credit card company cannot only charge those fees in the future, but can recover those fees it illegally imposed in the past. If that legislation is constitutional, what is the result? The credit card company receives a windfall, and you are left without a remedy to be reimbursed for illegally charged fees that tripled your monthly credit card payment."

And that's precisely what has happened. Portnoff's "reasonable" attorney fees tripled most tax bills. When it was discovered they were illegally imposed, the legislature not only made everything legal for private tax collectors, but also said that everything that had been illegal in the past is now wonderful.

Thanks to our pals in the state legislature, Portnoff can now soak us. Some tax reform.

Whoopee!

Lehigh Valley communities have quickly jumped on the Portnoff Express. Said Bethlehem's Tax administrator Timko: "Are we happy? Oh yes, deliriously happy." Lehigh and Northampton County municipalities on this bandwagon include Allentown Downtown Improvement Authority, Allentown School District, Catasauqua Area School District, Allentown, Northern Lehigh School District, Northwestern Lehigh School District, Parkland School District, Salisbury Township School District, Whitehall-Coplay Area School District, Whitehall Township, Bethlehem Township, Freemansburg, Bethlehem, Easton, Lower Mount Bethel Township, Northampton Area School District and Wilson Area School District. If you live in any of these places, expect no mercy. Don't get sick. Check your mailbox every day.

Under our privatized tax collection laws, chimney men like Portnoff can collect "reasonable" attorney fees. But what Portnoff thinks is reasonable is outrageous to the rest of us. To open a file and send a demand letter, the charge varies from $150 to $200. And every breath they take after that ends up costing homeowners even more money. A title company can't even get a Portnoff employee to talk to them without a check for $25. But where privateers make the really big money is when they list your property for sheriff's sale, sometimes for ten times as much as the original lien. In September alone, Portnoff listed twenty properties for sheriff's sale in Northampton County.

Liens are filed only if a homeowner fails to respond to a demand letter that includes both bill and a $150-200 attorney's fee. Obviously, most people pay up quickly. But a lien analysis in Northampton County for the first ten months of 2006 is staggering: Easton, 271 liens ($81,300 for Portnoff); Bethlehem, 201 liens, ($80,400 for Portnoff); Northampton Area School District, 273 liens ($81,900 for Portnoff); Wilson Area School District, 69 liens ($20,700 for Portnoff); Northern Lehigh School District, 17 liens ($5,100 for Portnoff); Freemansburg, 19 liens ($5,700 for Portnoff); Lower Mount Bethel, 19 liens ($5,700 for Portnoff); and Bethlehem Township, 27 liens ($8,700 for Portnoff). In the first ten months of 2006, Portnoff snapped liens against 896 Northampton County taxpayers and has charged fees totaling $288,900.00.

Is this reasonable?

Wait, it gets better. For those sorry bastards who don't pay up, Portnoff's next step is to sell your property. To collect a tax bill totaling $465.77, Portnoff will sell your property unless you pay them $3,626.57! This is totally unconscionable. Attorney fees like these are neither reasonable nor bear any relation to the original bill. Portnoff listed 40 properties for sale in 2005, and walked away with $144,000 in its pocket.

What's interersting about all of this is that Portnoff makes a great deal of money, delinquent taxpayers lose a lot of money and become very disenchanted by our government, but municipalities make no more money than they would if they simply permitted the counties to collect these late taxes. Municipalities do not benefit from this privatization in the long run. And the homeowner always suffers.

Larry Kistler, Lehigh County's Tax Claim Bureau Director in 2002, told The Morning Call, "I can't speak to the reasons why municipalities have gone to Portnoff, but I've always thought the county system worked well. We work to keep people in their homes, and we recover 99 percent of the money within three years."

We've privatized just about everything being done in Iraq, and look at how that has turned out. And now we're doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin sarcastically predicted would guarantee revolution - entrusting tax collection to a group "composed of the most indiscreet, ill-bred, and insolent [men] you can find. ... Let these have large salaries out of extorted revenue. . . . If any revenue officers are suspected of the least tenderness for the people, discard them."